The Instigator
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Trinity is Biblical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 62098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

kasmic

Con

Resolve: The Trinity is biblical

Trinity: "Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being."(1)

Biblical: "of or in the Bible." "in accord with the Bible."(2)

Pro will argue that the trinity is biblical
Con will argue that the trinity is not biblical

Round one for pro is acceptance/first argument
Round two/three Rebuttals and arguments
Round four rebuttals and closing statements. No new arguments.

This does give pro an extra round, and the bonus of the last word. Thank you to whomever accepts and good luck.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Ajabi

Pro

I want this to be fair, so I shall only accept. I accept this debate, I believe we are assuming the Bible as a spiritual doctrine, as opposed to an existential one. Very well, I wish you the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Con

Thank you Ajabi for accepting this debate. I was hoping that you would post an argument in round one, as I am arguing against a positive claim. As you did not, and I have nothing to respond to I will post the an argument that I have previously written from another debate to get us started.

A: When did the Doctrine of the Trinity become common?

2 Corinthians 13:1(KJV)

"In the mouth of two to three witnesses shall every word be established."

The following sources agree that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the fourth or fifth century.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."(1)

"Indeed no less a source than the stalwart harper"s Bible Dictionary records that "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries in not to be found in the New testament." (2)

B: The doctrine of the Trinity does not fit the text of the Bible

"Concerning Old Testament scriptures, "theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts .... to cite texts like Genesis 1:26 .... as proof of plurality in God." And "... in the New Testament the doctrine of the Trinity is not enunciated ..." but only "deduced from a collocation of passages ...."

The Trinity, therefore, did not " ... reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God, it was, on the contrary, a divination from this teaching."(1)

Let"s take a look at some verses of the Bible. With each example we will try to apply the doctrine of the trinity.

1: Mathew 3:

Context: "John the Baptist preaches in Jud"a"Jesus is baptized, and the Father acclaims Him as His Beloved Son."(3)

" 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Application of the Trinity: God saw himself be baptized, while being baptized, and descending like a dove. Then Says I am well pleased with myself?

2: Mark 10:18 (see also Mathew 19: 16-17 and Luke 18-19)

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."(4)

Application of the trinity: If Jesus and the Father are one, as in the same person, how can only one of them/himself be good and not the other?

3:Mathew 24:36 (see also mark 13:32)

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Application of the Trinity: If Jesus and God are the same being, how can one have a knowledge of something the other does not?

4: John 17

Context: "Jesus offers the great Intercessory Prayer"He is glorified by gaining eternal life"He prays for His Apostles and all the Saints"He explains how the Father and Son are one."(4)

Verses 1-3

"1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Application of the Trinity: if Jesus and the Father are one, what would be the purpose of praying? Does God have to ask himself to glorify himself? Is he a schizophrenic?

Secondly, If God the Father and Jesus are one, why would you have to know both as expressed in verse 3? Would not knowing one be inclusive of the other?

Verses 20-22

"20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Prior to these verses Jesus is praying for his apostles, then in verse 20 he prays for those that will believe on their words. "That they all may be one".even as we are one." Do any Christians believe that Christ is including believers as part of the trinity? Did Jesus intend for his apostles to become one person?

5: Luke 22

Context: "Jesus institutes the sacrament"He suffers in Gethsemane and is betrayed and arrested"Peter denies knowing Him"Jesus is smitten and mocked."(5)

"41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone"s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

Application of the Trinity: Again talking to himself, asks himself to remove his own burden but not his will but his will. (sounds pretty off doesn't it.)

6: Mathew 27:46

" And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Application of the Trinity: Jesus asks himself why he has forsaken himself.

In each of these verses of scripture it becomes very clear that the doctrine of the trinity is not taught in the Bible. Rather, it seems the Bible teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct beings.

Concluding my argument

It is clear that as the doctrine of the trinity was not taught commonly until hundreds of years after Christ, as well as that the doctrine does not mesh with the text of the Bible, The doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical.

(1)http://www.auburn.edu...
(2)https://www.lds.org...
(3)https://www.lds.org...
(4)https://www.lds.org...
(5)https://www.lds.org...
Ajabi

Pro

I am going to forcefully have to excuse myself from this round. The civil unrest in my country caused the internet to be cut; even this I write with great difficulty. I can therefore not post this round, but I ask that my opponent wait 3 days to extend, and I will begin with the next round. I apologise profusely for this, and I understand if my conduct is cut. Once more my most sincere apologies. Ajab.
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Con

extended.
Ajabi

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. I apologize profusely for not answering in the last round, my country is currently in a civil crises, and "revolutionary" protesters thought it their "democratic responsibility" to burn down the buildings of the government. Including my internet provider's whose servers were located next to the building owned by the government. Cheerful, no?

I feel that my opponent does not have a clear conception of the Trinity. I should note that a lot what I say is from Saint Augustine's book De Trinitate. Where I have mentioned St. Augustine's words, I mean this book. Let us understand that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one physical entity. In so far as physical (whatever constitutes for physical for the Father, and Spirit) is concerned, they are a Trinity of three persons. It is rather is Geistes that they are One and the Same. So physically as St. Augustine says: '...the Father does some things, the Son others, and the Holy Spirit yet others;'. This is an important distinction for it was only the Father who proclaimed Jesus His Son (Mark 1:11). Similarly it was the Son who was born of a virgin, and the Holy Spirit alone who appeared as the dove to John.

The important distinction here between the Father, and the Son (in terms of physical attributes (because my opponent mostly sticks to Jesus)) is that things are "from" the Father, and "through" the Son. This is a very important distinction, and we shall now show from Scripture, and connect this to show why "through" here is most important. Verily, it is the Father whose will is the greatest, but it is through another form of the Father, mainly Jesus.

Let us then present the celebrated verse: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. (John 1:14). It is clear that this Word through which this Word became common word is Jesus, and we are told this from the verse '...and the Word became flesh'. (John 1:14)

So we know that Jesus was immortal, in so far as He too was always there. We also know, beyond doubt, from Scripture that Jesus was in fact God. While Jesus was not the Father, and the Father was not Jesus, they were One is Geistes. For things must come from the Father, but through Jesus. Here John explicitly mentions it in one of the verses of the Bible.

Similarly we have John's testimony again when he says: 'We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding to know the True One, and "to be in the true one", in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and life everlasting'. (John 5:20) This once again shows how Jesus is in fact one with God the Father. Jesus was both Man and God, he was separate from the Father, and yet connected in Spirit.

Similarly connecting to this we can conclude that Paul's words "who alone has immortality" (Tim 6:16) refer to the Spirit of God, including both Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit.

Another reference is to the sameness of the Father and of Jesus when the Bible says: 'whatever the Father does, the Son also does likewise" (John 5:19); one more reference of sameness is: 'As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the son gives life to whom he wills'. (John 5:21). In the Greek the possession of "he" is given to the Son meaning the Son does in fact have Will.

So in fact it is pointless to argue that the Bible does not support the Trinity when even (I Corinthians 11:3) state: 'But the head of Christ is God".

I leave with one question, if my opponent doubts the Trinity is biblical then he needs to provide an alternate. Pray tell, if Jesus is not the Son of God, who is Jesus? If Jesus is not God, or does not resemble God then what was he? My opponent needs to answer these questions for I have provided sufficient evidence of the Biblicality of the Trinity.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Con

Rebuttals,

My opponent referenced Saint Augustine. according to Wikipedia he was born in year 354. Hundreds of years after Christ. This is consistent with the information I provided in my opening argument which states that "the Doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the fourth or fifth century"

My opponent says:

"In so far as physical (whatever constitutes for physical for the Father, and Spirit) is concerned, they are a Trinity of three persons. It is rather is Geistes that they are One and the Same."

First I would like to note that the word "Geistes" is not found on dictionary.com, Merriam-webster, or oxford dictionaries. This is exceptionally unfortunate as this is the last round, and there is no way to agree on a definition of this word. I am under the impression my opponent means Geist.

Geist "Depending on context it can be translated as the English words mind, spirit, or ghost,"(1)

I am assuming that my opponent is implying that they are literally one mind, as he says they are not physically as he admits.

A: I again reference John 17:20-22

"20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

If I am to accept what my opponent has said, then apparently every on who believes on the words of the apostles, the apostles themselves, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all become "one" in a Geistes way.

I do believe that they are of one mind, as in of the same purpose, but they have separate minds, as in the Father has his mind and the Son his, Though the Son submits to the will of the father.

B:I will again reference Luke 22

"41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone"s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

These verses confirm what I have concluded. That they have separate and distinct minds, but the Son submits to the Father.

C: Mathew 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Clearly the Bible teaches they are not literally the same mind.

My opponent References John 1:14 which reads:

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

He then concludes:

"So we know that Jesus was immortal, in so far as He too was always there. We also know, beyond doubt, from Scripture that Jesus was in fact God. While Jesus was not the Father, and the Father was not Jesus, they were One is Geistes"

This verse confirms that Jesus is the "only begotten of the Father." It does not confirm the doctrine of the trinity at all.

My opponent goes on to say:

"Similarly we have John's testimony again when he says: 'We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding to know the True One, and "to be in the true one", in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and life everlasting'. (John 5:20) This once again shows how Jesus is in fact one with God the Father. Jesus was both Man and God, he was separate from the Father, and yet connected in Spirit."

Here is the text from 1 John 5:20

"20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Again, after reading the verse, it does not articulate the doctrine of the trinity at all.

My opponent says:

"Another reference is to the sameness of the Father and of Jesus when the Bible says: 'whatever the Father does, the Son also does likewise" (John 5:19); one more reference of sameness is: 'As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the son gives life to whom he wills'. (John 5:21). In the Greek the possession of "he" is given to the Son meaning the Son does in fact have Will."

Again I will provide the text John 5:19-21

"19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."
All one has to two is replace the two names to see this does not imply the trinity. "I can do nothing of myself but what I see you do: for what things soever you doeth, these also will I do likewise." Nothing in there seems to imply that they are "one."

My opponent concludes:

"So in fact it is pointless to argue that the Bible does not support the Trinity when even (I Corinthians 11:3) state: 'But the head of Christ is God"."

Here is the text 1 Corinthians 11:3

" But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

If as my opponent has stated that God being the head of Christ makes them one (trinity) Then are not men and women also in the trinity via this verse. It seems my opponent has not read the verses that he is citing. To apply this the way he has, it would have to apply through the whole verse.

My opponent says:

"I leave with one question, if my opponent doubts the Trinity is biblical then he needs to provide an alternate. Pray tell, if Jesus is not the Son of God, who is Jesus? If Jesus is not God, or does not resemble God then what was he? My opponent needs to answer these questions for I have provided sufficient evidence of the Biblicality of the Trinity."

I would be happy to present my personal beliefs to you through messages or perhaps through the forum. However, for the purpose of this debate, the resolution is "The Trinity is Biblical." I have taken the side of con and have shown that the trinity is not biblical, It would be beyond the construct of this debate for me to offer an alternative.

Extended arguments:

In round two I presented this argument which was not rebutted.

A: When did the Doctrine of the Trinity become common?

The following sources agree that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not established until the fourth or fifth century.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."(2)

"Indeed no less a source than the stalwart harper"s Bible Dictionary records that "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries in not to be found in the New testament." (3)

"Concerning Old Testament scriptures, "theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts .... to cite texts like Genesis 1:26 .... as proof of plurality in God." And "... in the New Testament the doctrine of the Trinity is not enunciated ..." but only "deduced from a collocation of passages ...."

The Trinity, therefore, did not " ... reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God, it was, on the contrary, a divination from this teaching.(2)

The doctrine of the trinity was not taught or accepted widely by Christians until around the fourth or fifth century.

Conclusion:

At the beginning of my opponents last round he stated "I feel that my opponent does not have a clear conception of the Trinity." On the contrary I feel as though he does not have a clear conception of what is taught in the bible.

Thank you again Ajab for accepting this debate. It has become clear when you read the verses in the bible that the trinity is not taught. At best it is "deduced from collocation of passages" however, clearly it is not "enunciated" in the Bible. The Trinity clearly is not Biblical

Thank you all who take the time to read and vote.
All verses from KJV

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.auburn.edu...
(3) https://www.lds.org...
Ajabi

Pro

Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
i'll have someone vote
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
I do apologize kasmic. I hope we can re do this debate soon. I completely lost track of time. Congrats on your win.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
I have the good fortune of the internet again. Please extend whenever it is convenient.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@Emilrose, I appreciate your enthusiasm to respond. However, your comments are very close to the subject of the debate. Please keep comments from material that could be used in the debate, as I would like to have a clean debate.
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
1Credo, Is that so? Any Christian that believes that is heavily misinterpreting their own doctrine. Do you mean to say that Jesus created Adam and Eve? That he selected Moses to bring the Jews out of Egypt? That he created the world?

There's numerous New Testament verse that specifies that Jesus is G-ds son, not God himself. In fact it's explicit in this:

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (John 4:10)

Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" (Luke 9:45)

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mark 14:61)

Even the Old Testament contradicts your statements:

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers"it is to him you shall listen. (Deuteronomy 18:15)

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@1Credo I appreciate your perspective, and understand what you are saying. My response is to say that empirically evident by the universe that life does not produce "one of a kinds' as far as species. Therefore Monotheism must be false.

Not only do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, but that I am and that you are. Romans 8:16-17 Children grow up to be like there parents. Paul said "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:14 He also said "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philippians 2:5-6 Even Jesus said "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" John 10:34

I believe that through the atonement of Jesus Christ I can become like him as is stated "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2

Not to get to preachy, just to present the idea.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@kasmic

Sorry, I want to make sure I don't interfere with your debate.

I do believe that God is the only of His "kind." Again, in the case of polytheism, a greater conceivable being is always present. This, to me, shows that polytheism must be false.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@1Credo unless you believe that God is the last of his kind going extinct?

I did not mean to discourage our conversation in case there was any confusion. I just ment on subject matter relevant to the debate topic.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@1Credo I did not say religious views are not intellectually defensible... I said not "easily." To believe that there is this one God out there that is one of a kind of species all by himself does not seem intellectually defensible. It seems empirically evident by the make up of the universe that species do not exist solitary. There is no "one of a kind."

I would like to remind those who comment that this is now an accepted active debate, and that if comments are made, please be sure not to step on the toes of either debaters as we are debating each other and not the comments.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@kasmic

I disagree, I think there are a wide variety of religious views that are intellectually defensible. And I'm not sure what you're getting at when talking about societies of creatures and a solitary being.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
kasmicAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, con gave full evidence for the lack of trinity within the bible, knocking down effectively all at once