The Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical
Debate Rounds (5)
I am "for" the fact that the Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical.
Keep it civil and polite, the words "cult" and "heretic" will not be permitted.
Sources can be anything relevant and do not have to be specifically cited.
Those against my statement should have good knoweldge of the Bible.
That is all!
"Although the New Testament does not teach the Trinity as a formal doctrine, it clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus prays to the Father "thy will be done," implying that he is not the same person as the Father. He promises to send the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to guide the disciples and keep them faithful to the truth of his teachings.
By the second century, the Fathers of the Church, after many years of reflection on the teachings of Jesus, began to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, showing our growing understanding of the nature of God."
Now.. if you're arguing that God is suppose to be One and not three and that it doesn't make any sense... Just imagine that God is water and pretend that Jesus is water steam and the holy spirit is rain or something like this.
Next.. Even if Jesus, was just a man which was completely fulfilled with God. I don't understand why it can't be assumed that he kinda become God himself. Do you know horcruxes from Harry Potter? Can you admit that this random objects and beings became part of Voldemort? Or though the soul of Voldemort is in several objects, it continues to exist only one Voldemort? I hope it made sense and you enjoyed the comparison.
I will wait for arguments, I hope you have some good ones!
And to be honest, I don't believe in this stuff. But I think the trinity isn't by faaaaaar the most unbiblical or incomprehensible thing on Christianity.
I want to keep these statements brief and to the point.
1. Most Christians generally believe that the coming of Jesus Christ fulfills all the requirements from the Old Testament , to be the Messiah as well as "God with us".
The problem that Christians fail to answer is one simple question, where in the Old Testament is it written that the Messiah will be God? If it was so CLEAR and obvious that when the Messiah comes he will be God, the why isn't it specifically explained by the OT prophets? One would think, for something that important, that God Himself would take on human form like Hercules, should have been at least mentioned once? This in itself should raise a huge question mark, there are many ways that modern Trinitarians twist the Jewish text into something that perhaps, maybe, helps their position a "little" bit , but nothing substantial nor concise.
2. God is very clear in His salvation plan. We have an entire Old Testament that was used for centuries, from this we know that there is a God, this God is all knowing and all powerful, we know not to murder, steal, commit adultery etc... But yet NO WHERE does God tell us in the OT, "By the way there's actually three of Me and if you really studied hard enough you would know that." The fact is, God did tell us who He is, He is ONE. Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
ONE does not mean "compound unity", there is no such usage in the Hebrew language. One means 1, as in 1 thing, not 3 things that make 1. ONE is a singular pronoun, there is no way to get around this grammatical fact.
With this in mind, let us not forget that the one thing that differentiated the Hebrews from the other faiths is that they did not believe in multiple gods, God really was ONE to them and not 3 in a compound unity of ONE. This abuses normal human language. When someone says ONE they mean ONE, not THREE in ONE.
From how I read scripture, I see God as ONE person, it was from HIM, through His utterance that His Word was begotten. This Word then became flesh in a man named Joshua (Jesus) son of Joseph, and through the power of God, was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of His Father. Not the, "one God in three persons, co-eternal, co-essential co-equal, eternal generation, dual natures God of the Trinity Doctrine, which was later added by pagan minded church Fathers, who used common Greek religious thought to describe how they saw Christ.
Now on to the historical side...
The Trinity Doctrine, how we know it today, did not complete in its full form until the ecumenical council in Constantinople (681) came to a decision on is Christ had 2 natures.
Now let us use normal reason and logic...
Why would such a clear and concise subject, that is specifically taught int he scriptures, have to be debated for over 700 years to finally be accepted as "right" and always taught from the beginning?
There was no debate on whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, there was no debate on who the apostles were and their roles, there was no debate on whether or not Christ died and resurrected, there was no debate on whether or not He was the Son of God.
Yet for over 700 YEARS, there was constant debate and bloodshed over whether or not Jesus was actually God Himself in the flesh.
In conclusion, Jesus was God and acted as God, as God's representative, Jesus was the Word of God in flesh. This however does not make him equal nor the same as His Father.
For this statement, I am now deemed a heretic by majority of Christendom, but I can't let church tradition get in the way of how I see the scriptures.
Before answering Pro's statements, I just want to say that, in my perspective, Trinity is just a way to try to explain God, his existence and interactions with us. But if it gets too confusing or controversial, and keeps you even further away from understanding Him, you should try to ignore it. Just try to understand God in your own ways and how it makes more sense to you, how it feels more right. Because the goal is that. Is to allow you to understand God better,"better" not in a scientific way of "more accurately", but in a way where you can feel closer to Him.
1. First of all, the claim that the Old Testament was referring to Jesus as the "Messiah" is quite questionable itself, as most of the Jews would agree. I will quote some prophecies that haven't been fulfilled by Jesus, according to Jews:
a)Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
b)Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
c)Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
d)Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world R13; on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
There are many more observations in this regard, but I will leave you a link, in case you're interested in further investigate them.
This to say that Jesus wasn't exactly what the prophecies were expecting... It doesn't fulfill all the requirements. But even the requirements were kind of contradictory. For example, though they were expecting that the Messiah would be King David's descendant on his father side, they also were expecting him to be a son of a virgin. (He would be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:18) (He would be of King David's seed (Jeremiah 23:5 and Luke 3:23, 31 Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Ezekiel 34:23-24).
And what's a prophecy exactly?
"Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others. are then communicated to others. Such messages typically involve divine INSPIRATION, INTERPRETATION, or revelation of conditioned events to come."
This to state that prophecies, though the term itself may have different meanings, are always produced in human minds, therefore they are fallible and not absolute.
In another perspective, if numerous prophecies made by several different prophets come true... maybe there is something to rely on. According to One source (I was lazy! I admit it! but you can google more if you want) at least 29 prophecies were fulfilled be Jesus Christ, despite some of them being doubtful, they give Christians enough reasons to believe that Jesus can be the Messiah from the OT.
And for finishing this first point, here some references from OT, which imply that Messiah would be from a divine nature:
"He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son." (II Samuel 7:12-14)
"I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you." (I Chronicles 17:13)
IMMANUEL: (Hebrew עִמָּנוּאֵל "God is with us"; also Romanized Emmanuel, Imanu'el) is a symbolic name which appears in chapters 7 and 8 of the Book of Isaiah as part of a prophecy assuring king Ahaz of Judah of God's protection against enemy kings; it is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew as a sign verifying the divine status of Jesus.
2. I tried to give you the analogy of the water (steam, liquid and ice) and of Voldemort, despite his soul being divided in several objects there continues to exist only one Voldemort. But you end up by ignoring, or not understanding them, so I will have to dress this problem again.
You wrote: "God is very clear in His salvation plan."
This is completely false. If it was true, why would he need to send a Messiah to explain the plan to begin with?
And there are so many questions that he didn't answer at all, not in a clear way for sure! Want a list?
What is He made of? How did He become to exist? What is the purpose of the human kind? Just to exist so God can love us and we can love him back? But then what's the thing with Heaven and Hell? Why punish people to eternity? The purpose of punishment shouldn't be to teach you a lesson, so you learn, regret and redeem yourself? Is having certain thoughts consider a sin? But isn't in human nature to have this thoughts? Wasn't God the One to make us like this? Oh! It was Adam and Eves' fault? But doesn't it goes against the standards of justice and righteousness to punish an entire race, that you love, to eternity, because of a sin of two people, that was instigated by you? Is Messiah suppose to be a sacrifice, offered by God, killed my men, to please God Himself to forgive mankind? But isn't God an all forgiven being to begin with?Or is He not? And what's exactly heaven? Why does God show himself just to a few people? What about all the others that need or don't believe in him? He just doesn't want to interfere with their freedom? What about the freedom of those he interfered with? And if he really loves the humankind, shouldn't he help them anyway? Doesn't He tell people to help one another? Why may people interfere with one another, but God doesn't? expect in some particular cases...
This list could go on and on and on. But I think I made my point.
Now, about God being ONE and not THREE. I won't give you any other analogy, I will just ask you to explain me, those that I gave you. Explain to me, how Voldemort is divided in 7 different pieces, but there remains to exist only one Voldemort. And though water can be in different physical states, their chemical properties and essence remains to be the same, and in the end is just water.
3. The Trinity Doctrine, how we know it today, did not complete in its full form until the ecumenical council in Constantinople (681) came to a decision on is Christ had 2 natures.
I think I've already explained my opinion in this regard. The Bible is a canonical collection of texts, that where wrote over a period of several hundred years, many of these texts are the result of a creative dialogue between ancient traditions and different communities through the ages. It isn't suppose to be interpreted in a literal way. It's not suppose to be read as a manual, that explains you exactly the reasons of your existence and how you're suppose to live of your life.
It's only natural, that along the years, with the evolution of human kind, (through studies, experiences and debates), that the interpretation of the Bible also evolves.
4. "In conclusion, Jesus was God and acted as God, as God's representative, Jesus was the Word of God in flesh. This however does not make him equal nor the same as His Father."
Exactly! That's why Jesus and His Father are different persons.
Sorry for the really extended reply! I'm hope I managed to explain my views and statements.
Why Jews don't believe in Jesus as Messiah:
Evidence that Jesus Christ is the Messiah:
Well for one, it appears that you agree with me more then disagree.
I will keep this short and just outline some statements that I disagree with and why.
1. The passages you quoted are taken out of context. None of them are Messianic prophecies. These in particular are referring to Soloman, the son of David who was to build the first temple in the place of his father David. Immanuel does mean "God with us". However this does not imply a devine significance. Many Hebrew names have "God" in them.
Hezekiah in Hebrew means "Mighty God". Yet I don't see people making him a part of a trinity. This was very common in the olden times and should be understood in its context. Elijah also had a devine name.
2. I understand the analogy, I just don't agree that it even has a place here to begin with. ONE does not mean "3 in 1". It means ONE. In the Hebrew, God is ONE, as in, singular. Not a compound ONE, there is a different word in the Hebrew to describe what you want it to say but they didn't use it. Instead, they used the only word in the entire language that really means ONE.
As for the rest of your response, you agree with me. My point is proven that early Christians did not believe in the Trinty Doctrine. This was a perversion that evolved in Greek minded church fathers over hundreds of years.
This debate was established for 5 rounds, therefore I thought that I should divide my argumentation throughout the rounds. I don't regret it, since this way I could explain much better my position and opinion on regards of this matter. But here's the answer that I should have started with.
1.Meaning of "unbiblical"', according to the oxford dictionary:
unbiblical: not found in, authorized by, Or based on the Bible.
2. Trinity: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".
3. Biblical background: It's true that from the OT the early church retained the conviction that God is one and NT does also not use the word ]2;`1;_3;^0;`2; (Trinity), (as you very well pointed out), and it doesn't explicitly teach the Nicene Trinitarian doctrine, but it contains several passages that use twofold and threefold patterns to speak of God, where Trinitarians BASE their beliefs.
I will only mention just a few, but I will leave you some links in case you want to know more.
Gen. 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"
Isaiah 6:8: "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!'"
Isaiah 48:16: "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."
Rom. 8:11: "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."
Eph. 1:20: "he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms"
Matt 28:19: "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"
1 Cor. 6:11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
2 Cor. 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all"
Heb. 10:29: "How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"
1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (However, this passage is not considered to be part of the genuine text, and most scholars agree that the phrase was a gloss.)
Trinity Proof Texts: 58 Triadic Bible Texts:
Bible Verses About The Trinity:
Verses showing the plurality of God in the Old and New Testaments:
I don't want to argue that the trinitarian interpretation of God is the only conclusion you can reach from reading the Bible, but that's not what we're debating either. So, to conclude, you can't state that there are no evidences on the the Bible to support this kind of interpretation. Therefore you can't state that the Trinity is unbiblical, just because you can't rationalize the singularity of It, but I will try to give you a better explanation than the one from Harry Potter and the water, but keep those in mind.
You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.
God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.
That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.
The Bible clearly speaks of: God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. But emphasizes that there is only ONE God.
If we were to use math, it would not be, 1+1+1=3. It would be 1x1x1=1. God is a triune God.
Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity.
Can you explain the trinity?
In regard to your conclusion:
"As for the rest of your response, you agree with me. My point is proven that early Christians did not believe in the Trinty Doctrine. This was a perversion that evolved in Greek minded church fathers over hundreds of years."
I feel that you ended up ignoring, all that I said about the Bible being not a book that leads people to only one interpretation, therefore Its understanding can evolve along the years. The fact that early Christians didn't believe in the Trinity Doctrine has no consequences in our discussion. And I will try to explain you the ridiculousness of your last statement, changing a bit our positions since we still have 2 rounds in front of us.
"God is not solitude, but perfect communion." (Pope Benedict XVI)
Being God trine in Himself, God is "social", a communion, an eternal exchange of love.
I just want you to explain, how an all loving God, can love since eternity being unique and alone.
This is not my definition of Biblical. To me, Biblical implies the original faith of Christ, the faith of His Apostles and their followers. Trying to justify an evolution is a new age theory that makes no biblical sense.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I do not change;
Before I address your scripture quotes, I want to clarify that I do accept a trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, I do not accept the extra biblical terminology nor the explanation of the trinity. The Nicene teaching convoluted the original faith.
Gen 1:26 Refers to God and His heavenly host, nothing about a hypostatises or 3 in 1.
Isaiah 6:8 Speaks of Isaiah, not a man named Jesus.
Isaiah 48:16 Also speaks of Isaiah.
The rest of the NT passages you quoted do not teach the Trinity Doctrine nor have any of them really been used to justify the pagan doctrine except for 1 John 5:7 which still doesn't prove anything. The "ONE" that is mentioned implies ONE in unity not ONE THING.
Again, I understand your examples, I simply reject that God is an IT in 3 WHO's, which is exactly what the Trinity Doctrine teaches. God as described in the OT does not imply 3 gods in 1 God. This did not change in NT times, the language just changed from Hebrew to Greek. ONE means 1, not multiples of 1. So trying to justify a false narrative can't work.
1+1+1=1 defies logic, it doesn't even make sense. One would think that in the thousands of Bible verses, God could have simply said, "By the way I'm not actually ONE I'm THREE IN ONE."
To me there is only ONE truth, not multiple truths. My argument is that the original faith that Christ taught DID NOT include the Trinity Doctrine. He taught that God is our father and He is His son. Very simple and straight forward, all this extra mumbo jumbo is just man corrupting the original.
You say that God is triune yet God never says that He is triune...notice the irony?
As for your last question I'm not sure I understand it, please rephrase. Thanks!
2. Saying that the human understanding of God and Jesus cannot evolve is obsolete and unbiblical.
If everyone thought like that, Jesus teachings would have been useless, since nobody would have cared about them. He came to change the perspective and the idea that people had about God, if nobody was open to this change, Jesus life would have been pointless.
3. I won't try to debate your understanding of "unbiblical".
4. I thought that we've already agreed that the idea of the talking God, that tells people specific sentences to them to write down, wasn't very reasonable --' The fact that no prophet had the epiphany of a trinity God doesn't have any consequences to this matter.
5. Saying that the Holy Trinity is "mumbo jumbo" and a "perversion" is a show of arrogance, ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. I won't try to explain it better, I just invite you to read more about it.
I also want to point out that there are a few thousands of really smart scholars that have been studying this matters for a really long time... Though I may not understand or agree with all of their claims, I give them at least enough credibility to believe that they have basis to support those claims. (ad populum and ad verecundiam - I'm not trying to use these fallacies to make my point, just to call you to reason.)
6. According to the Bible God is an all loving Being, but for loving you need love and someone to love.
Therefore you have "the father", "the son" and "the holy spirit". Being trine, God is complete. Is an eternal exchange of love, the holy spirit, between the father and the son.
If God is just One, he can't love being unique and alone. God can't just love Himself, because love is not selfish.
God can also not be just love, because love to exist requires two persons to love each other.
7. And sorry if I was rude! I just got a bit carried away :p
But I want to thank you for bringing up this theme and to make me think about it! :) My position didn't changed, but I've learned some new things! I hope you can say the same in the end! :)
Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon!
The fact is I do have fairly good understanding of the Bible. You may have thousands of experts on your side but I also have thousands on mine, so really it's a moot point.
I'll answer each point you made then conclude with a statement.
1. By this definition, anybody can interpret anything they want, then justify it by scripture and say its true. To say that there are multiple truths is never taught in scripture. In the Bible its either Gods ONE way or your way.
2. You're comparing apple and oranges. Doing what Christ instructs us to do is not "evolution". It's simply following his examples and what he teaches. However, when a doctrine is created devoid of what scripture says, this is a deviation from the mean and must be exposed. So in this case, yes, the early Christians did not believe in the trinity doctrine, therefore what we have today is a perversion of the original.
4. My point is, if the trinity doctrine is what people say it is, why doesn't God at least mention it once? No where does He say that He is not actually ONE but 3 in 1 in a triune hypostasis.
5. Again, it was not my intention to come off that way but if you felt that way then I apologize. By the looks of what you've posted I would suggest you do more research instead of having to google Trinitarian biblical passages.
6. Of course God is a loving being, but what does that have to do with a doctrine that was formulated by men 400 years after Christ was on earth? I agree that there are three in heaven named the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we are not debating this. We are debating on whether or not they are one person and co equal. I feel like you are misunderstanding exactly what the Trinity Doctrine preaches.
7. No problem!
In conclusion, I would have to say you are using points that may hold in your mind but scripturally and scholarly they don't make sense. A trinitarian scholar would point to the Bible and church tradition to defend his point, while anti trinitarians would say the trinitarians are misunderstanding the scriptures. Both sides agree that there is ONE true interpretation and MANY false interpretations.
You however are saying it doesn't really matter what interpretation because the truth changes, the TRUE interpretation 2000 years ago is no longer true because of the evolution of the interpretation. The only person who can change anything is God, human evolution has nothing to do with the truth.
Now I would also ask the readers to notice the scripture arguments you brought forward held no water, you kept using idioms and examples to explain something that is not even clearly explained in the scriptures. However you did a good job and I look forward to next time!
Remember, Gods word is true forever! It doesn't change through human evolution. God's nature, truth and standards have never changed, human interpretation at times has deviated but its our job to get back to the original, not defend the perversion.
Summarizing my point of view:
1. I think the Trinity is a possible biblical interpretation, since it is based on Bible passages and on Jesus teachings.
There is no contradictions to this concept in the Bible Itself to prove it wrong and to make it unbiblical.
The prophets and the apostles understandings of God as One and not Trine (being Trine, Three in One) is not enough to make it unbiblical. If we went to analyse all the Bible explanations of God and His ways to interact with humans through an inflexible perspective, there are too many contradictions to make the Bible itself unbiblical... if this makes sense...
So, I believe, as you also believe, for what I understood, that the Bible needs to be read very carefully, with an understanding of the circumstances of how it was written and with an open mind. Which may naturally lead to some different interpretations, which doesn't mean that those interpretations are all true, but that they were all based on the same texts.
Some of this interpretations may be wrong and contradictory, but even if they are contradictory, which isn't the case of the Trinity, they would still be based on the Bible and even those might be consider biblical.
2. You're trying to use biblical arguments to support an unbiblical position, which I think is wrong and disproves itself from the beginning.
I've already insinuated this in the previous rounds, though I've never expressed it like this.
The Bible has several purposes. One is trying to improve human understanding of God, the topic we're debating would fit in this category, but the main goal, in my perspective, is to unify humanity. Is to end war, hunger and misery. Is to teach people how to love, how to forgive, how to be understandable and respectful with one another. Is to teach the grace of giving, the grace of friendships. To teach people to fight for this ideal, how Jesus did. An ideal of peace, of comprehension, of being able to be together and to love one another despite our differences.
And your stance of, there is only one truth! Only I can be right! The others position is a perversion of mumbo jumbo! Goes completely against this ideal... And that's why I got so frustrated in the last round. You're just being an idiot (in the friendly sense of the word :) and it pissed me off!
There is no other religion like Christianity that accentuates so much the importance of being together and unified, of love, of forgiving, of being open to everyone. And even so, is the most divided religion in the world, with hundreds of different churches and groups within, and responsible for so many deaths, suffering and war. And despite of all the examples given through out history, people continue to make the same mistakes!
I know that I'm terrible quoting the Bible --' I don't have a deep knowledge of the Bible in that sense. But I believe that I understand it. And according to my understandings, the statement you're trying to make as the the way you're doing it, is just unbiblical.
I won't tell you that you shouldn't debate and to try to improve your understandings about God, as to explain to others your believes... but there are biblical ways to do it ;) and you're just not doing it the right way.
I've already made my point, but for a matter of respect I'm going to address your arguments presented in the last round! ;)
"You may have thousands of experts on your side but I also have thousands on mine, so really it's a moot point."
The guys on my side are not arguing that One Indivisible God is not biblical. It's not a moot point whatsoever! -.- One thing is defending one position, other is saying that the opponent position is a perversion and doesn't have any foundations to support itself.
1. "By this definition, anybody can interpret anything they want, then justify it by scripture and say its true."
Not say it's true, but say it's biblical. If it makes sense and there are not enough Biblical arguments to make it contradictory... yeah!
" To say that there are multiple truths is never taught in scripture. In the Bible its either Gods ONE way or your way."
I hope I've already covered this problem...
2. "You're comparing apple and oranges. Doing what Christ instructs us to do is not "evolution"."
I'm sorry if I didn't manage to explain myself again, but I don't know about a better way to put it...
It is evolution, if you compare Jesus "instructs" with the previous believes. If everyone thought like you, nobody would have cared about Jesus, because Jesus teachings would be considered "evolutionary", in comparison to the previous ones. When Jesus came to Earth, the New Testament haven't been wrote yet, (as you know! but apparently I need to point this out..) therefore his "instructs" weren't part of the scripture yet. If people hadn't accepted change, "evolution" in regard of their believes, Jesus life would have been pointless. (as I concluded before.)
The acceptance to evolution and to change is what made Christianity possible.
4. I thought we were already over with this. According to my believes, which I thought we shared in this regard, God doesn't talk to people and explains them exactly what He is and how He "functions". People experience God, through many different ways and then try to rationalize and verbalize these experiences. I don't know how a Trine God feels different from an Unique One, but since in both cases is just One essence.. i guess it would feel the same. I don't understand the difficulty to understand that is just normal that there is no specific mention to this.
5. As I explained before, quoting the Bible is not my strength :p I understand the Trinity without needing to rely on Bible passages. But to make my points I thought it should be better to do so.. I might be wrong, but I ended up to learn some new stuff, so I don't regret it.
6. "a doctrine that was formulated by men 400 years after Christ was on earth?"
Still hitting the same key. I don't get this argument or the point of it in this particular case... and I thought we were over it too.
"We are debating on whether or not they are one person and co equal. I feel like you are misunderstanding exactly what the Trinity Doctrine preaches."
I can't say that this made me sure that we were having some troubles to understand each other, because I already was sure of it. But it certainly proves it again.
"Trinity: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons."
I've already posted this in a previous round, to try to make sure we were debating the same thing... But apparently it didn't work... According to trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT one person.
"The three persons are DISTINCT, yet are ONE "substance, essence or nature"."
I'm not yelling, just trying to emphasize these particular words.
"You however are saying it doesn't really matter what interpretation because the truth changes, the TRUE interpretation 2000 years ago is no longer true because of the evolution of the interpretation. The only person who can change anything is God, human evolution has nothing to do with the truth."
I've never said that the truth changes --' The interpretations of humans regarding that truth changes... And I'm really glad and thankful that it does! :) Otherwise we would be stuck to an Old Testament ideology of a crazy God, that struggles to help a particular group of Jews, through really questionable and twisted ways, and fails to accomplish it.
Or to a Egyptian or Greek polytheism, that you despise so much.
I feel that we still have some issues to resolve :p I don't really care about the result of the debate, but if you come to read this and still have some interest left.. I ask you please!! to post an answer in the comment section or in my profile. It would be awesome!! :)
Thanks again!! and sorry for my aggressive way to address to some particular subjects!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.