The Instigator
MrJLW
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Oneness of God vs. Trinity of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,755 times Debate No: 34884
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MrJLW

Pro

There is no such thing as the Trinity. The "Holy Trinity" is NOT biblical and was NEVER taught ANYWHERE in the Bible. It is a false doctrine that should not be taught to any person that calls themselves a Christian. The bible, from cover to cover, always spoke of God as ONE being, never as three separate entities that modern day Christians believe in. The Trinity I am referring to, in case one does not know what I am talking about, is the idea that God is three separate, co-equal, and co-existent beings commonly know as the father, son, and Holy Ghost.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, as it is a very interesting topic.

Negation Of The Resolution

Pro is very keen on asserting that the trinity has no Biblical basis. However, The Bible teaches of the trinity, making my opponents claims unjustified.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" - Matthew 28:19

Comment: The above is self-evidently strong evidence in favor of the Trinity. Thus, it is strong evidence against Pro's case.

"I and [my] Father are one." - John 10:30

Comment: Jesus even claims that him and his father are one. This means, they are each separate parts of the set called "God".

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my (Jesus, the Son) name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:26

Comment: The above is self-evidently strong evidence in favor of the Trinity. Thus, it is strong evidence against Pro's case.


Conclusion

I have provided three strong lines of Biblical support in favor of the Trinity. Pro has provided essentially nothing. Thus, as it stands, the resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 1
MrJLW

Pro

I would also like to thank my opponent for responding to the opening statements. I apologize in advance if my statements get a bit lengthy.

Response to Opponents Negation:

In Mathew 28:19, the verse says "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Comment: What name is this verse referring to? Jesus was speaking of himself.

In Acts 4:8-12, the bible states,

"8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Comment: In verse 12, Peter spoke of Jesus Christ as the ONLY NAME under Heaven which we MUST be saved.

In Acts 2:38, It states,

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Comment: Apparently, Peter understood that the only way to receive salvation was being baptized in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues.

In the argument that in Mathew 28:19, Jesus actually spoke the statement (red print), and that one would rather take his word as truth than Peter, let us read on in Mathew 16:18.

In this verse Jesus was talking to Peter, (Mathew 16:18) "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Jesus knew that when he died upon the cross, and when the Holy Ghost fell on those in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, Peter would be the one to preach to the people about the new plan of salvation, which was baptism in the Name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost. Jesus said on thsi rock (Peter) will I build my church. We must build church doctrines and our lives on Acts 2:38.

Jesus said "Upon this ROCK will I build my church". Notice that it said rock, referring to one rock, not ROCKS. If I was to build a house, I would pour ONE slab of concrete, not multiple slabs, the reasoning for this is because in time, those multiple slabs will begin to shift and contort and sooner or later, the house will fall. The doctrinal house must be built upon the singular name of Jesus.

I have a name (for this debate I will use "Pro" as my name). My name is Pro. I am a father, I am a son, I am a driver, I am a citizen, I am all kinds of things. Those are different titles that I hold, but my NAME is Pro.

Example:

If I were to write out a check for $5,000 to give to Con, I would have to put my NAME on the check for it to ever be cashed. If I were to put "name of father, son, and citizen" they would probably just give you back the check, the ONLY way to cash that check, is for me to have written my name on it.

The same is with God, Yes, he is a father, Yes he is a son, Yes he is the Holy Ghost, but the name in which he goes by, and the name which saves, is the name of Jesus.

Through translation, many things are lost. It is not grammarly correct to say the name of the father is "father", and the name of the son is "son", and the name of the Holy Ghost is "Holy Ghost".

It is also not grammarly correct to say (in example) that I am from the city of city which is in the state of state and in the country of country. It is proper to say that I am from (example) Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Although things have titles, they all have a name.

Colossians 2:9 "For in him, dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Comment: Jesus does not dwell in the Godhead as simply the son because "...in him, dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, is One Lord."

In John 1:1-14, the bible states,

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(comment: The Word is God)

2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(Comment: In God (the Word), was life; the light of men)

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

(Comment: John the Baptist spoke of one greater than he. He was speaking of Jesus Christ)

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

(Comment: Ok, so now the one who John was bearing witness of, is the true light, but didn't the scripture just say that the light was God? It did indeed, so it must be apparent that Jesus is God)

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

(Comment: Jesus, being Jewish, came into the Jewish circles claiming to be the messiah, but they rejected and crucified him)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name:

(Comment: What is that name? The scripture has to be speaking of the name of Jesus Christ)

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

(Comment: They were born of God. In John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Lets go back to Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". Being baptized in the name of Jesus, is a "new birth" experience, it is a "born again" experience. John 1:12-13, talked about those who believed on his name and are born of God will become the Sons of God. Remember Earlier in the scripture, it talked about how the light of men is God and John was there to bear witness of that light (Jesus), so apparently Jesus and God are the same being)

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

(Comment: And the Word (God) was made flesh, and dwelt among us. The scripture was saying that Jesus is God and that God was made flesh (Jesus Christ) and dwelt among us.)

Conclusion:

I believe I have presented plenty of scriptural evidence and explanation to prove that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, and that God is ONE being who is indivisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. He is the Father of all, the son was simply God manifest in the flesh, and the the spirit of God is what many call the Holy Ghost and/or Holy Spirit, but the name is Jesus. Just as I am a father, son, and a citizen, my name is Pro. Con, knows me only by the name of Pro, he does not refer to me as the name of the father, and of the son, and of the citizen, but by pro.

(1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory)
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

Pro's last post was extremely bizarre. None of the verses he posted actually undermine the Trinity, and a couple of them actually support the Trinity!

Rebutting My Opponent


"Comment: What name is this verse referring to? Jesus was speaking of himself."

No. Jesus was clearly speaking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is the Trinity. Pro's whole case has already been rendered obsolete.

"Comment: In verse 12, Peter spoke of Jesus Christ as the ONLY NAME under Heaven which we MUST be saved."

The above does nothing to undermine the Trinity. Jesus is one name, but he is still one part of the Trinity. Thus, this is just a red herring.

"Comment: Apparently, Peter understood that the only way to receive salvation was being baptized in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in other tongues.

This actually supports the Trinity. Therefore, if my opponent is arguing against the Trinity, this is once more nothing more than a red herring. This does literally nothing to undermine the Trinity.

"I have a name (for this debate I will use "Pro" as my name). My name is Pro. I am a father, I am a son, I am a driver, I am a citizen, I am all kinds of things. Those are different titles that I hold, but my NAME is Pro."

This makes no sense. How can it be coherent for one person have a title of the father and the son in context? This clearly indicates different persons. Which means, the Trinity is strongly suggested in The Bible. Pro still has not provided any valid reasoning to counter mine.

"Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, is One Lord."

Yes, one Lord that is made up of three parts: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This Bible verse does not undermine the Trinity,

There are some more Bible verses by Pro, but they have no relevance to the debate. These verses need to be tied together into a coherent case before we can accept the resolution.

Conclusion

Pro's lengthy round was rather trivial. None of the verses that he posted undermined the Trinity (also, the verse I posted which says Jesus and his Father were "one" was not contested, thus it stands). The verses I posted actually do support the Trinity. Since the verses posted by Pro do not undermine the Trinity, and the verses I provided support the Trinity; it should be self-evident that the resolution has been negated.

One cannot just post a bunch of irrelevant verses with no supporting reasoning, and except to affirm this resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
MrJLW

Pro

MrJLW forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Pro forfeit's the round.
Debate Round No. 3
MrJLW

Pro

MrJLW forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 4
MrJLW

Pro

MrJLW forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.