The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible Teaches the Trinity, namely, God is three Persons

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 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 60619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

daley

Pro

The Scriptures proclaim that there is one, and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19) It also says that there is only one true God. (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20) This means that all other gods are false. Since there is only one God, then no other being can truely be a god. This is why they are false gods. Now, Scripture plainly identifies the Son as God in John 20:28. The term "my God" refers to the true God every single time it is used in the Bible outside of John 20:28, establishig the consistent linguistic use of the term. Thomas here calls Jesus in the Greek, ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou, literally, the Lord of me and the God of me. So John 20:28 calls Jesus the God of Thomas, and in verse 29 Jesus approves. Now since there is only one true God, either Jesus was the true God in John 20:28, or a false god. Which is it? I look forward to my opponents answer. But Jesus is also identified as God in Isaiah 9:6. So which is it: is he a true god, or a false god? If he is a true god, then he must be the Almighty, for there is only one true God, not two; if he is a false god, we are not saved, for no pretender could save us.

Isa 44:24 tells us that Yahweh made all things, streached out the heavens alone, spread out the earth by himself; yet Scripture reveals the Father as creator (Isa 64:8), and the Son (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 8-10), and the Holy Spirit (Ps 104:30; Job 26:13; 33:4) Combine this with the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:16 and the trinitarian has an airtight case. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not one God with the Father, then God the Father had help and did not create all things alone, by himself, as he said in Isaiah 44:24. If the trinity is true, harmony comes to the texts.

At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares, "I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no Saviour." (WEB) Scripture tells us palinly that Jesus is the Saviour. (Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2 Pet 1:11, etc) So is Jesus Yahweh himself, or is he another Saviour besides Yahweh? Which is it? If he is Yahweh, then he must be one Yahweh with the Father. For there is only one Yahweh. (Deu 6:4) If he is not Yahweh, then he is another Saviour besides Yahweh, and Yahweh was lying when he claimed to be the only Saviour. Which is it? Acts 4:12 says of Jesus, that "there is no salvation in anyone else." Now, if Jesus is not God, then there can be no salvation in God, for there is no salvation in anyone else but Jesus.

The fact that Jesus receives prayer proves he is God. John 14:14 says in the New American Standard Bible: "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." Not only does Jesus encourage believers to pray to Him by saying, "ask Me anything," but He is the One who answers the prayer when He promises, "I will do it." While this Scripture is a strong support of prayer being rendered to Jesus, it is complicated by the fact that some translations omits the "me" in the phrase "ask Me anything" in John 14:14. But the Greek text itself states: "If ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do."

The reason that certain Bible versions leave out the "me" is due to a textual variant in the manuscripts of the Greek text of this verse. The Majority text (most dating from around the 9th century) split on this issue with some containing the "me" and others dropping the "me." But in recent years, scholars have uncovered manuscripts of the New Testament that date as far back as the second and third centuries. The oldest manuscripts we have available today of this verse in the Gospel of John are Papyrus 66, written in 125 A.D., and Papyrus 75, written sometime between 175-225 A.D. Both of these papyrus fragments contain the "me" in this passage. Not only do the oldest fragments of John that we possess today contain the "me," but two of the oldest ancient complete copies of the entire Bible in Greek, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus written around the 4th century, both agree with the papyrus' renderings of "ask me" in John 14:14.

Since Desiderius Erasmus complied and published the Greek text (Textus Receptus) of the King James Bible version in the 1500's, he did not have access to the older Greek manuscripts that we have today. Thus, the King James Bible version and other Bible versions based upon the Textus Receptus or the Majority text do not contain the "me" in John 14:14. Indeed, John 14:14 is a strong testimony to Jesus' approval of the early Christian practice of directing their prayers to Jesus Christ. Does not prayer only belong to God?

2 Corinthians 12:8-9 "In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; and yet he really said to me: "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast as respects my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may like a tent remain over me." Here Paul prayed to the "Lord" Jesus three times and Jesus answered his prayer by saying: "My... power is being make perfect in weakness." Paul concluded by admitting that he would "rather boast ...that the power of (who?) the Christ may like a tent remain over me." So, here again, we see an example of a Christian in the Bible praying to the Lord Jesus with Jesus responding to the prayer with His "underserved kindness" and "power." (NWT) We are told about Jesus hearing our prayers again in 1 John 5:12-16 and Acts 7:59. This would not be so if Jesus were not God.

I must at this point mention the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. This rule states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word "and," the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*Note that the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Having stated this rule I find it necessary to present two verses of scripture that unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior.

Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope"the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

Notice in both verses the noun "God" (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun "Savior" (soteros) which does not have an article, by the word "and" (kai). Thus "God and Savior" both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God! So I think I have made a good case that Jesus is definitely God, and since there is only one God, then the Father and the Son must be one God. Now, onto the Holy Spirit.

That the Holy Spirt is God and Lord is clearly stated in the Scriptures. (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor 3:17) The Holy Spirit has the same attributes of diety as the Father and the Son:

The Father is eternal (Ps 90:2), and the Son (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2), and the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14)
The Father is omniscient (1 John 3:20), and the Son (John 16:30; 21:17), and the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-11)
The Father is omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Ps 137:8-18), and the Son (Matt 18:20), and the Holy Spirit. (Ps 137:7)
The Father is omnipotent (Dan 4:35), and the Son (Matt 28:18; John 17:10), and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 40:12-15)

Strong evidence of the Trinity. I look forward to my opponents response.

Definitions:
Trinity: a tripersonal being (one being with three distinct minds)
God: the divine nature, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, all-loving, etc.
God: definition 2: any person who possesses divine nature. [Illustration: a scoop of flour is not the whole bag of flour, just as God the Son is not the entire Trinity, and yet, the scoop of flour is by nature flour, just like the whole bag of flour, and so to, God the Son is still by nature God, just like the entire trinity. He is part of the being that has that nature]
Guidestone

Con

I will be unable to post a response this round, but I do wish to continue the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

Since Con rand out of time in round one, I won't post any new arguments so he won't have too much to handle next round.
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for waiting and I hope we can have an interesting debate.

The Trinity violates logic

First, the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical since it violates transitive property of equality which is if a=b and b=c then a=c. In the case of the Trinity The Father = God and The Son = God, but The Father =/= The Son (John 14:28). If anyone believes Christianity is a reasonable/logical religion they must give up the Trinity.

John 20:28

John also wrote "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." (ESV John 1:18). If Jesus was god then someone, in fact many would have seen God, but this clearly shows no one has ever seen God. Also, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (ESV John 30:17). This is after Jesus's resurrection, and he refers the the Father as "my God". If Jesus was God then he certainly would not refer to someone as his God.

"Thomas had said (John 20:25) that unless something happened he would 'not believe.' What was it that Thomas refused to believe? Was it that he refused to believe that Jesus was equally God with the Father? There is certainly no hint of this before or after Thomas’ statement at John 20:28." [1]

"If the disciples had learned, upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, that he was God, certainly they would have indicated this! But notice, neither before nor after receiving Holy Spirit (John 20:22) did they kneel or do any act of worship such as one would certainly do upon coming aware of being in the presence of God!" [1]

Also, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (ESV John 20:30-31). John didn't write that Jesus was God, but rather the Son of God.

Jesus is not Omniscient nor eternal

In Matthew 24:36 it says "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (ESV) This shows there is something the son does not know, and since God is omniscient, knowing everything, this proves Jesus can not be God. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (ESV Col. 1:15). If Jesus was created then he could not be eternal. Concluding, since Jesus is not omniscient or eternal then he can not be God.

God and the Heavenly Court

In referring to Gen. 1:26 The New Oxford Annotated Bible says "The plural ‘us,’ ‘our’...probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court [2]" Now addressing creation. As noted earlier Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, and Revelation 3:14 says Jesus was there at the beginning of creation. God then made the rest of creation through Jesus. An excellent example is "Suppose the one all-powerful ruler of the land decided to build a nice little palace out in the wilderness. He sends for his servant, the Master Worker, and commands him to build that palace. The King provides whatever materials are necessary for the Master Worker and tells him in great detail exactly how he wants it built. The Master Worker sends for the chief stone mason, the chief carpenter, the chief artist, etc., tells them what their assignments are, and oversees their work. It is clear that the king built the palace through his servant the Master Worker. It was at the command (and because of the will) of the King that the palace was created through the Master Worker (also through the stone mason, through the carpenter, etc.). This does not mean the King and his servant both together, somehow, make up a mysterious two-in-one King!" [2]. Concluding, a correct understanding of the verses, shows this does not sufficiently decide that God is a Trinity.

Who is the Savior?

To answer the seeming trinity problem of both God and Jesus being described as the savior is answered in John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."(ESV). The world is saved by Jesus by authority of God. It is like the President and a diplomat. The President is the chief diplomat but they have given authority to a diplomat the same power to negotiate. So, when a treaty is negotiated by the diplomat then it is really enforced by the President who has the source of authority. In this case God is the President and Jesus is the diplomat (savior), and Jesus make a deal with mankind for salvation by authority of God. Concluding, this does not sufficiently decide that God is a Trinity.

Prayers to Jesus

I would like to see my opponent's source(s) for this section. The "me" in this verse is disputed in fact it is not in ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV;WEB; WE; or Young’s versions. "The Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) ... it does not have "me" at John 14:14" [3].

God AND Jesus

Titus 2:13. "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great King and Queen, Elizabeth" I changed God to King, Savior to Queen, and Jesus to Elizabeth. Now if you read it it is obvious the and does not mean the two are the same person this goes for the original words too. This also applies 2Peter 1:1. Concluding, this does not sufficiently decide that God is a Trinity.

Other Verses

"Therefore God has highly exalted him [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name," (ESV Philippians 2:9) This makes a distinction between God and Jesus by having one exalt the other.

"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (ESV John 17:3) This shows Jesus was sent by God and is not God.



Sources
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...



Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

Violates Logic?
I thank Con for his response though its a weak one. This debate isn't about if the trinity is logical, but about if the Bible teaches it. There are many things that are not logical to many people, and yet the Bible does teach them. For example, many scientists think the account of Noah's flood is illogical because the ark couldn't reasonably hold all the species of animals, and if the flood did occur, how did the penguins survive the tropics when the Ark rested on Mount Ararat to make the long journey to the polar caps? In fact, how did the polar caps survive? A global flood would rationally provide enough buoyancy to break up the ice beds and melt them. It wouldn't quickly regrow. And how did 8 people many that zoo? Some animals require special diets, and many would have to be hand fed. And why isn't there any of the signs scientist expect to find in the earth if such an event occurred? The list goes on and on. http://www.google.com... Yet, who would deny that Scripture does teach Noah's flood in Genesis 6-7? There are many things in the Bible that don't seem logical to people, such as Jesus walking on water, or wise men following a star, or a virgin getting pregnant, but that doesn't prove the Bible doesn't teach these things. In fact, the Bible teaches God is a being that can occupy two radically different positions at the same time, so that the mighty God could also be a son (Isa 9:6), and the God whom no one has seen (John 1:18) could also be seen by Abraham in Genesis 18:1-2, 22) So I don't need to prove the trinity is logical to win this debate, I only need to show that the Bible teaches it.

Furthermore, his illustration doesn't show a clear understanding of the trinity. If I have three scoops of flour, scoop a = flour, scoop b = flour, but scoop a is not scoop b. If c is flour, then we do have a logical case where a= c, b=c, but a does not = b, and yet logic is not broken; so I don't think Con has even shown this teaching to be illogical. In fact, it is even more logical to expect that if God exists at all, he would be capable of doing things beyond our comprehension, even violating our limited, imperfect understanding of the laws of nature or physics. Just imagine taking an fighter jet, a shot gun and a cell phone, 4000 years ago to primitive people. They would call the plane the chariot of the gods, and make up some religious idea for the cell phone. They have no comprehension of how electricity work, what a batter is, circuitry or microchips. They wouldn't be able to comprehend our technology. Just imagine what a literally omnipotent, all-knowing being could do! Who would we be, with our tiny minds to say something isn't possible just because we don't understand how it works? The fact is, what seems logical to one person, often seems illogical to another. For example, Loose Change conspiracy theorists think its logical that 9/11 was an inside job, but Popular Mechanics does not.

As for John 14:28, this doesn't disprove the trinity. A boss may be greater in position than his employee, but that doesn't make him a superior being. He is still equal in nature to his employee, both of them being human. Similarly, the Father was greater in position than the Son, being in heaven while the Son had given up his authority in heaven to come down here as a man. Philippians 2:6-8 says he existed "in God's form" before he took on the form of a servant, which means he was not a servant of God before. So the trinity teaches quality in nature among members of the Godhead, but different roles.

No Man Has Seen God
God is, by nature, a Spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit is by nature invisible. (1 Tim 1:17) So we cannot see God in his natural form, which is what John 1:18 means - no man has seen what God looks like as he truly is by nature. But this doesn't mean God cannot clothe himself in human flesh in order to become visible, just as oxygen which we cannot see, can become frozen into a form that we can see. The Bible does teach that God has been seen in human form even before he came as the man Jesus. "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:20) "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank." (Exod 24:9-11) "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!" (Jug 13:22) So the Bible does teach that God has been seen in human form, it is nothing different if God the Word, who according to John 1:1-3 created the world, becomes flesh in John 1:14 to be seen of men.

My God
Con claims that if Jesus was God he would not refer to someone else as "my God," forgetting that Jesus was also a man, and as man setting the example for us he would refer to his father as his God because Philippians 2:9 teaches that he took on the role of a servant, a role he did not have before his human birth.

Amazingly, Con accepts the term "my God" as proof that the Father is God in John 20:17, but refuses to accept this same exact term proves Jesus is God when applied to Jesus in John20:28. The Greek text literallys ho kyrious mou kai ho theos mou, the Lord of me and the God of me; so not only was Thomas saying Jesus was his Lord, but also his God. The term "my God" always without exception means the true God in ever single other verse it is used in outside of John 20:28, very strong evidence Thomas meant to ascribe deity to Jesus.

Con laments that the disciples didn't worship Jesus on this occasion and somehow this proves he isn't God. But Hebrews 1:6 says all the angels are commanded to worship Jesus, and it uses the Greek word proskuneo, the same word for the worship usually ascribed to the Father as in Matthew 4:10. Also, Jesus is worshiped by the disciples in Matthew 28:17 and many other places, so Con's point here is moot. And they did bow down on this occasion, the very thing Con requests they would have to do in John 20, so this should satisfy him that Jesus was God to them.

"Now Jesus did many other SIGNS in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but THESE (these what? these SIGNS) are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (ESV John 20:30-31). It was, not Thomas' confession "my Lord and my God" that was written to convince us that Jesus is the Son of God, but the signs, the miracles he performed. So not every single thing written in the book of John was trying to prove that Jesus is the Son, he wrote to show other things too.

Whats more, since a father's son would naturally have the same nature as his father, Jesus, by claiming to be the Father's Son by nature, made himself equal with God. This is why the Jews who listened to him wanted to kill him for blasphemy, because he was claiming to be God's Son in a special way that made him equal to God the Father. (John 5:18; 10:3--33) We are not sons of God in that sense, we are only God's sons by adoption according to the Bible.

Omniscient
The Bible teaches Jesus was a man, thus, he had to fully experience human nature which include limited knowledge (Mark 13:32), but it also teaches he is God, as I've clearly shown, so he also must have divine nature which include being omniscient. His disciples ascribed omniscience to him, when they said: "ow we can see that YOU KNOW ALL THINGS and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions." (John 16:30) ""Lord, YOU KNOW ALL THINGS; you know that I love you." (John 21:17) Now I do not deny the Bible teaches that Jesus, as a man, didn't know everything, but it also teaches, that as God, he did know all things.

Uncreated
Con takes Colossians 1:15 out of context to show Jesus was created, but being called "firstborn of all creation" doesn't mean he was the first to be created. In fact, the context says the opposite, the context says he himself created everything. "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn OVER all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH HIM and for him. He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, and in him all things hold together." (Col 1:15-17 NIV) This clearly shows Jesus is BEFORE all things, thus cannot be created. Everything the Father created, he created it THROUGH the Son, thus, he is a co-creator with the Father, thus is our Creator and God. John 1:3 says the Father didn't create as single thing without the help of the Word (Jesus), thus, Jesus cannot be a created being. Colossians 1:18 says Jesus has the supremacy in EVERYTHING, would could not be the case if he wasn't God. At Psalm 89:20, 27 David was also called "firstborn" even though he was the last son born to his father. Firsborn means "pre-eminence" in this context, as it does in Colossians 1. http://www.google.com...

Con compares Jesus and God being the Savior to a President sending out a diplomat, but the diplomat is never called the President. Jesus is called both God and Savior, even though there is only ONE God and ONE Savior, Yahweh. (Isa 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:21) His illustration doesn't adequately reflect the situation.

As I'm out of space, I'll give the other rebuttals next round.
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for his responses; however, I do feel he missed a few points.

The Trinity violates logic

It true the debate is not explicitly about logic and the trinity, but I think both my opponent and I believe the Bible is rational and logical. If we didn't why would we defend it. This means we believe the Bible would not teach anything that is impossible because if it did it would not be rational or logical.

My opponent compares the logic of the Trinity to the logic of Noah's flood; however, there is a difference between them. The Trinity deals with formal logic, which if you break formal logic it means you are contradicting yourself and making irrational, incorrect claims. Noah's flood does not deal with formal logic, but rather it is a miracle which does not break formal logic in anyway no matter how improbable it is.

My opponent compares being God (a position) to flour (an object). This is not a good comparison for more than one reason. First, in this case there two different amounts of flour in each scoop, but however the Trinity teaches that each person is equally and fully God. Second, you cannot compare a position to an object these are not representative unless my opponent means the amount of flour equal the amount of power each one has.

There is also the problem of 1+1+1=1. "This idea that three persons add up to one individual seems like nonsense. And logically, it is" [1].

Concluding, the Trinity violates formal logic and is therefore something the Bible would not teach.

John 14:28

Here my opponent seems to be claiming even though the son is under the father, but since they both have divine nature they are equal. However, does this apply to angels which are also under the father, but have divine nature? Also, Philippians 2:6-8 actually says "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." [2]. It doesn't say he did exist in God's form like my opponent claimed. Further, the following verse says "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name," [2].

No Man Has Seen God

First, you can see oxygen you are just looking though it like you look though glass. Second, my opponent assumes they face seen was human which can not be drawn from what is listed. Third, "In ancient times, God sent angels as his representatives to appear to humans and to speak in his name." [3](Psalm 103:20) My opponent mentions John 1:1 which there is controversy if the verse is translated right. I would be happy to continue on this topic if my opponent so wishes, but it would be more productive to the overall debate to not use contested verses.

My God

My God can be used in different context for example someone can exclaim "My God!" this shows an act of surprise, like if you someone alive you knew was dead, not that what you are looking at is God.

Right after Matthew 28:17 it says "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." First, Jesus would not have needed to be given authority if he was God. Second, it shows he is in the position of "the boss" for now, so they would pray in his name or worship.

Angels worshiped him because Jesus was an archangel or chief angel. (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

Rising from the dead does not prove Jesus was God, since many people such as Lazarus rise from the dead too.

Omniscient

If Jesus was fully experience humanity he would not have known anything about God or the supernatural. Further, he could not perform miracles if he was fully human. My opponent says Jesus, as a man, didn't know everything meaning while he was on earth he was not God because he isn't omniscient; therefore, no one especially himself could claim he is God when he clearly wasn't.

Uncreated

That verse was not taken out of context. It can be easily explained. Jesus was the first creation, and then the Father created the rest through Jesus which fits in Colossians 1:15-16. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (ESV John 1:3).

Who is the Savior?

Jesus isn't God, people may have mistakenly called him God, but that does not mean he is God since the Bible teaches otherwise. Just like a diplomat might mistakenly be called President, but that doesn't make him president since the law teaches otherwise.

Sources
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://www.jw.org...







Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

Prayers to Jesus
The "me" in John 14:14 clearly shows Jesus instructed us to pray to him, and in the following link all the manuscripts and internal evidence supporting this reading is thoroughly discussed. http://www.google.com... The correct reading isn"t determined by listing off modern translations as Con did in round 2, but by examining the early manuscripts from which Bibles are translated in the first place. The "me" is found not only in the oldest manuscripts, but in three separate families of manuscripts, showing it very unlikely to be an interpolation or copyist error. I gave the names of manuscripts in round 1. Further, I gave other verses where prayer is given to Jesus to which Con didn"t respond.

"And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (JESUS). Whoever has the Son (JESUS) has life; whoever does not have the Son of God (JESUS) does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God (JESUS) that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have toward him (JESUS), that if we ask anything according to his will he (JESUS) hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him." (1 John 5:11-15 ESV) All the preceding verses before verse 14 were talking about the Son of God (JESUS), thus, the "he" in verse 14 that hears our prayers is the Son, just like in Acts 7:59.

"In 1 Cor. 1:9 it says, "God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." The word "fellowship" is the Greek word koinonia which is also translated as the word "communion." 1 Cor. 1:9 says that we are to have an intimate fellowship with Jesus. That is fine. But, how can we have fellowship with someone with whom we never talk? Therefore, this verse can also be used to support the idea of praying to Jesus." http://www.google.com...

God AND Jesus
As for Titus 2:13, the rules of Greek are very clear. The Granville Sharpe rule has never been found faulty by any scholar who has examined ancient Greek documents, therefore, if Titus 2:13 was worded as Con rephrases it, Elizabeth would indeed, in the minds of a first-century Greek or Jew, be both King and Queen. Substituting different words for God and Savior doesn"t change the rules of Greek grammar. Here is a link to where an actual Greek scholar, James White, explains it in-depth http://vintage.aomin.org...

Other Verses
Philippians 2:9 makes a distinction between Jesus and God the Father, but this doesn"t show Jesus isn"t also by nature God. If I make a distinction between me and another human, this doesn"t show I"m not also human. In fact, Philippians 2:6 told us Jesus existed "in God"s form." What is God"s FORM? Greek scholar W.E. Vine says in his Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words that it comes from the Greek word morphe, which means the innate characteristics or nature of the being. Thus, if God was omnipotent, omniscient, etc, so was Jesus. Con also ignores the fact that the Son had this form of God BEFORE taking on the form of a servant in verse 7, which means he was not always a servant of God before but simply an equal. This proves his pre-existence.

Con thinks that because John 17:3 says Jesus was sent by God, this means he isn"t God, so if I was sent by a human being, does that mean I"m not a human being? The word "God" has more than one definition, just as "soul" has more than one definition, and context must determine which definition is being used. If the Father is the ONLY true God, then all other gods are false. My question of Con is, when Jesus is called God as he is called in John 1:1-3, 20:28; Acts 20:28; John 1:18 and Isaiah 9:6, is he a true God or a false god?

The Trinity violates logic
Con argues the Bible must be logical, but he doesn"t tell us whose logic he means. I suppose he means his, but the problem here is that what seems logical to one person doesn"t seem logical to another. Believing that God exists period seems illogical to atheists who look at all the suffering in the world and conclude that a God of love could not logically exist, but millions of believers have logical arguments of their own to refute this. https://www.youtube.com... So rationality is in the eye of the beholder, it is to some extent subjective, and thus even if the trinity is illogical to my opponent, it may not be illogical to me.

He says "the Bible would not teach anything that is impossible," but how could he know what isn"t possible for an omniscient, omnipotent deity? Atoms can be in two places at the same time. http://www.google.com... In fact, scientists have built a disk that can be in both places at once http://www.google.com..., so why can"t God be in three places at once so that he can be Father in heaven, Son on the earth and Holy Spirit coming down at his baptism? It"s simply not logical to say that because you don"t understand how God does it, that it"s impossible.

Con called Noah"s flood "a miracle which does not break formal logic in anyway no matter how improbable it is." But God being in three places at once without violating his unity as one being is also a miracle that doesn"t violate formal logic in anyway.

He says "My opponent compares being God (a position) to flour (an object)," but this again is a misunderstanding of terms. The Bible doesn"t use the word "God" as a position all the time, not even most of the time. Psalm 90:2 says before creation began, God was there. What was his position? Ruler? King? No. There was no position because nobody else existed over which he could have a position. God was simply a reference to his nature, and thus the Bible says that false gods are not BY NATURE, God. (Gal 4:8)

Further, if "God" means a person (the Father) in one verse, why can"t it also refer to a triune being in another? 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 Triune God. The result is a plural entity, so where"s the problem?

John 14:28
Con asserts that angels have divine nature. Where does the Bible say so? He gave no Scripture because there is none!

Philippians 2:6-8 does say he existed in God"s form, which Bible are you reading? And Con is correct, "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above EVERY name," so Jesus gave up the highest name to become a servant, and after the resurrection he took it back. How could someone inferior to God have the name that is ABOVE EVERY NAME?

No Man Has Seen God
Con said "you can see oxygen," ha ha ha"What does it look like, Con? Also, if God"s face was human when people saw it is irrelevant. Point is, they literally saw him in the OT and yet it was God, so seeing Jesus in the NT doesn"t prove he isn"t God. True, God sent angels, how does that show Yahweh did not appear to Abraham as a man in Genesis 18? Con gave no evidence that John 1:1 is translated incorrectly. 100 scholars made the NIV and 54 scholars worked on the KJV, all of whom agree on my version of John 1:1, as do scholars such as A.T. Robertson, James White, W.E. Vine and many others.

My God
Con suggests that Thomas yelped out "My God" in surprise but that would be swearing, calling God"s name in vain. Jesus wouldn"t bless Thomas for that but he did bless him on this occasion. (John 20:28-29) Also, such abuse of God"s name was not part of Jewish tradition back then.

Jesus is given all authority in Matthew 28:17 because he previously gave it up according to Philippians 2. If he has ALL authority, he is equal in authority to God the Father.

Hebrews 1:6 says ALL the angels worship Jesus, which means he can"t be an angel, certainly not Michael. Also, worship only belongs to God, so he must be God or else the angels worship two gods. Polytheistic angels? 1 Thess 4:16 says Jesus is coming with two things, and archangel"s shout, and God"s trumpet. If having God"s trumpet doesn"t make him a trumpet, then having an archangels voice doesn"t make him an archangel.

Omniscient
Con didn"t reply to John 16:30 and 21:17 which show he was omniscient. Con claims to be human he couldn"t know anything about God or perform miracles, so didn"t the OT prophets know about God and perform miracles? Were they not human?

Uncreated
"All things were made through him, and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." (ESV John 1:3). So the Father did not make anything without the Son already being there to assist him, thus, the Son could not be a created being. Isa 44:26 says God created ALONE. HE HAD NO HELP. So to help create the universe, Jesus would have to be God, otherwise Isa 44:26 is a lie.

Who is the Savior?
Con says, "people may have mistakenly called him God," but God wasn"t mistaken when "of the Son he says,"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Heb 1:8)
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for his responses. Also, I was running low on time so I did not address every detail in full length, but this is not to be taken as agreement.

Prayers to Jesus

Just a quick note. Many others receive prayers such a Saints. This does not make them God too.

God AND Jesus

Now we need to talk about "Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it without changing the intended meaning! This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a 'prepositional' construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly." [3]. Now looking at Titus 2:13 [4] "'of us' in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is a 'prepositional' genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means 'of savior;'"

The Trinity violates logic

My opponent has apparently never heard of formal logic, which I did say was the logic I was using unlike how my opponent falsely claimed I didn't say what logic I was using. Formal logic goes all the way back to Aristotle. Formal logic is where we get syllogism and logical fallacies. A good example of a syllogism is

Premise 1: A=B
Premise 2: B=C
Conclusion: A=C

There is noting you can do to make the Premises true, but the conclusion false.

Premise 1: The Father = God [1].
Premise 2: The Son = God [1].
Conclusion: The Father = The Son

Except the Trinity denies this conclusion because "The Father is not the Son" [1]. It violates formal Logic.

There is nothing about the existence of God that violates Formal logic, although some argue it violates other forms of logic.

My opponent also mentions quantum mechanics which says some particles are so tiny you can't even measure them without changing them but the this theory only works if before you measure them the particle is in a superposition, which is every possible state at the same time. However, this seems quite pointless to bring up since God is omnipresent, so he is not only at 3 place at once, but everywhere. Further, this wasn't the problem I made about the Trinity.

The trinity is not 3 Gods or 1 God + 1 God + 1 God. This makes it seem like each are separate Gods the way my opponent wrote this.

My opponent seems to keep avoiding this part even though this was my very first objection and even stated why. Instead they keep misrepresenting what I am actually saying.

John 14:28

Divine: heavenly, godlike. Angels are heavenly beings which can do supernatural things. They are thus divine beings. He gets the name of Christ, the messiah, because it is the most imporatant name to humans because without this name there is no hope of salvation. Even in most translations of the Bible God name is read as LORD or GOD.

The section of Philippians discussed here deals with "Christ’s Example of Humility" [6]. "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," (Philippians 2:4-6). The first part says to put others before yourself then it goes on to say have the same mind set as Christ Jesus. Then though he was in the form of God, probably like all men were created in the image of God (Genisis 1:27), and the explicitly says did not count equality with God. This shows Humility; equating yourself with God would be the opposite of humility.

As what what Bible I read I usually prefer the English Standard Version.

No Man Has Seen God

What does oxygen look like? From Far away like this


And from close up like this



My God

It is important to note “God” is not the name of God.

Matthew 28:17 actually says "And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted." I see no giving of any authority like my opponent claims.

The difference between a voice and a trumpet is that a trumpet is a external object, and a voice is an internal property.

Omniscient

Humans don't perform miracles only supernatural beings can. John 16:30 says "Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God." This makes the distictions between God and Jesus. Even My opponent said Jesus on Earth had "limited knowledge", but anyways as stated in Mathhew 24:36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Since Jesus is not the Father the is something he does not know.

Uncreated

It is true that nothing anyone can see was made without Jesus. My opponent says "Isa 44:26 says God created ALONE. HE HAD NO HELP" Lets see what Isaiah 44:26 says "who confirms the word of his servant and fulfills the counsel of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be built, and I will raise up their ruins’;" [2]. Unless I am reading this wrong there is nothing about God getting no help. Also, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). To beget means create or cause. This means The Father beget/created the Son.

Who is the Savior?


That is just misunderstood. The same wording appears in Psalm 45:6 [5], and if that verse was read like how my opponent suggest we should read Hebrews 1:8 then it would say that Israel King was God too. However, we know better than that, and in both situations neither the Son nor the Israel King was called God.


Sources
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com...
[4] http://biblehub.com...
[5] http://biblehub.com...
[6] http://biblehub.com...


Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

Prayers to Jesus

Con doesn"t provide a single Bible verse to support his idea that prayer is given to the saints. Nowhere does the Bible say this. In fact, Jesus said we can"t come to God through anyone but him, because he is the ONLY mediator between God and men. (John 14:6; 1 Tim 2:5) So this fails as a rebuttal against the evidence I presented from 1 John 5, Acts 7 and John 14 that prayer is given to Jesus. What Catholic tradition teaches today about praying to saints has no bearing at all on whether the Bible teaches the Trinity.

God AND Jesus

"The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English:

1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou
1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou

Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word.

Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said,

Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers. There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed." https://www.google.com...

Now if Con can give us actual examples which parallel Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the two terms don"t apply to the same subject, he would have a case. Until he does so he is simply ignoring proper grammar.

The Trinity violates logic

Con simply assumes the Bible has to be rational and logical to him. I would challenge him to show me the verse where it says this. This debate is not about if the Trinity is logical, but about if the Bible teaches it. So if it were found that the Bible teaches an illogical doctrine, this still doesn"t win him the debate. Furthermore, he claims he is using formal logic, and my question to him would still be the same " whose formal logic? Aristotle? Because it seems to me that people today debate and disagree contentiously over issues while BOTH using formal logic. Yet they don"t accept that the premises naturally lead to the conclusions given on either side.

Con said:
Premise 1: The Father = God [1].
Premise 2: The Son = God [1].
Conclusion: The Father = The Son

This is the same as saying:
Premise 1: Daley = human
Premise 2: Daley"s opponent = human
Conclusion: Daley = Daley"s opponent

The premises don"t lead to the conclusion because they ignore background information, namely, "human" is describing the nature of the individual and not their identity as a person. So since there can be more than one person with human nature, it need not be that Daley be his opponent. Similarly, given that more than one person is by nature God, or Divine, we need not conclude they are the same person so that the Father = the Son.

Con simply assumes beforehand that a single being cannot have three minds, or centres of consciousness interacting with each other, and thus his whole argument is based on a lack of imagination. By even if this were impossible, why can"t the Bible teach it? Many holy books teach many strange things, they need not even be true. This debate is about what the Bible teaches, not what seems logical to man. I also showed that what we call impossible today is simply based on limited knowledge. Quantum Physics has made many things we thought impossible before into reality today. How much more so can a God who is infinite in power and wisdom do things beyond the limits of our logic.

Philippians 2:4-6

Again, Con provides no Scripture to show us that angels are divine. He simply gives his own definition of what divine means, but the Bible only applies this term to God, and God alone.

Philippians 2:4-6 says that Jesus was in the morphe of God. Man was never in the Bible said to be in the morphe of God. He was made in God"s image and likeness, but never in his form. I suggest Con read what Greek Scholars say on what morphe means. Man does not have the innate characteristics, the nature, of God. But this is what morphe refers to according to W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words.

Illustration, if I am equal to God, but I don"t think about holding onto that equality. Instead, I become a man, I humble myself, and become a servant, now that is an example of humility to imitate. But if I begin as an inferior being, my not trying to get equal to God doesn"t show humility at all! Humility is about lowering yourself less than you really are. Further, the text actually says Jesus BECAME a servant, which means he was not a servant before, but an equal.

No Man Has Seen God

I gave multiple instances where the Bible says that God, not angels, but God, was seen in the flesh, therefore, men seeing Jesus would not prove that he is not God because God has been seen already. Again, it just shows the Bible disagrees with his ideas about formal logic, for in his logic, God can"t be both seen, and not seen, at the same time, and yet this is exactly what the Bible says about God in Exodus 33:18-33 where Moses saw God"s back and John 1:18 where no man has seen God. God was also seen In Exodus 24:9-11; Genesis 18:1-5, 20-33; 32:30.

My God

Con says that "God" is not the name of God. To that, the Bible says: "his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." (Isa 9:6, KJV) The Bible says "God" is a name, that settles it for me. In fact, Lord is also the NT translation of Yahweh in the OT when quotations are being made, as evidence in all the manuscripts of the NT we have today. The name Yahweh doesn"t appear in any of them, only as Kurious, Lord. So both Lord and God are names of the Most High.

Matthew 28:17 actually says "And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted." They wouldn"t worship him if he wasn"t God. Previously, Con argued that when Thomas said "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28, if he thought Jesus was God he would have worshipped him on that occasion. Well they worship him here, does Con accept this proof? He sees no giving of any authority here because that comes in verse 18, "ALL authority has been given me in heaven and on earth."

I"ve already established from Hebrews 1:6 that since ALL the angels worship Jesus, he can"t be an angel. So he can"t be Michael the archangel. So what if he has an archangel"s voice? That voice also sounds like a trumper (Rev 1:10), does it make him a trumpet? This trumpet-like voice is also internal.

Omniscient

Con said, humans don't perform miracles only supernatural beings can. Well, Jesus performed miracles, like raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11, turning water into wine in John 2:1-11, and raising himself from the dead. (John 2:19-22) So Jesus was more than a man by Con"s own argument, he was divine. John 16:30 distinguishes between Jesus and God the Father, that doesn"t show he doesn"t share his Father"s nature, for example omniscience. This same verses says Jesus KNOWS ALL THINGS. Con ignored this part. Thus, its saying Jesus is by nature, God, and since there is only one being who is God, that being must be more than one person.

Uncreated

Con admits "It is true that nothing anyone can see was made without Jesus." But the Bible includes even the things "invisible" (Col 1:16). John 1:3 says "ALL THINGS," not just the visible things.

My apologies if I said Isaiah 44:26, I mean Isaiah 44:24: "Thus saith the Lord, they redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretched forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF." Yes, God had no help, so when the Bible says God created everything THROUGH his Son Jesus, it"s either saying Jesus is included as part of that God who did it alone, or else we have a contradiction. (Heb 1:1-2)

John 3:16, begotton in this verse comes from the Greek word monogenes, from mono " only, and genes. The latter part, genes, does not from from gennao (to beget), but from genos (kind); thus, the word means "only one of a kind," and that"s why the NIV translates it as "only Son" instead of "only begotten Son." This is confirmed by Liddel & Scott"s Greek-English Lexicon, W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words, and A.T. Robertson"s Word Pictures in the NT.

Who is the Savior?

Jesus is the rightful king of Israel. Psalm 45:6 was about him.

Quesitons:
1, Which Bible verse says that God cannot violate formal logic?
2, Can God appear in the form of 3 men having a conversation?
3, If not, what prevents God from being able to do so?
4, If yes, how is that different from the Trinity?

I look forward to Con's answers to these questions.
Guidestone

Con

Prayers to Jesus

I didn't say it was in the bible, but it is a catholic belief to pray to saints [1].

God AND Jesus

Jesus even explicitly says he has a God in John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (ESV) Also, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (ESV 1 Corinthians 8:6), and "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (ESV 1 Peter 1:3) These show Jesus had a God, and that was the Father.

Sharp's rule was made up centuries later and simply does not work like it says. For example "our great King and Queen, Elizabeth" This shows just because and is in there doesn't mean it the same person, and rightfully so because they are not in this example and in the Bible.

Concluding, scripture clearly separates God and Jesus thus denying the Trinity.

The Trinity violates logic


My opponent compares being God to being Human. This is not valid because God is a single position, for there is only one god, while being human is a characteristic and it is a group.

There is no Bible verse that says the Bible is harmonious and has no contradictions, but not everything is in the bible as my opponent has argued in a different debate before "The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Christians should base their beliefs on the Scriptures (the Bible) only is not a doctrine that holds up to Biblical scrutiny" [2]. However, "God is not a God of confusion." (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Also, everyone has the same formal logic, there are not different formal logic's for different people. This is because Formal logic is about forms "propositions, statements, or assertively used sentences and of deductive arguments" [3]. My opponent keeps mixing up formal logic with logic in general which are two district things. For example my opponent says "based on limited knowledge" which has nothing to do with formal logic, or "beyond the limits of our logic" this is another case of the difference between logic and formal logic.

My opponent says my argument is a lack of imagination, this is quite hypocritical because the same could be said about his disagreement about evolution, but he thinks that is right [4].


No Man Has Seen God

"The Bible often uses the idea of seeing figuratively, to represent enlightenment. (Isaiah 6:10; Jeremiah 5:21; John 9:39-41)" [5]. Also, Moses did not see God, but as said earlier it was an angel as described in Exodus 3:2. "Similarly, when the Bible says that God “spoke to Moses face-to-face,” it means that God conversed with Moses intimately. (Exodus 4:10, 11;33:11)" [5].

John 14:28

The definition of Divine is actually from-Webster [6]. However, my opponent has stated before "Christian doctrine should also be derived from Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit (as given through the prophets, apostles, etc), and the Traditions of the Church which can be supported by logical argument as long as these do not contradict Scripture." [2]. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia under Angels it has a subsection "As divine agents governing the world" [7]. Calling Angels divine does not contradict scripture, and can be supported by logical argument, so my opponent should surely accept angels are divine.

My God

God did give his name in Isaiah 42:8, and it can be read Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah, etc. However this shows God name is not God.

Omniscient

Yes, Jesus was more than Man, but less than God. Jesus by nature is divine, but so are angels that doesn't mean they are all God. The Bible even states "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (ESV 1 Kings 8:27)

Uncreated

Jesus did not create all things. For example, he did not create the Mona Lisa, or the Great Wall of China. The term all things is more limited than that.

Who is the Savior?

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;" (ESV Psalm 45:6) There is no way to tell if this was about Jesus, if it was. However, since we know God and Jesus are not the same we know it isn't about Jesus.

When did the Trinity Come?

"THE Bible was completed in the first century C.E. Teachings that led to the development of the Trinity began to be officially formulated in 325 C.E.—more than two centuries later—at a council in the city of Nicaea" [8]. It was not followed by first century Christians, and didn't even become formal until this council. This would seem to show the bible does not teach it.

Sources
[1] http://www.ourcatholicprayers.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.britannica.com...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.jw.org...
[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[7] http://www.newadvent.org...
[8] http://www.jw.org...[search_id]=20ae9fba-526c-48f0-9354-f02363a5cd36&insight[search_result_index]=2


Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
daley
GoOrDin, please post me the debate challenge and we will see.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Maybe that's what the Bible teaches but it doesn't make it true, Plus which versions of the Bible are we accepting, the current version or many of the texts that never made it into the circulated good book.

God is an absolute being, He is not divided. It makes no logical sense to think of God as three people, God is a singular entity.

The minimal definition for God we can accept is supreme, Supreme means the highest in rank or the highest authority, If there is another with a higher authority then he automatically claims the title of God.

Jesus said he does not work by his own authority but by the one who sent him, The Father clearly has a higher authority than the son, therefore we have a distinction between the two, One has more authority than the other. Thus we conclude that the most Supreme and the highest authority is held by a singular being. Namely God.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
I would like to debate the cause of Death
Posted by daley 3 years ago
daley
and what would u prefer to debate?
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
GoOrDin
So the only debate here is that the Bible would not teach God is three persons.
ahaha. So u win already.

God is the Imperceivable, the Perceivable, and the Perceiver.

Tah dah. Glory, being in the name of Jesus Christ, is retained by God!
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
I measured it well, I wanna talk honestly: I wont have time for it, I apologise again. I will have time but I do not want to lose that time for thinking, writing, argueing, instead of it, I want to lose it for a thing more entertainer. Let us do it later when I am on vacation.

If I wanted to avoid the debate, I could have made excuses or just ignored and keep on ignoring, be sure, I am not avoiding, I really have limited time.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
daley
thank you. i think you are one of the best opponents on this matter. i'm sure it will be a good debate
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
I will accept this after eleven hours. Even though I am so busy and lazy, I will try to do it in my busy days.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
Nowadays, I am busy, soon I will be on vacation, I will PM you and we will start this again.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
daleyGuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't make an argument in round one, and pro was gracious about it So conduct to pro. Con also didn't seem to understand the resolution, and dropped more arguments than pro did ,so arguments to pro.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
daleyGuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Positive resolution, PRO bears the full burden to show that the bible (which I assume to be the Christian bible) teaches the Trinity -the tripartite division of God into three persons. PRO cited sufficient scripture to show that that was the case, and therefore meets his burden. CON attempted to make non-scruputre based arguments which, even if they hold, are inconsistent with the meaning of the scripture PRO cited and are beyond the scope of this debate because this debate only focuses on what "the bible" teaches -and not what makes logical sense to CON. Clear PRO win. Conduct to PRO because of CON's timing out a round.