Oneness Doctrine ver Trinity Doctrine
Debate Rounds (5)
I thank my opponent for creating this debate. I am a Trinitarian, so naturally I oppose the resolution.
First, I would like to provide some definitions.
Oneness Doctrine: "[The] Oneness [doctrine] describes God as only one primary entity, with possibly three “manifestations.”" 
Trinity Doctrine: "The [Trinity] doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being" 
I will first address my opponent's arguments before raising arguments of my own.
Pro writes "From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible simply states that God is one, and not two or three. Subject and verb agreements must agree in number, and if you study the Bible carefully, the subject " God, " is always followed by the singular verb " is "."
I reply "However, plural verbs are applied to God, as well as plural adjectives. Also, plural pronouns are used to represent God. A striking example of this is Genesis 1:26 'Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (emphasis mine). Similar plurality can be found in Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8. Also, the word used to refer to God in the Old Testament, Elohim, is in the plural form."
While my opponent says much more in his argument, I don't really see much of it besides the bit I quoted pertaining to the Trinity Doctrine vs the Oneness Doctrine, so I haven't responded to it, because Trinitarians believe Jesus to be God.
1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in one formula
In 2 Corinthians 13:13, we see 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you.'. What's the point of that if the Trinity does not exist? Why not just say 'The grace, love, and fellowship of God be with all of you'? Similarly, we have Matthew 28:19, which says 'Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,'.
2. Mentions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct persons
Acts 7:55 reads 'But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,'. How does Jesus stand at his own right hand, if he is the only divine person?
Matthew 3:16-17 reads '(16) After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. (17) And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."" Why would Jesus say that he is his own son? In fact, the entire bit of Jesus being the Son of God doesn't make much sense if Jesus is the only divine person.
Luke 22:41-42 says '(41) After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, (42) saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done."' Why would Jesus pray to himself?
At many points in the New Testament, Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned ways that don't make sense if they are all just "manifestations", as they seem to interact with one another in ways that make them seem like distinct beings. But we know there is only one God. Therefore, to reconcile this, the doctrine of the Trinity was created as early as the third century. God is one in three divine and distinct persons.
I turn it over to my opponent.
1. Some random website
In Genesis 3:22, the key words here are: to know good and evil. According to your understanding, when God said man is become as one of us? Which one of the three here is speaking, and which of the other two gods is he referring the " us " statement to? Remember, the statement is mention, as " one " of us, and not like us. To " know, " is to do or not to do, and since we all know that in the true and living God, there is all good and no evil, he can't be speaking in terms of what you believe. Let me help you out here. When God created lucifer, he was created with all good qualities, but he choose to do evil. Man therefore was created innocent, not knowing no evil, but only good. When the fall of man took place in the Garden of Eden, man therefore then took on the attributes of lucifer to know evil. Having now the obligation to choose between good and evil, the word " as one of us " was used. It's not that God was having a conversation with him, " lucifer " as some believe, but simply making a statement. So my friend, satin is known as the god of this world, so the " us " is refering to the true and living God that is all good, and the dead god that is all evil; yet, still no similarity. Again, refering to how you perceive that chapter and verse, why did God warned Adam to stay away from the tree of good and evil in Genesis 2:17?. Would God warn Adam to stay away from his company of three? Just a question for you. :) Ezekiel 28:11-19 speaks primarly about the fall of the king of Tyrus, but it draws attention to the spirit behine it all. It speaks about pride, and gives information about the creation and fall of lucifer.
In Genesis 11:7, God alone is in operation. He confounded the language of the people with the cause of different speaking of tongues due to they disobedience, and alone he did it again according to Acts 2:3-4, due to they obedience.
Before I go on to the book of Isaiah 6:8, let me freely say this. Before God uses anyone, he makes a change in they lives first. Here, Isaiah was in a sinful state, and before he could be used by God, he had to see himself in the miserable state he was in, and allow God to make that change in his life. Isaiah 6:5. Then I said, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips; and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. Like the prophets that were before Isaiah, and those that came after, God's plan was to always use his people, but like I have mention before, they had to be a change in they lives, just like today. After Isaiah's sins were purged, " verse 7 " it was then that God spoke, " whome shall I send, and who will go for us? Refering to himself, and Isaiah. Now seeing Isaiah in the righteous state after his sins were now purged, God pose that question to Isaiah, as a test, but Isaiah willfully responded, Here am I; send me. That question could have been put forward before Isaiah's sins were purged, but God waited for a willing soul to speak to his people. In the fullness of time, the God of the Old Testament robe himself in flesh, and that man was our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus of the New Testament. 1Timothy 3:16. And without controversy great is the mistery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Thanks be to God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The mistery have been revealed. Amen.
I note that my definitions have not been contested.
Pro writes "My friend, In Genesis 1:26 where the term " us " is use, God is referring to himself. It is known as a nominative pronoun singular, and it relates to no object or receiver, making it intransitive and not transitive. In other words, it is an informal term meaning " me. ""
Pro is attempting to confuse the significance of this by using terminology like "nominative", "pronoun", "singular", "relates", "or", and even "and". However, I am not fooled. Obviously, "us" is not singular because it is plural. I don't say "We went to the baseball game." if I was the only one who went, and I also don't say "Don't kill us!" if someone is holding a gun to my head. I say "I went to the baseball game." and "Don't kill me.". God didn't say "Let me make man in my image". It's that simple.
Pro writes "Question? Why was the personal pronoun singular " his " used, and not the plural pronoun " they " if they are three?"
Three what? Gods? That's not what the doctrine of the Trinity says.
Pro writes "No proper names was given during this dispensation period, only titles, so let's cross reference this chapter with John chapter 1:10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Again, personal pronoun " him " being use here, and not the plural " them. " Do you want me to tell you who that " him " was? It was Jesus my friend."
My Bible says "He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.". Being made by and coming to be through are very different, so I suppose you should give reasons for preferring your translation.
Pro writes "Again, since he did all these things? What did the other two did according to your understanding of three?"
Well, the Holy Spirit (for starters) has spoken through the prophets (2 Peter 1:21), was involved with the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:35). Jesus also says of the Holy Spirit "But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7). This is another verse that doesn't make sense when interpreted with the Oneness doctrine, because if Jesus and the Holy Spirit are exactly the same, Jesus needn't leave for the Holy Spirit to come.
Pro writes "Isaiah 9:6. I'm not going to write the text here, but if you read it carefully, you will see Isaiah prophetically speaking about the Messiah, and mentioned about him being the Everlasting Father."
It actually says "he will be called" and then lists a variety of titles. Jesus quite often speaks of himself and the Father as separate, regardless of what that says.
Pro writes "A man being a father, a son, and an uncle, doesn't make him three distinct individuals. He just operate differently under these roles."
That's because the man you have defined inherently is a father, son, and uncle. If I say "This is a father and his son." is your immediate conclusion "They are the same person!"? Let me take this further. What if I say "This is my son." and my son then goes on to say "I have to leave, but I'll send someone else who can't come unless I go.". Is the logical conclusion that all three people mentioned are the same person? Well, that's what the Oneness doctrine claims.
Pro writes "That one being the Holy Spirit, and the body of Christ his temple, yet still being not confined.."
The Holy Spirit is in all believers (1 Corinthians 6:19).
Pro writes "In Matthew 28:19, it speaks about baptizing in then name of, and not the names of. The word " the " that comes before the noun gives information on how the noun is being used, and it's call a determiner.."
The doctrine of the Trinity is not one of three gods. The unity by the three names being one, yet still three distinct names are naturally Trinitarian in nature, as they reflect the one God (name) in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Pro writes "My friend, when ever you are studying the scriptures, you must learn to discern when Jesus in the New Testament is speaking as a man, and when he is speaking as Deity."
You're pretty much asserting that Jesus speaks like both a man and a deity and that he is 100% both without providing any proof. This seems like an attempt to wave away all the times Jesus speaks of the Father and Holy Spirit as entities different from himself without really addressing them.
Pro writes "[...] and the dead god that is all evil; [...]"
Where did the "dead god that is all evil" come from?
Pro writes "Again, refering to how you perceive that chapter and verse, why did God warned Adam to stay away from the tree of good and evil in Genesis 2:17?. Would God warn Adam to stay away from his company of three?"
I don't know why God warned Adam to do anything. I'm not God. God is one.
Pro writes "In Genesis 11:7, God alone is in operation."
Exactly, but he's still plural. Thus, the three persons of the Trinity, yet still one God.
Pro writes about Isaiah
You're right about that, I was a little lazy checking my sources. "Us" is clearly God and Isaiah.
1. Dropped Arguments
For starters, I don't notice much a response by my opponent to Matthew 3:16-17.
2. An Argument With Distinction
John 1:1-3 reads "(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.". Jesus is the Word. If God the Father and the Holy Spirit are merely "manifestations" of Jesus, then how was Jesus with himself?
John 14:23 reads "Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.". WE will dwell with him, not I. Clearly, Jesus and the Father are not identical.
2 John 1:9 reads "Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.". What's the point of mentioning both the Father and the Son if there is no distinction between them?
1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 John 2:1 similarly make it appear that Jesus mediates between men and God the Father. If he actually is God the Father, how does he mediate with himself?
Romans 8:26 "In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings." and Romans 8:34 "Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.". This makes it sound like Jesus and the Holy Spirit intercede for us in different ways, which would be unusual at best if they are exactly the same.
I think that's enough for now, but this is quite compelling evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, as if Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit were all different manifestations of the same being that seems to create unnecessary confusion and distinction between things that need not be distinguished between. Therefore, I propose that the Trinity doctrine best resolves the confusion of multiple divine persons but only one God.
I'm sorry if I accidentally repeated anything from Round 1, but I accidentally deleted my Round 2 argument the first time I typed it up, and so this entire thing was deja vu to me and I couldn't be sure if I'd brought up any of these arguments already.
According to Matthew 3:16-17, since you said that was a dropped argument, let me answer that one quickly. In verse 16 where it says he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him. It was John the Baptise who saw because he was the one to bare record of it all. Read John 1:32 and bare record for yourself as well. In verse 17 of the same book of Matthew where it is mention, and lo a voice from heaven saying, " This is my beloved son in whom I am well please." First, let's look at the word "heaven." Form a normal perspective, it is a region of the sky where the clouds move, but from a spiritual perspective, it's a dwelling place for the most high God. Acts 7:48 & Acts 17:24 states, God dwelleth in temples not made with hands, so since the body of Christ was his dwelling place while here on earth, the voice came from him. If you want to argue the point where it says," he saw the Spirit descending," take a good look at John 3:13. If that don't answer your question, I don't know what will.
According to 2 Corinthians 13:13, it could be written: The grace, love and fellowship of God be with you all, because the word "and" being a conjunction, can be remove without affecting the sentence. According to Acts 7:55, when Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God; that is known as informal writing or a figure of speech. The "right hand" of God is symbolic of his power, his athority and glory. Go to a Strongs Concordance and check out the meaning of the words.
In the book of John 1:1-3, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The term " word " there is a verb, and not a noun as some believe. Again, get a Strongs Concordance and check it out! Question here? Can anyone separate you from your word? The answer is no! Your word is you, and will always be you!
In verse 3 it went on to say, All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made. If you pay close attention to the second clasue, " and without him was nothing made that was made," my friend, your Trinity Doctrine is in alot of trouble! Without him? The other two therefore is nothing! Take a very close look at it; but again, I don't know what version of the Bible you are reading from. I always use the King James version.
In John 14:23 where it reads, and we will come unto you. The phrase " we will come " is known as a middle voice of a primary verb. It's more of a Greek phrase, but in the English language, it's known as an intransitive verb. The one speaking is the one that does, and always do the action. Again, search out the Strongs Concordance.
In the book of 2 John 1:9, let's cross reference that text to the book of John 14:8-9. I'm not going to write it out here, but question? Why would Jesus make that statement to Phillip? If I have seen your father, would it be correct for me to say I have seen you? No! To simplify that, the invisible God became visible. And that man was Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. Take a good look again at 1 Timothy 3:16. It didn't say one of the gods, It says God. 1 John 3:1 & 5. Pay attention to the subject matter.  Beloved, What manner of love the Father " subject " hath bestowed upon us that we should be call the sons of God: therefore the word knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  And ye know that he was made manifest to take away our sins.
1 Timothy 2:5. If you take a close look at that scripture, it says the " man " Christ Jesus being the mediator and not the Spirit Christ Jesus. Galations 3:20 also mention similar. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one; letting us know that God is not a company of people as you believe. Being a company is know as a collective noun, and a company could never be a company of one, but God is one.
Romans 8:26. Again, who is this Spirit? Read 2 Corinthians 3:17, and it tells you.
Let me say this, the word " LORD, " [ JEHOVAH ] means the self existing one or the eternal one. Now if it implies he's the self existing one, who is with him? If you are in a company of two or three, you can't be existing alone! Further more, " self existing " means, existing alone without having being created. Check it out, I did my study!
The term " Eloheem " is also use in it's place by the Jews so as not to make the same repititious sound all the time as a sign of respect.
Let's take a look at the book of Jude 1:25, and I'm going to stop here for now. To the only wise and true God our Saviour, be glory and magisty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Why would Jude make a reference like that to one, if there are three? Are the other two not that wise? The term Jesus means, Jehovah our Salvation or Saviour. It comes from two words: "Jah or Iah" meaning Lord and " Sodezo" meaning to save or deliver.
What I would like to know from you is, if they are three people within your God head, I want you to tell me the names of the other two! God bless.
Pro writes "so since the body of Christ was his dwelling place while here on earth, the voice came from him."
So you're pretty much saying Christ said of himself "This is my beloved son"? Makes sense that does how? Also, John 3:13 doesn't answer my question at all.
Pro writes "The "right hand" of God is symbolic of his power, his athority and glory. Go to a Strongs Concordance and check out the meaning of the words."
"Right hand" may be symbolic, but it still says the "right hand of God". If he himself is the whole God the "of God" part doesn't make too much sense.
Pro writes "The term " word " there is a verb, and not a noun as some believe. Again, get a Strongs Concordance and check it out!"
I looked at a Strong's Concordance online, and it said "word" is a masculine noun . It wouldn't make any grammatical sense for "word" to be a verb anyway.
Pro writes "In verse 3 it went on to say, All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made. If you pay close attention to the second clasue, " and without him was nothing made that was made," my friend, your Trinity Doctrine is in alot of trouble!"
First of all, I'm using the New American Bible , which can be found at the source I have provided. Second of all, that in no way threatens the Trinity Doctrine. John 1:3 says "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.", however God never came to be because he always has been and always will be! If you think that threatens the Trinity, then you should also think it threatens your Oneness doctrine because Jesus could not have come to be through himself.
Pro writes "the phrase " we will come " is known as a middle voice of a primary verb. It's more of a Greek phrase, but in the English language, it's known as an intransitive verb."
So why "we" and not "I"? He was obviously referring to both himself and his Father.
Pro writes "Why would Jesus make that statement to Phillip? If I have seen your father, would it be correct for me to say I have seen you? No! To simplify that, the invisible God became visible."
Simply read John 14:8-13. Clearly, Jesus and the Father are one, yet distinct. Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in him. How can the Father be glorified in the Son if they are both the same? He can't be. If Jesus is the Father, how can he go to the Father? He can't. Additionally note that this passage makes it highly unlikely that Jesus ever spoke "as a man" as my opponent would have you believe.
Pro writes "God is not a company of people as you believe."
I don't believe God is a "company".
Pro writes "Let me say this, the word " LORD, " [ JEHOVAH ] means the self existing one or the eternal one."
Where'd you get that from? I was always under the impression that meant "I am".
Pro writes "Let's take a look at the book of Jude 1:25, and I'm going to stop here for now. To the only wise and true God our Saviour, be glory and magisty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
There is only one God, even if there are three persons.
Pro writes "What I would like to know from you is, if they are three people within your God head, I want you to tell me the names of the other two! God bless."
God is triune. He is God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but only one God in three distinct persons.
Since my opponent never said the sole source for this debate is the Holy Bible, I'm now going to pull out a ton of random references to Christians past who supported the Trinity, primarily Early Church Fathers. To defend my new sources, I will quote my new sources. Go circular reasoning!
St. Vincent wrote "That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church". This shows we must look to Tradition as well as the scriptures, which make my next arguments that much more relevant.
St. Irenaeus wrote "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'"
St. Polycarp wrote "O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"
St. Justin Martyr wrote "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" and "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third."
St. Theophilus wrote "The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom"
Tertullian the heretic wrote "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics"
St. Gregory the Wonderworker wrote "There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged."
St. Patrick wrote "I bind to myself today the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity—the faith of the Trinity in unity, the Creator of the universe"
The Council of Nicea professed the Trinity with the Symbolum Nicenum.
The First Council of Constantinople substantiated the Council of Nicea's profession of the Trinity.
Pope St. Damasus wrote after the First Council of Constantinople "If anyone does not say there are three true Persons of Father, and of Son, and of Holy Spirit, equal, immortal, containing all things visible and invisible, ruling all things, judging all things, vivifying all things, creating all things, saving all things, he is a heretic".
Therefore, we have not only Biblical evidence in favor of the Trinity, but the support of early Christians. Note that Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Assembly of God-ers, Eastern Orthodox Church-ers, and Roman Catholics all accept the doctrine of the Trinity, so we also have the support of late Christians.
Since John 3:13 didn't make much sense to you, allow me to help you out here if you will. It says, " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Let's look at some key words here, " no man," and the Greek letter number, to find it in the Strong's Concordance is G 3762. It means none, nothing, not even ( man, woman or thing ) etc. Well, if Jesus could make this statement, how did the other two according to your doctrine got into heaven? Further more, Jesus went on to say, " even the Son of man which is in heaven." Now tell me, how could he be on earth, and yet still in heaven? My friend, that is easy. The body of Christ was the dwelling place for the Holy Ghost, which could have also been considered as heaven. Acts 7:48 & 17:24. God dwelleth in temples not made of hands.
I don't know what Concordance you are looking into, but allow me to help you out here. In the book of John 1:1 where it is mention, in the beginning was the " word, " meaning the " Logos " in Greek, the letter # is G 3056 & 3004. There you will see it is reference as a verb, and not a noun.
In the book of John 14:23 where it is mention, " we will come " unto you, " the Greek letter # for that phrase is G 2064. There you will see it mention as " a middle voice of a primary verb. " In the English language, it is known as an intransative verb. Informal meaning " I. " In other words, it's known as a figure of speech, and should not be looked at as a literal term. The term " LORD " or ( JEHOVAH ) does mean, " The self existing one, or the eternal one." If you check the Strongs Concordance under the Hebrew letter # 3068, you will see it there. The term " I AM, " means to exist, and if you look under the Hebrew letter # H 1961, you will find it there with other definitions. By the way, in the book of John 8:58, didn't Jesus made a statement to the Jews in relation to that same phrase in letting them know, he is the JEHOVAH of the Old Testament? :) Check it out!
In the book of John 14:8-13, this scripture does not place Jesus as being distinct at all within the Godhead. What you are trying to do here is divide the Godhead. Let's go to the book of Colossians 2:9. " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, " and not him in the Godhead as the triniterians believe. So this argument you are bringing here makes no sence. Note again, In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead, not some! As the triniterians believe, If they were distinct from each other, they themselves won't be fully God!
In the book of Acts 20:28, it states, " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. Note here, the writer is drawing fererence to Jesus, because he's the one who shed his blood for our sins.
Again, in the book of Acts 9:15 & Acts 22:14, I draw reference to these two scripture verses, because together, they depict Jesus as the God of the Fathers of Isreal of the Old Testament in relation to Exodus3:15. I can go on and on, but for now, I'll turn it over to you. God bless.
"In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" - Sign of the Cross (this is not an argument)
I would first like to draw attention to the fact that my opponent has pretty much dropped my Early Church Father arguments, and while I have probably raised more arguments than I have IQ points I feel this should be noted.
Pro writes "Is the Holy Spirit in the devils too? Just asking. :)"
Of course not. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to ignore all context of James' letter. He is clearly saying faith in God is not sufficient, because even devils believe God exists. Obviously devils are not saved for various other reasons, so they do not have the Holy Spirit.
Pro writes "Well, how big is my God? Let me tell you, he is big enough to fill all space and time, yet small enough to dwell within mankind!"
Pro is performing exhaustive mental acrobatics to make it appear that the voice came from Jesus and not the sky or whatever most people think when they read that. Tell me, why wouldn't it just say "Jesus said" or something like that, if it was coming from him? Obviously, it wasn't.
Pro writes "Further more, go with me to Acts 9:5, who answered Saul here before he was converted? Again in Acts 11:7-9. What name did Peter mention in verse 8 and what answer did he get in verse 9?"
I fail to see the relevance of Acts 9:5. Jesus is God, of course he can do that. I don't see what this has to do with the Trinity. Acts 11:7-9 says "(7) I also heard a voice say to me, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' (8) But I said, 'Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' (9) But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.'". Even looking in your King James Version (which I hate) I see no mention of a name. Problem? Matthew 13:15 was obviously an insult, but I'll let that slide because I called you a heretic through Pope St. Damasus last round, so we're even.
Pro writes "Well, if Jesus could make this statement, how did the other two according to your doctrine got into heaven?"
Not by ascending, that's for sure.
Pro writes "I don't know what Concordance you are looking into,"
Well, I sourced it so you should. I don't know what Concordance you're looking into. Why should we trust your judgement when I have sourced my claim and basic grammatical logic is on my side?
Pro writes "In the book of John 14:23 where it is mention, " we will come " unto you, " the Greek letter # for that phrase is G 2064. There you will see it mention as " a middle voice of a primary verb. " In the English language, it is known as an intransative verb. Informal meaning " I. " In other words, it's known as a figure of speech, and should not be looked at as a literal term."
On some random website which I assume is reliable , it is said to be usable literally to refer to "persons". Please explain why you are so confident it is a figure of speech which changes "we will come" to "I".
Pro writes "this scripture does not place Jesus as being distinct at all within the Godhead."
Then please explain to me how he goes to himself. He quite clearly says "I am going to the Father.". If he is the Father, how is that possible? He also clearly says "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?", which seems rather pointless if he is the Father.
Pro writes "Let's go to the book of Colossians 2:9. " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, " and not him in the Godhead as the triniterians believe."
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not a third of God. The Father is not a third of God. The Holy Spirit is not a third of God. It's not like three fractions of God you add together to make one God, they are all God and yet there are not three gods but one God. As the Athanasian Creed says "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.".
Pro writes "Note here, the writer is drawing fererence to Jesus, because he's the one who shed his blood for our sins."
I agree. What's the point of this?
Pro writes "Again, in the book of Acts 9:15 & Acts 22:14, I draw reference to these two scripture verses, because together, they depict Jesus as the God of the Fathers of Isreal of the Old Testament in relation to Exodus3:15."
Neither of them mention Jesus.
The main theme that I think my arguments have brought up that has not been sufficiently addressed is the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How does Pro explain the distinctions brought up between them if they are all really the exact same? Why even make up those names and not just say "God" in place of Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit whenever they occur? The Doctrine of the Trinity fully accounts for this, but this "Oneness Doctrine" seems not to, at least I haven't yet seen my opponent account for it. I have brought up endless verses pointing out differences, and I'm getting bored of it, so I'll stop with these two verses, Matthew 24:36, which says ""But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (emphasis mine) and Matthew 12:32 which reads "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.". Should be relatively self explanatory.
More Trinitarian Quotes (not really an argument):
"There is no subject where error is more dangerous, research more laborious, and discovery more fruitful than the oneness of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - St. Augustine
"The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith" [GCD 43.]. The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin" - (CCC 234)
"The Blessed Trinity is the mystery of mysteries, before which even the seraphim veil their countenances singing with astonished wonder their thrice-repeated 'Holy.'" - Matthias Joseph Scheeben
Your qoutes from all your triniterian fathers, and Greek or Latin mythological sayings didn't move me one bit. What I fail to understand is, before anyone try to learn the basic English language, they always try to impress others with another language that is foreign to them. There is no way you could have checked the term " Intransative verb, " and came up with it refering to the objective, but I leave you to that.
In the book of John 14:26, it reads, " But the comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto. " In your belief, this is seen as three persons, but tell me, if God is omnipresent, where is he going to be sent from since he fills all space and time? One could only be sent to a place where he's not? And again, you fail to give me the proper names of the other two gods since one name has been reveal, and that name is Jesus! Anyway, what Jesus is simply saying is, he must put off the visible, which was the flesh, for the invisible within him to operate since we all know that God is a Spirit. Here you see as well, Jesus mentioned of the Holy Ghost coming in his name. Now tell me from your triniterian point of view, did the Holy Ghost borrowed the name from the Son in order for him to come? Why don't you open your brain and stop looking at all scripture from a literal perspective! In the book of Isaiah 9:6, it reads, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of peace. Now from your triniterian perspective, there are three persons in the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and here in this scripture verse, the prophet Isaiah prophetically speaking of Jesus, calling him the Everlasting Father. ARE THEY TWO FATHERS WITHIN THE GODHEAD THEN AS YOU BELIEVE? Also within that same text, the term Counsellor was use, which in the New Testament means the Comforter. If you don't want to check it out, I pray that who ever is following this debate, would be like the Bereans. In the book of Matthew 12:8, " it reads, for the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. " As we all know, the sabbath means rest, which could also be seen as comfort. So this scripture is also refering to Jesus as the Comforter. In the book of of John 5:43, Jesus said, " I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Note what it says in the second clause, " if another shall come in his own name, and not their father's name. What Jesus is simply stating here in indirect speech is, he is the Father, the God of the Old Testament.
I'm going to make one last statement before I finish here. In the book of Matthew 11:27 it reads, " All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Now looking at this scripture from your triniterian point of view, the Holy Ghost don't know neither of the other two since only the Father know the Son, and the Son know the Father. My friends, I pray that this debate have shed some light on this Wonderful truth, " The Oneness Doctrine, " and again, you all don't have to believe what ever you have read here, but be like the Bereans in the book of Acts 17:11. May God richly bless you all.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
Pro writes "There is no way you could have checked the term " Intransative verb, " and came up with it refering to the objective, but I leave you to that."
You were claiming that the usage of the phrase was figurative, while I claimed it was literal. Does it make much sense to say "we will come" to figuratively mean "I will come"? I leave that to the voters.
Pro writes "In your belief, this is seen as three persons, but tell me, if God is omnipresent, where is he going to be sent from since he fills all space and time? One could only be sent to a place where he's not?"
Bare assertion. If all things are possible for God (Matthew 19:26) he can be not omnipresent. Pro also seems to be claiming that the scripture is in error.
Pro writes "And again, you fail to give me the proper names of the other two gods since one name has been reveal, and that name is Jesus!"
I gave you the names, but you ignored me.
Pro writes "Here you see as well, Jesus mentioned of the Holy Ghost coming in his name. Now tell me from your triniterian point of view, did the Holy Ghost borrowed the name from the Son in order for him to come? Why don't you open your brain and stop looking at all scripture from a literal perspective!"
I'm not looking at all scriptures from a literal perspective, I'm just showing that it is unlikely that if you say you will send someone in your name after you leave that you mean yourself.
Pro writes "ARE THEY TWO FATHERS WITHIN THE GODHEAD THEN AS YOU BELIEVE?"
No. Jesus never called himself the Everlasting Father.
Pro writes "Jesus said, " I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Note what it says in the second clause, " if another shall come in his own name, and not their father's name. What Jesus is simply stating here in indirect speech is, he is the Father, the God of the Old Testament."
That indirect speech is so indirect I can't even see how you drew that conclusion. In fact, it sounds more like Jesus is stating that he is not the Father, because he draws a distinction between someone who comes in his own name and he who comes in his Father's name. He would be coming in his own name if he was the Father now, wouldn't he be?
Pro writes "I'm going to make one last statement before I finish here. In the book of Matthew 11:27 it reads, " All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Now looking at this scripture from your triniterian point of view, the Holy Ghost don't know neither of the other two since only the Father know the Son, and the Son know the Father."
And you accuse me of having an overly literal interpretation...
All my arguments from the Early Church Fathers were dropped, even though I specifically called attention to them to insure that my opponent would have all opportunity to address them. However, my opponent's only response was "Your qoutes from all your triniterian fathers, and Greek or Latin mythological sayings didn't move me one bit.", which isn't much of a rebuttal.
What it pretty much comes down to is whether or not there are distinctions drawn between three persons, the Oneness doctrine is not able to adequately explain that. I believe I have shown why the Trinity doctrine ought to be preferred when viewing the distinct separation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Also, I had sources ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's replies to the Negative's rebuttals were evasive, and he never did explain the plural pronoun "us" in Gen 1: 26, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Nor did he explain the use of the plural possessive "our" in connection with it.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither one really swayed me, both sides have strong arguments for their case, as the bible isn't straight forward. However, I feel that Con presented his case better, so that's why I give him the spelling/grammer point.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.