The Instigator
iTruthSeeker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
isaacthemaniac
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Judeo/Christian God is Truine

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 86833
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

iTruthSeeker

Pro

Structure:
Round 1 - Acceptance (No arguments)
Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3 - 1st Rebuttal
Round 4 - Last Rebuttal/Conclusion

I've seen frequent debates that the God of the OT is not triune and the Trinity is a later invention of the NT church... That's just simply not true.

Old Testament is an authoritative source..
New Testament is an authoritative source only to describe the Trinity.

Definition of Trinity: the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sources: https://www.google.com...
isaacthemaniac

Con

As per my understanding of the debate rules
Acceptance"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.(
As we can see it is I not We. Three is a plural number. The old testament for the most part condemns the notion of God being one of a Trinity, and Moses never called out to the holy spirit nor Jesus. The modern understanding of Trinity are based on a concoction God is not truine I say God not Judeo/Christian God as that would somehow imply that God belongs exclusively to Christians and Jews )
Just facts not arguments
Debate Round No. 1
iTruthSeeker

Pro

I appreciate my opponents participation in this debate. Lets me begin by defining the Trinity:

the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead

There is one being in three personhoods..

One "What"
Three "Who's"

Here's an illustration to understand more clearly:





We see this idea paralleled in Jesus' statements:
I and the Father are one.” John 10:33

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 (Matthew 28:19)

Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(John 14:9-11)



We also see this idea riddled throughout the Gospels:

And when Jesus (The Son) was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, (The Father) a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)

In the beginning was the ( Son) Word, and the Word was with God (The Father), and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him (John 1:1)

We understand that the Trinity is a key doctrine embedded in the NT.. In order to remain consistent, the OT also must describe God as triune otherwise, it renders the entire NT as fallacious. As a Christian, I believe that All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and must be inherent or else.. Self defeating.

Lets take a look at some key verse's that are found in the OT regarding God.

*OT refers to Old Testament, NT refers to New Testament

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26)
"Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22)
"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech." (Genesis 11:7)

Notice the plurality in these OT phrases taken out of THE FIRST BOOK of the Hebrew Bible... Why was God continually found referring to himself in the plural form? A common "answer" says that God was referring to the angels.. Let me show you why that's not even remotely possible:

1). Humans were not made in the image of angels
2). Nowhere in the OT does a leader refers to himself with the term "us".. It is not a common element found in the biblical literature.

There is no other explanation rather than God being triune in nature.. as described above. I'm interested in hearing my opponents response.



Lets look at some more verse's:

"Come near to Me [God], listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (Isaiah 48:16)

We see here that God is speaking through the prophet Isaiah we see later in the verse: Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God

We see here the idea that God was there when He promised Israel's deliverance.. and he is sent by God and His Spirit. What does that sound like?

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:21)

This is another great example of the relational nature of God as the verse is describing the very same relationship that Jesus spoke about hundreds if not thousands of years later!



More examples:

"A Psalm of David. The LORD (Jehovah) says to my Lord (Adonai): "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psalm 110:1)

This is paralleled in Isaiah 6:1: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord (Adonai), high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.

Besides the obvious fact of this being a Messianic prophecy.. It clearly shows the Lord (Father) giving the (Son) authority in heaven as paralleled in Jesus statement: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Matthew 28:18



We also have the vision of Daniel 7:13:

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days (God) And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

Let me add that the word "serve" used in this phrase is latreuó (λατρεa3;ω).. This word translates to "a service rendered to God". This phrase was never used in reference to an earthly ruler.. Only God. but wait.. We see that someone like a Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days and was given all authority and all the nations would serve (latreuó) Him? This is by far the best reference in the OT to the triune nature of God as we see 2 separate individuals both being worshipped as God.. Lets also see what Jesus says on this issue:

the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see the Son of Man coming on the right hand of the Power (Father) and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)




There is a plethora of examples found in the OT regarding the triune nature of God... If one is willing to look hard enough. The OT and NT is a beautiful representation of Gods ability to bind thousands of years of literature into one cohesive story..

I gladly hold the BOP and challenge my opponent to look at these matters objectively.. It is my goal to show that:

"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" Romans 15:4

Back to Con



Sources:
1). http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2). https://carm.org...
3).http://biblehub.com...
4). https://www.openbible.info...



isaacthemaniac

Con

Opening Argument:
My opponent claims that 1=3 and uses a fancy diagram to explain this mathematical flaw. 1=1 and 3=3. Hence if God is one,then he can not be 3 . If God is three,then are the three equal in power, in thought and will or are they three distinct entities like a council? Also God existed before creation ,does that mean that the holy spirit and Jesus existed with him or did he create them? How can God be his own father,his own son and his own spirit and still be one?I would call this blasphemy and how can God have a son while he is not married? When Jesus says I and the father are one,does that mean the son is the father? And hence it is not a Trinity but a duo? Or doesn't it imply that they are one in the sense that Jesus follows what he is commanded to do John 17:21
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. So this would mean disciples =Jesus=father hence father =disciples and that is an absurd claim, so clearly they are one in the message but not in being. How come Jews do not belief in the Trinity? Wouldn't the safeguarders of the ot have believed in this fact if at all it had been true. Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."" [John 20:17] does this mean you and me are also God? Clearly this verse destroys all your arguments as Jesus acknowledges that he has a God and he is not he. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second is this: "Love your neighbour as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these." so God is one not three as the Bible puts it. How then can we justify a Trinity that is not even mentioned by name in the ot and nt............But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) again another clear distinction, how can Jesus and God be one yet one is supreme and superior and more knowledgeable? Also while Jesus worships God,just like other men. does that make other men God?Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16) all these verses show the subjugation of Jesus.
Also if Jesus is part of God and man killed Jesus then man killed and can kill God, this is a ridiculous notion,but one my opponent would have us consider.Luke 5:16 "And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."

Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26) Our to imply God's attributes ,those of mercy, love, will and the likes, our to imply his power. Out of thousands of pages my opponent chooses these verses while ignoring the hundreds of ot verses that show us God is one.
For example
And He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2)
And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)
and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, (Genesis 22:16)

"Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22)
So God,holy spirit and Jesus are the us? Why then did Jews not acknowledge this fact? Not did Moses confirm it,rather it is as a figure of speech, can God's power be contained in the singular?

"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another"s speech."
Again my point is the same, ambiguity in religious texts does not make facts of our claims, only a few verses speak in this manner while the majority are extremely singular either it's a contradiction or a difference in understanding.
Debate Round No. 2
iTruthSeeker

Pro

I appreciate my opponents response.. I want to start by clarifying my main contentions:

1). Description of the Trinity
2). References of the Trinity in the OT

Lets begin with my first contention:

1).

My opponent attempts to display the Trinity as logically impossible.. He states: My opponent claims that 1=3 and uses a fancy diagram to explain this mathematical flaw. 1=1 and 3=3.

This is a common misconception.. again let me reiterate,

a being is the "who"
a person is the "what"

I am a human "being"... That is "what" I am but that is not "who" I am.. Understand? a being and a person is not synonymous.

Also.. not being a perfect example.. We see people with borderline personality disorder having multiple "Persons" that manifest in 1 "being"

The Trinity is not 1 being = 3 beings.. Or 1 person = 3 persons.. No its 1 being (what) = 3 persons (who's).. Not a logically impossibility at all

He then states: Also God existed before creation ,does that mean that the holy spirit and Jesus existed with him or did he create them?

They all existed as God in eternity past, lets look at what John 1:1 says,

"In the beginning was the Word (the Son), and the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was God.2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

So we see that the Son was not created but existed in eternity past with the Father and everything was made through and by Him... He was not created.

We also know that God the Spirit existed in eternity past due to Genesis 1:2: The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

My opponent continues by saying: "How can God be his own father,his own son and his own spirit and still be one?

We see that God the Father, Son and Holy spirit are all equally God (remember 1 being) but 3 persons that fulfill differing roles within the Godhead

God the Father sends the Son (John 3:16)

God the Son is obedient to God the Father (John 14:28)

The Holy Spirit is sent by The Father and the Son (John 14)

This is also explained in Philippians 2:6: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

This is essentially a form of relational subordination... The three persons perform different roles in regards to salvation and the revelation of Himself.

Opponent states: "When Jesus says I and the father are one,does that mean the son is the father? And hence it is not a Trinity but a duo? Or doesn't it imply that they are one in the sense that Jesus follows what he is commanded to do John 17:21"

No.. I and the Father are 1 (being).. Not the same person... Look back at my given illustration for further reference.

"How come Jews do not belief in the Trinity? Wouldn't the safeguard's of the OT have believed in this fact if at all it had been true."

This is known as progressive revelation.. We see hints of Gods nature in the OT until the "Word (Son) became flesh" and promised "The Holy Spirit".. God's triune nature was fully revealed with Jesus.. Although again, we see traces of it in the OT.. This parallels Jesus' statement:

"Father, you are the One who is good. The world does not know you, but I know you. And these people know that you sent me. I showed them what you are like." (John 17: 24-25)

My opponent then states the greatest commandments given by Jesus' and replies: so God is one not three as the Bible puts it. How then can we justify a Trinity that is not even mentioned by name in the ot and nt..

This is a quickie... God IS 1... 1 being. I've already shown how the triune nature of God is found in the OT.. This statement is just another rerun of his previous arguments...

He then states: .But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) again another clear distinction, how can Jesus and God be one yet one is supreme and superior and more knowledgeable?

Let me ask... Would you consider the president greater than yourself? Yes you would.. He performs a greater role in society.. Is he any more human than you? No.. you are both the same "what" but "who" you are is subject to roles and higher/lower levels of importance.. Same with the Trinity.. this is easily explainable .. We know that Jesus limits his omniscience to be obedient to the father (Philippians 2:6).

"Also if Jesus is part of God and man killed Jesus then man killed and can kill God"

Well depends on how you define die.. If you mean that God ceased from existing.. Then no. The biblical depiction of death is the separation of soul and body. The body dies and the soul lives on. Therefore, Jesus died in the flesh but remained in spirit... Again not an issue to the Christian theist.

All in all.... My opponent seems to think that Christians don't understand that God the Father and God the Son are distinct. We believe that very thing. Jesus praying to "his God" in the Matthew account does not undermine the Trinity at all.. If read in the context... We understand that Jesus is fulfilling his role in the Godhead.. Like an obedient Son obeying his Father. We find that the Holy Spirit also prays for us on our account (Romans 8:26)

I think its safe to say that my first contention remains plausibly unharmed.. My opponent gives common misconceptions to biblical doctrine that really hold no weight.

Lets move to my second contention:

2). References of the Trinity in the OT

*note: my opponent did not address the OT references I gave in .. Daniel 7:17, Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 48:16.. I'm curious as to why? I hope you make some room in your next rebuttal for those....

Remember I gave those three Genesis verse's that show the plurality used in describing Gods nature? Here's what my opponent has to say for it..

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26) Our to imply God's attributes ,those of mercy, love, will and the likes, our to imply his power"

...What? That makes no logical sense and is not supported whatsoever.. Let me give an example.. Lets say I really want to draw the boogeyman.. I go up to my parents and say: in going to draw the boogeyman in OUR image according to OUR likeness.. The're going to think your talking about them.. Not your attributes. It does not logically follow. This is a very sad rebuttal and shows the weakness in my opponents argument.

He then states: "Out of thousands of pages my opponent chooses these verses while ignoring the hundreds of OT verses that show us God is one."

Yes we have tons of verses where God says that He is One.. We also have verses (that I gave) that show us multiple depictions of Yahweh.. It only logically concluded that God is 1! (being) and is 3! (persons).. If you don't accept that.. Then you need to admit that there are contradictions in the bible.. so far, you have not gave any reasonable rebuttal as to these specific verse'.

My opponent then puts forth a terrible mistake.. He quotes Genesis 22:2, 22:12, and 22:16.. showing what? ABRAHAMS SON... Not Gods.. I'm starting to think that my opponent is coping and pasting scriptures that he only take a glance at.. It seems to me that he thinks God is speaking about His son.. But in fact, God is speaking about Abraham's son.. Read..

22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

3This clearly shows God talking about Abraham's son.. not His own. My opponents verse means nothing.. Except a few giggles ;).

In response to Genesis 3:3 my opponent states: So God,holy spirit and Jesus are the us? Why then did Jews not acknowledge this fact? Not did Moses confirm it,rather it is as a figure of speech, can God's power be contained in the singular?

That's the only logical conclusion.. The Jews did not know Jesus because He was not incarnate yet.. He is the Word (John 1:1) of God at this point.. The Jews would not have known the distinction.. Although they felt compelled to write the Words of God in the plural.. Interesting..

Also.. I urge my opponent to find 1 figure of speech were somebody uses the plural form of "Us" in reference to attributes rather than persons.. Inside or outside the bible.. You wont find it.

Despite the massive theology lesson.. We have seen nothing that somehow undermines the logic of the Trinity or even remotely explains the OT passages that refer to the Trinity from my opponent.. We've seen a lot of Bob N' Weaving that quite frankly is common.. For some reason people cannot wrap there minds around the Trinity so they give up and throw out the clear references found in both the OT and the NT

My goal is to show how CLEAR AS DAY it is.. In the words of my opponent.. "its either it's a contradiction or a difference in understanding."

Back to Con


Sources:
1). http://www.bible.ca...
2). https://www.christiancourier.com...
3). https://www.biblegateway.com...
4). OT and NT
isaacthemaniac

Con

Round 1 - Acceptance (No arguments)
Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3 - 1st Rebuttal
I was attempting to follow these rules as such I tried not to have rebuttals except the verses that I felt the need to comment upon.
My colleague is attempting to convince us that the trinity is one being who consists of three parts but unified in nature. His explanation by defining "who" and "what" is an attempt to say who means God, what means trinity, but if human beings (what) are unitary (me) (what), the notion that the creator who according to the bible said let us create man in our likeness/image would also be deduction be unitary ; if man was made of three parts that is the heart which would also be independent with its own mind, the mind, and another component that make three then the verse would not be contradictory . However, since God said let us make man in our likeness, and since each human being is singular, as having multiple personalities does not make you multiple people, then in the likeness of God means that God is also singular and as such can not be part of a trinity. It is a logical impossibility for three distinct parts to be one , why, because when Jesus is on earth then God is incomplete and the same applies to the holy spirit. And if God is three in one or one in three, that would mean that no hierarchy exists as the same entity is represented by three different components, however Jesus prayed to God and as such the existence of a hierarchy shows the presence of different wills ,abilities and power and by that analogy the trinity can not be logical.

The Trinity is not 1 being = 3 beings.. Or 1 person = 3 persons.. No its 1 being (what) = 3 persons (who's).. Not a logically impossibility at all

He then states: Also God existed before creation ,does that mean that the holy spirit and Jesus existed with him or did he create them?
For arguments sake, even if I took John 1;1 on face value, it is the only verse in thousands that makes such a claim and is contradicted by various other biblical verses. How can something of such dire importance i.e the word the existed in the beginning only be addressed in one verse and be exclusively ignored by the jews nor repeated by the prophets sent to them? Either we have a corrupted text or this is the correct verse and the rest are wrong. It says "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God." This does not mean the word is a separate entity, and my opponent clearly edited the verses to add that part, here is the reading of John without the son and father, more proof that my opponent is disingenuous
They all existed as God in eternity past, lets look at what John 1:1 says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"." This is like saying, in the beginning there was God and God was the word , it does not mean Jesus is the word. My opponent is simply making analogies from other verses in an attempt to impose his will on God"s nature. The notion that he uses the new testament to validate his point in the old testament is fundamental proof that he is justifying an innovation, rather he should use the old testament to validate the new testament. Also the book of John was written by an unknown person, hence it is logical to suspect foul play as Jesus NEVER uttered these words. So how can it be true if Jesus did not utter it but the author of John did. Was he superior to Jesus? I doubt that.

What does the spirit of God mean, does this mean that a separate entity was present?(as my colleague would try to make us think?) rather it means that God"s presence was manifest as God can not be conceived by the minds but a spiritual description would attest to his holiness( a title erroneously given to the pope) hence by that analogy, one can never conclude that God the spirit was present. Rather God was present and moved in a manner befitting him, and in this case spiritual. Only someone intent on accusing God of being triune would dispute this.
How can God the father, The Son , The Holy spirit be equally God( mind you 1=3) when one was crucified, one is subservient to another and another is worshipped and asked by the others? This is illogical, quoting verses can not negate this fundamental fact as most verses where written by unknown men who are subject to mistakes, a human quality. My opponent uses the unverifiable book of John as his prime proof of this theory, however isn"t it proof enough in itself that he can not point out ot and nt verses besides in John that categorically support the notion of God existing as father, son, holy spirit? What about those who say holy mother of God, does that mean that God has a mother too, and was born of a human womb that is subject to blood? Would a person really say this of his creator? Luke 1;31
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus. Ample proof that Jesus did not exist prior to that point. So we know Jesus started to exist at birth, how then was he God again?

"This is life eternal to know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" -- John 17:3. Did God sent himself, shouldn"t it have been "This is eternal life to know thee the ONE TRUE GOD who has come?? This verse clearly shows Jesus was not the word , he was simply sent by God, a creation. My opponent is very liberal with his words.

the Bible says that both Solomon (Proverbs 8:22) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) existed before their human births. So Jesus, Solomon and Jeremiah are also part of God?
If progressive revelation exists, how come no new revelation has appeared since the NT? If it has, then you would be referring to the Quran which categorically rejects the notion that God is part of a trinity.
"Father, you are the One who is good. The world does not know you, but I know you. And these people know that you sent me. I showed them what you are like." (John 17: 24-25) YES, EXACTLY Jesus says I KNOW you not I AM YOU OR PART OF YOU"..
The triune nature of God is not in the old testament, rather using a play on translations and by the way the oldest bible manuscripts were already lost to time, meaning verification is almost impossible hence how can we use illegitimate documents to invalidate God"s oneness? The greatest commandment is proof because Jesus did not say worship me, or worship us, he said God, and by extension that commandment included him but not as part of God, my opponent simply puts a few verses from John then claims that in effect invalidate all monotheistic verses , this is what is absurd and does not account for why there is no mention of the word trinity, had it been tru, it would have been present.

He then states: .But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) again another clear distinction, how can Jesus and God be one yet one is supreme and superior and more knowledgeable?

Let me ask... Would you consider the president greater than yourself? No, I woud not, Nixon was a man of poor character, so why would I think he is greater than many other men of greater character. He performs a greater role in society.. Is he any more human than you? Does the performance of a greater role make one greater and any human being normally can perform that role, if Jesus limits his omniscience to be obedient to his father( a fact not established by biblical verses but by my opponent"s own words i.e. hearsay) then in that case Jesus can not be God because God by description can not be obedient to anyone, hence the spirit ,s on and father would have to share the same will and consciousness to be one, but they do not. No, ny opponent, trinity is impossible to grasp. Having a different level of importance does not make one less important we have judiciary, legislature, executive but they are equal yet have different purposes. So if trinity was true, then Jesus would have no need to be obedient to God as they are equal but of different functionality, again a notion that defeats logic and clear faith.
"Also if Jesus is part of God and man killed Jesus then man killed and can kill God" No, If man can kill Jesus who is god or part of god, then when all men unite they can kill god. It is not abou my definition of death, god would not be able to talk or do anything but would be crucified and humiliated by his own creation? Does that seem possible to you? Jesus died in flesh but remained in spirit, if Jesus"s flesh is part of Jesus and Jesus is god or part of god then god died in flesh and as such since we humans are flesh we are guaranteed to be stronger than god"s flesh side. This is all very ridiculous and frankly belittles God"s omnipotence.

"My opponent gives common misconceptions to biblical doctrine that really hold no weight." Is it a misconception because I find your assertion illogical or because you need faith to accept the illogical?

Lets move to my second contention:

*note: I did not address these verses because a they have already been interpreted by rabbis and well explained yet as is the habit of Christians , they have been used out of context or mistranslated simple to make a point. But I shall briefly show my reasoning:
Daniel 7:13..,.son of man Using a Hebrew source, since the ot is in Hebrew and as such it is logical, Within the context of Daniel passages, the use of son of man is explained by Rashi to denote: "one like a man was coming" - that is the human Jewish King Messiah, not Jesus, the devine Christian Messiah godhead.
Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet." (Psalm 110:1 KJV)

It appears from the KJV translation that the "Lord," which is God, said unto to "my Lord" " who missionaries would have you believe is Jesus (David"s "Lord") " "Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet."

Is the above verse speaking about the messiah? Not at all. Yet look at the first and second word "Lord" in the verse (they are side by side). Were you able to detect any difference between these two words in this fundamentalist Bible? In the "translation" they appear virtually identical because the Christian translator cleverly masked the text of the original Hebrew.
Although the two English words in the KJV translation were deliberately made to appear virtually identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different. Whereas the first word "Lord" in the Hebrew is a correct translation of יהוה, which is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the ineffable name of God, the second word "Lord" is a complete and deliberate mistranslation of the text. The second word "Lord" in the verse is an appalling translation of the Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (pronounced ladonee).

The correct and only translation of ladonee is "to my master" or "to my lord." The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.

To illustrate this vital point, let"s examine other places in the Bible where the exact same Hebrew word appears and find out how the same New American Standard Bible translates it there. Bear in mind, in none of the following examples do the Christian Bibles have any incentive for mistranslating the word adonee.

For example, we find the same Hebrew word, לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee), used in the following two verses which have been translated by the same King James Version where the identical word is used as in Psalm 110:

And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master. (ladonee: לַאדֹנִי;) [Abraham]." (Genesis 24:54, King James Version)

Jacob instructed the angels to bring the following message to his wicked brother Esau:

"And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) "Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now."" (Genesis 32:4, King James Version)

The Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) used in the above two verses is referring to Abraham and Esau, respectively. Notice that the Hebrew word used in both verses is identical to the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1. Why did the King James Version translate לַאדֹנִי; correctly in Genesis 24:54 as "to my master," or in Genesis 32:4 as "to my lord," yet deliberately mistranslate Psalm 110:1 as "Lord"? Why do most Christian Bibles make not distinction between those two words, as they do in each and every other place they appear in the Tanach?

The answer is obvious. Both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used by the Church to "prove" Jesus from the Jewish Scriptures and therefore they had no incentive to tamper with them. Psalm 110:1, on the other hand, is a passage flaunted by the New Testament and its missionaries as a verse that they argue "unquestionably points only to Jesus," and was deliberate mistranslated.

Some Christian translations are more transparent in their rendering of Psalm 110 than the New American Standard Bible. For example, the King James Version and a few other Bibles still render the second "Lord" as if it were sacred; however, they translate the first "LORD" in upper case. This is a helpful hint to the keen observer that there is a distinction between them. Of course, it"s up to the curious Bible student to then look up the second "Lord" in a Hebrew Bible. Only a careful investigation of the original Hebrew text would reveal how this verse was doctored.

It should be noted that while many Christian translators indulge in this manipulation of Psalm 110:1, some refrain from engaging in this practice. Numerous modern Christian Bibles have corrected Matthew"s mistranslation. For example, the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as " to my lord," in Psalm 110:1, clearly indicating that this word is not speaking of God.

As mentioned above, this tampering with Psalm 110:1 began at the time the Christian Bible was written. The Christian translators, who would later also mistranslate this verse, simply followed in the footsteps of the author of the first Gospel. If we look at the original Greek of Matthew 22:44 we find the same doctoring of the text in later Christian translations of the Book of Psalms. When Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 110:1 to the Pharisees, the identical Greek word _4;a3;`1;_3;_9;`2;2 (kurios pronounced koo-re-os) is used both times the word "Lord" appears in Matthew 22:44.

Finally, it is essential that we explore the meaning of Psalm 110:1. Of whom is this Psalm speaking? To whom are the words "my master" or "my lord" referring?

The Psalm begins with the opening Hebrew words מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד(Mizmor l"David)." The word "Mizmor" means "a song," and thus the opening phrase of this Psalm is, "A Song of David." In fact, the word Psalms comes from the Greek word `8;^5;_5;_6;a2;`2; (psalmos), which means "a song." Bible students are often unaware of this.

Why would King David be writing these songs? For whom was he writing them? Who did King David intend to sing these songs? With these questions in mind, we can begin to understand the meaning of Psalm 110.

One of King David"s greatest disappointments was God"s refusal to allow him to build the first Temple in Jerusalem. Although David"s son Solomon undertook that task, and eventually constructed the first Temple, David"s umbilical connection to Solomon"s Temple was significant.

For example, David founded the city of Jerusalem, the city where the Temple was built. In fact, both the city and the Temple were named after him, the City and Temple of David. Moreover, he made preparations for the building of the Temple, and even arranged for the Temple service (II Samuel 7; I Chronicles 14-17, 22-26). This is where the Book of Psalms played its central role. King David was a faithful servant of God who possessed extraordinary skills as a teacher, musician, and poet. In fact, King David authored most of the Book of Psalms. The central purpose of the composition of this sacred work for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. The Levites would stand on a platform and joyfully chant these spiritually exhilarating Psalms to an inspired audience. Accordingly, the Levites would sing allowed,

The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] "Sit thou at my right hand"" (Psalm 110:1)

For the Church, however, the Psalmist"s original intent was set aside because it was zealously committed to Christianizing this verse. Thus, the opening verse in Psalm 110 was altered in order to paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures.

Here is some advice. The only way to recognize rampant Christian tampering of the Bible is to read the passage in the original Hebrew language, without the biased filter of the Christian translator. Therefore, give your children a good Jewish education. Remember, the success of groups like Jews for Jesus represents the unpaid bills of the Jewish people.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer
I can do the same for all verses in the ot"should I really do this?even the verses he uses as proof are lacking So I ignored those fraudulent claims.

Remember I gave those three Genesis verse's that show the plurality used in describing Gods nature? Here's what my opponent has to say for it..

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness (Genesis 1:26) Our to imply God's attributes ,those of mercy, love, will and the likes, our to imply his power"
This is a very sad rebuttal and shows the weakness in my opponents argument.
How is it weakness in my argument, is my argument weaker than the argument that Jesus, God and the Holyspirit are three yet one and some more important some less and some pray , some don"t? of course not , rather God is one, so if he uses a plural term, it means either it is out of respect for himself or referring to his attributes and since man can not be compared to God hence one can not say , "Isaacthemaniac said, We shall do ths," speaking in the singular, rather "I shall do this" but God can, because he has what no man has and possess what no man can imagine hence I chose that because I assumed it would be self evident. However let us consider this view point"..
Three times in the book of Genesis (in its Primeval History, chaps. 1"11), God speaks in the first person plural.
Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7)

To whom is God speaking? The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else.

Note the study on the plural noun "God" [Elohim].

Historically, most Jewish commentators have said the Creator is here speaking to the angels of the heavenly assembly, his divine court. Most Christian interpreters have said the texts allude to interaction within the Triune Godhead.

In the last century, there has been a marked opinion shift among Christian commentators toward the traditional Jewish interpretation. The reason for this shift has not been due to ecumenical feelings but to a different approach in reading the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" in Christian terms).
Most commentators now believe the Bible should be interpreted on its own terms, without imposing later theological beliefs or agendas, either Jewish or Christian.
Thoughts?
"That's the only logical conclusion.. The Jews did not know Jesus because He was not incarnate yet.. He is the Word (John 1:1) of God at this point.. The Jews would not have known the distinction.. Although they felt compelled to write the Words of God in the plural.. Interesting.." What? Incarnate !what sort of explanation is this, the jews simply understood rightfully so that God is and was one, and the notion that they did not know Jesus incarnate yet while amongst them was Moses who spoke to God directly is foolish and would imply that modern day Christians are more knowledgeable than Moses. Also wouldn"t Jesus in his spirit form )even though we have already seen that according to luke he didn"t exist prior to being in Mary"s womb,) have talked with Moses too since he was God or part of God hence they both choose Moses? But he did not because he is not god and did not exist as such the jews did not know him at that point in time.People can wrap their mind around trinity because it is false, it contradicts monotheism and is frankly a page out of hunduism , that"s why its hard to grasp the logic rejects it, the mind struggles with it and faith shuns it. For this simple fact, people are seldom sure about it, but it is easier to believe in the one true God because it does not evoke the same frustrations of triune paganism and that is clearer than day. Select readings from outside Christianity and within to perharps wash away some bias. Argument Ends".
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 21, 5, 1-2 [trans. Jacob Neusner]
"Behold, the man has become like one of us" (Gen 3:22): R. Pappias interpreted the verse as follows: ""Behold, the man has become like one of us" means, like one of the ministering angels." . . . [5, 2] R. Judah bar Simon said, "["Like One of us" means] like the One of the world: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut 6:4)." Rabbis say, "["Like One of us" means] like Gabriel: "And one man in the midst of them clothed in linen" (Ezek 9:2) . . ."
Three times in the book of Genesis (in its Primeval History, chaps. 1"11), God speaks in the first person plural.

Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)
Behold, the man has become like one of us. (Gen 3:22)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language. (Gen 11:7)

To whom is God speaking? The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else.

Note the study on the plural noun "God" [Elohim].

Historically, most Jewish commentators have said the Creator is here speaking to the angels of the heavenly assembly, his divine court. Most Christian interpreters have said the texts allude to interaction within the Triune Godhead.

In the last century, there has been a marked opinion shift among Christian commentators toward the traditional Jewish interpretation. The reason for this shift has not been due to ecumenical feelings but to a different approach in reading the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" in Christian terms).

Most commentators now believe the Bible should be interpreted on its own terms, without imposing later theological beliefs or agendas, either Jewish or Christian.

In other words, these verses in Genesis (and passages like Isaiah 41:21-23 quoted above) need be viewed in light of their own contexts without biased interpretation. The desire is to understand what Moses or Isaiah, Jeremiah or the Chronicler understood by what they themselves wrote, in their own times.

This doesn't mean the original meanings cannot have implications beyond their contexts. Later biblical writers often appropriate and extend earlier texts to their own time or into the future. But, in my view, those "implications" should not contradict or turn the original words upsidedown.
Six Options

Presently, commentators itemize six explanations for what I call "the Genesis Plurals." They include:

1) God is speaking to members of his heavenly council.

2) God is speaking to himself, in self-deliberation ("Let us do this" = "I've decided I will do this").

3) God is using the "royal we," as ancient monarchs did when issuing divine decrees. We find older scholars often use "we" instead of "I" to express their opinions. In the Qur'an, Allah speaks as "we": "To Jesus, son of Mary, We gave clear evidence of the truth" [2:87].

4) The plural pronouns match the plural noun Elohim (God) in what some call a "plural of majesty" or "plenitude of might." Human monarchs have long done this. Since they are great, they use amplified pronouns for themselves.

5) The plurals are a vestige of polytheistic belief that the Israelites borrowed from their pagan neighbors. God is speaking to a pantheon of fellow deities: his wives and children.

6) God the Father is speaking to other members of the Trinity: either to God the Spirit or to God the (preincarnate) Son, or to both.
Jewish Interpreters
Ancient
Targum
Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 1:26
The Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image.

Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 3:22
The Lord God said to the angels who ministered before Him, Behold, Adam is sole [yechidai"unicus, unigenitus] on the earth, as I am sole in the heavens above.

Targum of Palestine (Jonathan ben Uzziel) on Gen 11:7
The Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend ...

Midrash
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 8, 3, 1 [trans. Jacob Neusner]
"And God said, "Let us make man" " (Gen 1:26). And with whom did he take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said, "With the works of heaven and earth he took counsel. . . ." R. Ammi said, "He took counsel with his own heart."

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 21, 5, 1-2 [trans. Jacob Neusner]
"Behold, the man has become like one of us" (Gen 3:22): R. Pappias interpreted the verse as follows: ""Behold, the man has become like one of us" means, like one of the ministering angels." . . . [5, 2] R. Judah bar Simon said, "["Like One of us" means] like the One of the world: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut 6:4)." Rabbis say, "["Like One of us" means] like Gabriel: "And one man in the midst of them clothed in linen" (Ezek 9:2) . . ."

[Top]

Talmud
Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b (trans. Jacob Shachter)
Rab Judah said in Rab"s name: When the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to create man, He [first] created a company of ministering angels and said to them: Is it your desire that we make a man in our image? [Gen 1:26]

R. Johanan said: In all the passages which the Minim* have taken [as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand. Thus:
Let us make man in our image [Gen 1:26],
" (refutation) And God created [sing.] man in His own image [Gen 1:27];
Come, let us go down and there confound their language [Gen 11:7],
" (refutation) And the Lord came down [sing.] to see the city and the tower [Gen 11:5]

* "Minim" is used in Talmudic literature to designate heretics of various kinds, including the Jewish disciples of Yeshua. The word literally means "believers."

Jewish Commentators

The best explanation, although rejected by the majority of contemporary commentators, is that we have here the plural of exhortation. When a person exhorts himself to do a given task he uses the plural: "Let us go!" "Let us rise up!" "Let us sit!" and the like. Thus we find in ii Sam. xxiv 14: Let us fall [nippela] into the hand of the Lord ... but into the hand of man let me not fall [eppolah]" [p. 55]

[Gen 3:22] Like one of us " like one of my entourage, like one of the Divine entities, which are of a higher order than man, for example, the cherubim and their kind. We have already seen . . . that the idea prevailed among the Israelites that the knowledge of good and evil, that is, of everything in the world, was one of the specific attributes of the angels (ii Sam. xiv 17: for my lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil; ibid., v. 20: But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the Angel of God to know all things that are on the earth). [p. 172]

Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)

Gen 1:26. The extraordinary use of the first person plural evokes the image of a heavenly court in which God is surrounded by His angelic host.

[Footnote 353: For the celestial court, cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6:8; Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89:6-7; Job 1:6; 2:1. In Job 38:7, divine beings are present at creation. The present interpretation is found in Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 8.3; Rashi.]

Such a celestial scene is depicted in several biblical passages. This is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon"monotheized and depaganized. It is noteworthy that this plural form of divine address is employed in Genesis on two other occasions, both involving the fate of humanity: in 3:22, in connection with the expulsion from Eden; and in 11:7, in reference to the dispersal of the human race after the building of the Tower of Babel. [p. 12]

http://outreachjudaism.org...
http://www.hebrew-streams.org...
Debate Round No. 3
iTruthSeeker

Pro

Ok, throughout my opponents rebuttals.. He has kept to 2 basic contentions:
1). The Trinity is illogical
2). Disproving the credibility of the Christian interpretations imposed on the OT verses.

I want to begin by showing how his assertians do not hold:

1). The Trinity is Illogical

"the notion that the creator who according to the bible said let us create man in our likeness/image would also be deduction be unitary"

Let me ask my opponent a question based on his statement: are humans omnicient? omnipotent? Soveriegn? It becomes clear that humans do not share all the attributes that God possesses.. Although we are made in the image of God... It does not follow that we would share every charactaristic.. Including his Triune nature..

I also want to point to the biblical depiction of marraige in Genesis 2:24: a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

So we see that God designed marragie in the respect that 2 peaople will become 1... Does this not parallel Gods own nature? interesting...

It was a nice try by my opponent but does not stand biblically.

"It is a logical impossibility for three distinct parts to be one , why, because when Jesus is on earth then God is incomplete"

Umm.. No, the bible clearly depicts God as omnipresent.. What does that mean?

"(of God) present everywhere at the same time."

so tell me.. How is God "incomplete" when Jesus is on earth if God is everywhere?

Yet another unsupported statement

"Jesus prayed to God and as such the existence of a hierarchy shows the presence of different wills ,abilities and power and by that analogy the trinity can not be logical."

We see in the NT that the triune nature of God form an economic subordination rather than an ontilogical one... Rather, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are all God and equal in nature/power.. but they limit themselves to their specific role in the Godhead.. Unlike my opponent.. I will back up my statement here..

The Father sent the Son.The Son did not send the Father (John 6:44, 8:18, 10:36,1 John 4:14).
Jesus came down from Heaven not to do his own will but to do the will of the Father. (John 6:38)

The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not send the Father and the Son (John 14:26)

Let me make it simple:

God the Father plays the "father role"
God the Son is obedient to the Father
God the Holy Spirit is the helper

These differing roles do not make them lesser are somehow contridict basic logic.. we see this parallel in Matt. 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Agian, my opponent has not shown the logical fallaciy in the Triune depiction of God.

"In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God." This does not mean the word is a separate entity, and my opponent clearly edited the verses to add that part"

This statement baffles me.. My opponent thinks i edited this verse because he knows how clear it is.. My friend, i ask you to google john 1:1 see what it says for yourself.. It shows the word as seperate from God when it states "the Word was with God" and it shows the word as God.. I didint add a single dot to this phrase..

He continues: it does not mean Jesus is the word. My opponent is simply making analogies from other verses in an attempt to impose his will on God"s nature.

Lets continue reading John shall we? "14and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. and we have seen his glory. Glory as of the only Son from the Father."

Guys.. My opponent is going to try and force his own interpreation on these verse's.. Read them yourselves. The Word is Jesus according to the continued verse i've just shown.. since we know its Jesus.. Lets add in his name in order to see this idea more clearly...

"In the beginning was Jesus , and Jesus was with God , and the Jesus was God.".. How much more clear can you get?

Lets move on.. isn"t it proof enough in itself that he can not point out ot and nt verses besides in John that categorically support the notion of God existing as father, son, holy spirit?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19)

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven,
"Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Mark 1:9-11

While he (Jesus) was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. While he was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them,and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, This is my beloved Son; listen to him"

Need I go on?

"Jesus did not exist prior to that point. So we know Jesus started to exist at birth, how then was he God again?"

It seems that my opponents view of God is quite small.. Is it impossible for God to become a man? He take the form of a burning bush in Exodus 3.. Besides we see in John that "the word became flesh".. God became human through Mary.. He always exited and was not created at that point.

the Bible says that both Solomon (Proverbs 8:22) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) existed before their human births. So Jesus, Solomon and Jeremiah are also part of God?

This is completly misguided.. Solomon is talking about Widoms existence and Jermiah is talking about the will of God before him ever being created.. I dont understand how you come to that conclusion from reading these passages.

so far.. my opponents attempt to provide a logical fallacy for the Triune nature of God has not been successful.. My first contention still stands..

2). OT Trinity verse's:

*since my opponent was so willing to copy and paste Rabbi Singers statements at OutreachJudasim in regards to {Psalm 110).. I will post a response from Tony Garland:

, Rabbi Singer is just plain wrong on several points.

    • The Rabbi accuses the translators of the KJV of trying to make the two words for “Lord” in Psalm 110 look identical—as if some subterfuge was involved. In his explanation, he even incorrectly renders the first appearance of the word in mixed-case (“Lord") when, in fact, it is specifically uppercase ("LORD”). Who is really being transparent and careful here? In point of fact, the KJV and other word-for-word translations of the Old Testament are extremely careful and consistent with their representation of the underlying Hebrew. The covenant name of God, יְהוָה [Yahweh], is consistently rendered by uppercase “LORD.” Conversely, mixed-case “Lord,” represents the Hebrew word אָד@331;ן [F2;ādQ7;ôn]. This is neither accidental or deceptive, but careful and precise! A similar approach is taken by the NKJV, NASB, and other modern translations. For instance, the NASB contains an introductory section titled, “PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION” which states: “The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. . . . the four letters YHWH . . . has been translated LORD.” The translators make plain that they will be rendering YHWH by “LORD” (all uppercase) and Adonai by “Lord” (mixed-case). Is this deceptive? So much for the Rabbi’s claim that “the two English words . . . are carefully made to appear identical.” On the contrary: the translators have been very careful to consistently handle the various Hebrew words referring to God.
    • The Rabbi says “the Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the bible.” Really? One wonders which Bible the Rabbi has in mind? A small sampling from the Hebrew Old Testament shows otherwise: “Lord of Lords (adoney ha adoniym)” (Deu. 10:17); “Behold the ark of the covenant of the Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Jos. 3:11); “The Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Jos. 3:13); “For this day is holy to our Lord (adonai)” (Ne. 8:10); “and do all the commandments of the Lord (adonai)” (Ne. 10:29); “Oh LORD (YHWH), our Lord (adonai), how excellent is thy name in all the earth” (Ps. 8:1); “The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD (YHWH), at the presence of the Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Ps. 97.5); “Tremble thou earth at the presence of the Lord (adonai), at the presence of the God (elohay) of Jacob” (Ps. 114:7); “... our Lord (adonai) is above all Gods (elohim)” (Ps. 135.5). If the Rabbi can be so wrong about this basic fact, one wonders how we can trust what else he has to say?
So we see that the word Adonai is used many times in regards to God (Yahweh) himself and Rabbis assertion is completly false. We also know that David was not talking about himself because it says: my lord.. According to Psalm 89:19.. David was the highest ruler on earth appointed by God! Who else would be (Adonai) other than God> The Jewish interpretation is completly baised.

"And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?’ And the great throng heard him gladly." Mark 12:35-36

"Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:33-36


Due to a lack of space.. I will respond further to the plurality of God objections that my opponent put forth.

Back to Con

http://www.spiritandtruth.org...



isaacthemaniac

Con

No, not two basic contentions, I simply compared the notion of Trinity of God to the logical and biblical analysis,my colleague is simply attempting to simplify his job.
Is the Trinity logical?
The verse I cited where God creates man in his likeness and because man is singular (made up of one component not three ) and hence because he is in the likeness of God would imply that God is Unitarian (remember Jesus was the son of MAN) . This does not mean that simply because man is made in the likeness of God he is like God, so only God posses unique qualities that make him the Almighty. But compared to all other species on earth, yes we are sovereign, we are all powerful, we are the masters so the notion that God would be trainee and create as in his image yet we are not trainee while sending part of his trainee nature to us is simply a flawed logical deduction. How can God make us in his image and fundamentally make us a unity yet he is a plurality? Humans share some of God's attributes but without the perfection and comprehension of God. Man is merciful and kind buy God's mercy and kindness is limitless and supreme over what man can ever posses, it is the ultimate completion of kindness and this applies to all good qualities and noble ideals that man looks up to. So by this analogy, in God's likeness, God is one not three,just as man is one not three.
Yes man shall leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife and shall become one FLESH,it doesn't mean they shall become one entity, given the stipulation against adultery in the Bible, the emphasis on flesh is to show that man shall fulfill his cardinal desires only with his wife and as such a child symbolizes how they became one flesh. My colleague is making a marriage comparison with God however God is not married nor is he flesh that he should have such animalistic desires. The description was only meant to lay the ground work against adultery. Also, if being joined in marriage means becoming one, are you saying that God is a result of two prior entities joining in marriage? This is blasphemy, how can you say this parallels God's nature? If anything it shows that God is one ad he doesn't say man shall be joined with woman and they become trainee, they become one... interesting....
Omnipresent ? What does being omnipresent have to do with being trainee? You either are implying that while Jesus walks this earth,God walks it too? Or that while Jesus walks this earth, he is also in heaven,which of the two do you mean?if God is everywhere why does Jesus fall to his face and pray? Why doesn't he just speak? And how can he be complete when a part of him is crucified and persecuted by his creation? Are you implying that Jesus did not die rather it was a deception as God's death would contradict being omnipresent? Also since Jesus is not with us,does that mean that God is not as present as he was then?
If the father,son and holy spirit are equal in nature,the concept of prayer is negated. If I am made of 3 parts,being equal in nature means that at the core we are the same and hence share wisdom, the presence of perfect wisdom negates prayer as one would understand all things,.and would see the wisdom in God's works hence would be patient as opposed to engaging in prayer. Yes,Jesus and God have different wills as Jesus said
So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. Mark 10:18" how can my colleague claim that my statements are unsupported when Jesus said only God is good,does this mean that God has an evil side? But God is all good. Since my colleague keeps claiming that my statements are unsupported yet they are deduced from Biblical verses, I shall support my earlier assertion that since Jesus and God have different wills(and atimes conflicting) God can not be trainee yet lack unity of will and purpose. To support this claim I turn to Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." So Jesus had a different will, something that proves that at the core Jesus was both subservient to God and was subject to God's command. Are you implying that God would have to persecute himself to save man even though when he wants something,he says it and it is? Yet Jesus prayed for what he wanted he did not say be and it is. The argument that Jesus and God are the same but with different roles is lacking as the fact that they have different wills implies that God is not a unity as seen by this verse.would you really have us believe the one who holds all power in existence is made of three parts, with different wills and rolls yet still the same? That is a stretch in imagination.
Ye men of Israel,
hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
These are the words of Jesus. How can he say he is a man approved by God and my colleague rejects the word of Jesus and calls him God? Jesus said A, someone said B, if we believe in Jesus we must believe in A, Jesus said that he was a man approved by God,key word a MAN, remember man was made in the likeness of God hence by that fact Jesus could not be part of the trainee nature of God which would negate the trainee nature of God. if the father, son,holyspirirt are equal in nature and POWER, how come Jesus was powerless to save himself on the cross yet he had prayed for safety and he said ...why have you forsaken me? Is Jesus really equal to God in power and nature, Jesus who ate,sorrowed and who Satan attempted to tempt? Is this how low we as a creation think of God? Yet even the angels are in a higher regard than a man that is born into a womb of a woman, was Jesus breast fed as a baby? Are you saying God was breast fed,don't you feel shame to claim such a thing,is it befitting the majesty of God to use the restroom? But Jesus did all this as he was a man, will you claim Jesus and God are of the same nature and power then? Does Jesus look like God so they are twins? Does God have a skeleton and does he grow old like Jesus did? All these questions show the flaw in this wild assertion. God's glory and majesty does not befit such low comparisons.
My colleague makes various quotes from John, of course out of all Bible books, I would probably use a book that validates my opinion,however John 21:24 says
King James Bible
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." Which means that the book was written by "we" a group of people and not the verbatim word of Jesus but a composition of works by whoever we is and whoever that disciple is, hence it seems futile for me to spend time refuting this. Also Genesis says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it says nothing of Jesus,had what is written been true ,it would certainly have come up in the oldest testament from God,whereby he declared his trainee nature but it did not,rather God simply declared his unity and created all things.
Should I address the writings in John when the but according to luke( not the word of witnesses ), prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist."On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived." Remember a name the angel had given him,it does not say which is his name before coming to your womb, a name is given to what did not exist prior, that is why children do not get names until they are born. So are you suggesting that God was nameless because he wasn't born yet? so was God two parts, then manifest a third?
As for the editing,please refer to the prior verse where you inserted (father ) and (son) in parenthesis, that was the editing, it was your post not mine an attempt to cloud the judgement. The verse in question is clear, I said is the word isn't necessarily Jesus, why because David too fit that criteria. If it said the word was Jesus Christ,then I would not have brought it up but remember this is talking about the very beginning and David too was the son of man, the possessor of the Psalms,the word of God.
Isn't it editing when you say in the beginning there was Jesus.....and Jesus was God yet the verse says Word, my colleague is guilty of what he accuses me of.
Also God did not become a burning bush, Exodus state from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight"why the bush does not burn up."...6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." so truly my colleague is guilty of gross editing, God said I am not we are, the bush did not burn up does that mean God became a bush? Another shallow attempt at making God trainee,now God is a burning bush,but Jesus was human so God is a human burning bush,outrageous!
Are we supposed to believe that God needs Mary to become human? This is simply refinement of Hindu reincarnation. Because of space,I shall let Scripture be the judge between truth and falsehood/slander of God. And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10"God is not a man" (Num 23:19)
"For I am God, and not man" (Hosea 11:9
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (Confirmed In Matthew 12:18..."your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed." (Acts 4:27)
"But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men." (Matt 9:8)..o not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." (John 14:1)..My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)
"I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." (John 20:17)The temple of my God the name of my God the city of my God.rev 3:12
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
I hope we meet again.....in this combat of wills.......I shall be on the lookout, thanks for the debate. I end with the best words amongst men peace be with you
Posted by iTruthSeeker 1 year ago
iTruthSeeker
Issac, i'm not talking about your round 4 conclusion.. I'm talking about your round 3. I plugged in your round 4 and got the same 9962 so you must be talking about that one.. Even look at your round 3.. If your round 4 is nearly hitting 10,000 characters than why is your round 3 substantially larger?

Throwing all ego out.. I don't find your arguments convincing.. If I had time I most certainly would have responded.. The issue is I did-int have space to respond to your arguments because you broke the parameters. I don't believe you did so willingly, I honestly believe it was an accident.. I just want my audience to know that the debate was not fair in essence..

I also understand that we both are very apt to seek the truth fervently.. I respect you for that.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
Truth seeker I have 9962 characters. Unless my phone is flawed, I suggest that you double check your work. But all competition aside I ask for one simple truth, are you convinced or is sturboness or pride at play? Or is my understanding of Scripture ignorant? You can pm me, that's all that matters.to suggest that somehow I cheated in a debate, breaks my heart, we are here to compare notes,to learn and to perhaps change, what would I benefit from cheating? But my count is under 10,000. Again, I just want you to say, you are wrong or you made me consider the possibility,in fact I pray we continue correspondence because the truth must over come.. would you not agree?(unless this is an ego trip)
Posted by iTruthSeeker 1 year ago
iTruthSeeker
Lol I guess the spirit of debate never ends does it? Listen, Conduct is only 1 point.. If you in fact, provide the more fitting arguments to this topic then you will be awarded more points.. I do not expect to win based off conduct alone... Unfortunately, you breaking the 10,000 character limit means you were able to spew a huge list of questions (which you did) and then expect me to respond to each one within the limit...

This means that you were able to give more arguments/topics than I was which renders your conduct unfair and null.. This is why we have debate parameters.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
Plus the first 10,000 characters are legitimate yet you passionately desire a win in such a manner?
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
Regardless if it's willing or unwilling, I see a smiliar pattern in how you debate,but let the voters decide however they see fit. Rest assured I am not bothered and as a seeker of truth you should be more concerned about the truth. So if you really want, I can vote for you, if that's what helps.

But I shall use word count for all the arguments,lest a system flaw made one of your arguments longer
Posted by iTruthSeeker 1 year ago
iTruthSeeker
Issac, i sincerely hope you do not think I am attacking you in any way.. I'm not. The rules are there for a reason though.. To keep the debate fair. Your round three argument is 23,000 characters (not words) long...
I'm sorry this upsets you broke the parameters.. Regardless if its willing or unwilling.

If you want to check..Go to a word document, copy your round three argument in their.. and go down and click on the word count button.. It will show you the characters.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
My computer has me under 10,000 you should recheck the facts,because you are accusing me of willful deception and cheating unjustly and unfortunately you are trying to have me loose on something I am not aware of.
Posted by iTruthSeeker 1 year ago
iTruthSeeker
Issac, I assure you i am not trying to win on technicalities.. The fact is, i was limited to the use 10,000 characters.. Since you were not, that means you were able to put more argument and responses than I was.. Hence, proving the debate unfair.. The 10,000 character count is part of the debate structure... Look at the debate options.
Posted by isaacthemaniac 1 year ago
isaacthemaniac
9969 words for any using word...unless you are using my opponents version which doubles words.Plus the computer wont let you do more than 10,000 so im really not sure why word count would be a deciding factor.
Thank you for the debate truthseeker
No votes have been placed for this debate.