The Instigator
1970vu
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
telisw37
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Trinity is True.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1970vu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 42672
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

1970vu

Pro

I welcome you to a debate. You can post your first argument. Use any source.
telisw37

Con

For three different god's but one, to mean Trinity that word should at least be in the bible one time.
Trinity
(Found 0 times in 0 verses)

One God
(Found 7 times in 7 verses)
Mal_2:10, Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mar_12:32, And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Rom_3:30, Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
1Co_8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Eph_4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti_2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jam_2:19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Did God form himself in the Old Testament?
" Isa 43:8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes and the deaf that have ears. Isa 43:9 Let all the nations be gathered together and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses that they may be justified: or let them hear and say It is truth. Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:11 I even I am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa 43:12 I have declared and have saved and I have shewed when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses saith the LORD that I am God. "
Debate Round No. 1
1970vu

Pro

Thank you for being in this debate. I apologize for being so rude!

I am going to present my opening argument.

1.The word trinity is not in the bible:

To assume what is not stated must not be true is an argument from silence. Further, to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true because the exact word "Trinity" is absent from the Bible is self-refuting.

What is not at all considered is that even terms like, "Bible," (a Lat. term) or "self-existent," are not mentioned in Scripture and both are biblical truths.If we were only limited to strict biblical words, then, we would have to, when teaching out of the New Testament, use only Koine Greek words that the New Testament authors utilized! Employing unbiblical words does not violate the rules of sola-Scriptura, which says Scripture alone is the sole infallible regula fidei ("rule of faith") for the church, as long as the unbiblical words are wholly consistent with Scripture. Holding firm to the regula fidei the early church would use unbiblical words to explain and define the biblical data revealed within the pages of the Holy Writ.

In other words, "Trinity" is merely a precise doctrinal word that defines the biblical revelation that is so overwhelmingly found in Scripture: God the Father sent God the Son; the Eternal Word, in which He became flesh (cf. John 1:1; 6:37-40; 17:5). After which God the Son died in the place of the believer whereby His death provides full atonement for the sins of His people (cf. Matt. 1:21; Rom. 8:32), and God the Father and God the Son sent the God the Holy Spirit to empower the church, and dwell with believers:

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me" (John 15:26; emphasis added).

Again, this point must be understood: We cannot confuse biblical data with doctrinal words that merely define that data. The doctrine of the "Trinity" was derived from the Scriptural data. Biblical scholar Benjamin B. Warfield explains the difference:

Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and out poured Spirit. (Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1929, 146.)

Thus the Tri-Unity of God is based on biblical data. The formulation of doctrinal words, however, came later when Christians, developed the precise term "Trinity" that simply defined the biblical data, because of the heresies that denied the biblical data in some way or other. As with the doctrinal terms like "Substitutionary Atonement," "Incarnation" or even the term "Gospel." All these terms came later after the apostolic age, which the church used to define the revelation or data that is clearly contained in Scripture.

Moreover, salvation is completely dependent on the Tri-Unity of God (i.e., soteriological Trinity). Example: The Covenant of Redemption, that is, all that the Father gives to Christ will come and He will raise them up at the last day (cf. John. 6:37ff). That Jesus is the Mediator between God (the Father) and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5) can only be true if Jesus is God and is a distinct Person from the one He is mediating for. Again, this point must be understood: we cannot confuse the Scriptural data of the Trinity with the doctrinal word, "Trinity" that defines the biblical data.

2. Premise #1: There is only one God

This premise is almost universally accepted by those who claim to be Christians. For this reason, it should suffice to simply cite I Timothy 2:5, which reads: "For there is only one God, and there is only mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus...."

3. Premise #2: There are Three Persons called God.

The Father is called God.
That there is a person named the Father, who is called God, is acknowledged by a host of Biblical passages, such as I Cor. 1:3, which reads: "May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send you grace and peace." (see also, Rom 1:7; I Pet 1:17).

4. The Deity of the Son.
The Bible also asserts that Jesus of Nazareth is God. That is, the Son is God as well as the Father. In John 8:56-59 Jesus calls Himself "I am," equating himself with Jehovah God of the Old Testament (Ex. 3:14). Christ's participation in the creation of the cosmos necessitates that He is God (John 1:3 and Collosians 1:16 cf. Isaiah 44:24).
These three passages, when carefully compared and with one another, clearly affirm the deity of Christ. The last passage, Isaiah 44:34, states that Jehovah *alone* made all things. The first and second passages both affirm that all things were made through Christ. Therefore, if Jehovah *alone* made all things, and all things were made through Christ, it logically follows that Christ is in fact Jehovah God. The text of Scripture, and the force of logic, leaves us with no other option.

The Apostle John calls both God and Jesus *the First and the Last* and *the Alpha and the Omega* (Rev. 1:18,17;22:13), and hence equates Jesus with God. Other passages of the New Testament which implicitly or explicitly affirm Christ's deity include Mark 2:5-7, John 20:28-29, John 1:1-14, and Collosians 2:9.

In reply to many of these passages, those who accept the authority of Scripture and yet deny the deity of Christ, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Way International, cite passages in the Bible which apparently conflict with Christ's deity, e.g., those which seem to say that Jesus does not possess the attributes of God (e.g., Luke 18:18,19; John 14:28; I Cor. 11:3, 15:28; Collosians 1:15).

The use of these passages rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ's incarnation. When God became man in Christ Jesus God the Son did not "give up" his divine attributes, but simply took on a human nature and denied his human mind access to his divine mind. Consequently, when he said he did not know something he was speaking truly since in the incarnation he willingly gave up access to omniscience, though he remained omniscient, since God cannot give up any of his attributes and still remain God. Therefore, when Jesus said "the Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28), he was referring to his current incarnate position in relation to the first person of the Trinity. This also counts against Oneness, because to say that the "Father" is greater than "I" is to imply two different persons. If they were the same person, one could not be greater than the other; they would be equal. The incarnation, since it involves the Son taking on human nature and thus becoming positionally inferior to the Father, explains how the Father can be greater than the Son and yet the Father and Son share the same nature of deity. The Oneness view can't do that, and the your view cannot explain the deity-affirming passages. It seems that the traditional view does the trick rather nicely. That is why the church fathers, the church councils, and the three major branches of Christendom have seen the doctrine of the Trinity and the Son's Deity as a natural result of a plain reading of the Biblical text.

5. The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The deity of the Holy Spirit has been questioned by many cultic groups. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses state that the term "Holy Spirit" merely refers to the "invisible active force of the Almighty God that moves his servants to do his will" ("Let God Be True," rev. [1952], 89). In other words, the Holy Spirit is not only not deity, he is also *not a person*; it is an impersonal force which God actively employs. That is, for the the "Holy Spirit" is to God what the left-hook is to fictional Rocky Balboa: an impersonal "it" directed by a personal being.
This being the case, it is necessary that we first show that the Bible teaches the personhood of the Holy Spirit. A sufficient condition for being a person is that he-she be a "self-conscious or rational being" (*Random House Dictionary*, 1075). Self-consciousness entails attributes such as knowing, thinking, and communicating. The following passages clearly show that the Holy Spirit is considered a person in Holy Scripture:

And when he comes [the Holy Spirit], he [the personal pronoun] will show the world how wrong it was about judgment [communication].... But when theh Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since heh will not be speaking as from himself but will say only what he has learned [knowing and thinking]; and he will tell you of the things to come [communicating]." (John 16:8,13)
One day while they were offering worship to the Lord and keeping a fast, the Holy Spirit said [communicating], "I [first personal pronoun] want Barnabas and Saul set apart for the work which I have calle them." (Acts 13:2)

In both these passages the Holy Spirit is described as acting in very way a self-conscious person acts: He communicates, thinks, knows, and is described in personal pronouns (i.e., "he" and "I").

Furthermore, there are several other passages that portray the Holy Spirit as exhibiting attributes that are exclusive of personhood. For example, the Holy Spirit is described as consoling (Acts 9:31), helping us in our weakness (Rom 8:26), forbidding (Acts 16:6,7), and able to be lied to (Acts 5:3). Moreover, the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph. 4:30) and insulted (Heb. 10:29), and is said to possess a will (I Cor. 12:11).

The Bible also plainly teaches the *deity* of the Holy Spirit by attributing to him characteristics that are possessed only by God. For example, the Spirit is described as *Eternal*, having no beginning and no end (Heb 9:14). Moreover, he described as *Omniscient* (I Cor. 2:10,11), *Sovereign* (I Cor. 12:6,11), and *possessing the wrath of God* (Heb. 3:7-12).
telisw37

Con

So you agree the Trinity is a concept that is taught by man. Not in bible. Christ is like water H20.
Example: H20=Water=Steam=Ice=Water not three different raw materials but one.
God's = Christ came from Adam who was the first man or root of the line of David. Father.
God's Spirit talked to the flesh of Adam and Eve.
God's Son returned virgin born through a daughter of Eve is what is written but, not taught in church.
God has a spirit that can travel the earth like the wind.
But God does have mass and that human mass that began with Adam.
The First Adam is the same as the Second Adam. Remember the cross.
Rev_5:3, And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
Why? Is God/Christ a man? No!
Rev_5:4, And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. When did Adam/Christ fail? Eden! One must struggle in order to prevail!

Rev_5:6, And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev_5:7, And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. Adam/Christ is sitting on the throne of God bible fact. One guy sitting on the throne. NOT THREE.... NOR A TRINITY.
Debate Round No. 2
1970vu

Pro

Maybe you are confused but I do not believe that there are three Gods. I believe that there is one God with 3 facets. You are confusing me with the Mormon Church.

Water can come in many forms, liquid, ice, and water vapor. But they are part of the same thing, water. This is my belief. I do not believe that there are three Gods. I believe in the opposite, one god with 3 facets.
Let us continue on with the argument.

First let us affirm one thing we have in common.

1.God is infinite and personal unity-in-diversity. This God is love; He creates out of complete free and gracious generosity because He is complete in Himself, not needing His creation to be anything or to express anything. This is the sublime orthodox Christian understanding of God. This God is revealed in creation, through His dealings with human beings in history, and through the Incarnation.

This is where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent believes in this flawed view of god. He thinks that Adam who died In Genesis without any big funeral, is god. I believe in a different view:

There is one personal God whose unique nature it is to be each and all of the following: self-existent; eternal; infinite; omnipresent; omnipotent; omniscient; immutable.

This one God is eternally three divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial.

This God is the Creator of all that is and is, therefore, each and all of the following in relation to Creation: Lifegiver, Sustainer; King; Lawgiver; Judge; Redeemer; Sanctifier.The acts of God in Creation and Redemption are the work of the Holy Trinity.

Creation " Genesis 1: 1, 2, 26 cp. Isaiah 44: 24; Colossians 1: 15, 16

Redemption " Note God"s progressive revelation in Isaiah:

Israel"s plight highlights the need of all mankind for cleansing from sin " Chap 1
God"s majestic holiness contrasted with man"s smallness and unholiness - Chap 6
God promises to send help by means of a special child, 7: 14; a ruler, 9: 6, 7; a shoot from Jesse, 11: 10, 11; an anointed servant, 42: 1-4
Finally God announces that He alone is the Savior and the Redeemer Chap 43-49

Of course my opponent would object. I will anticipate that by providing some expected rebuttals and answers.

1.The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical; unreasonable. It makes no sense; 1+1+1=3 not 1. Even the Catholic Church calls it "a mystery."
The Trinity doctrine transcends reason and logic. It is not opposed to reason and logic.
God is not a math problem, but even so, 1+1+1=3 but 1x1x1=1!
Rejecting the Trinity makes nonsense of part of the Bible. A Unitarian view of God is not more "logical."
When the Church says the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, the Church is not saying that we don"t know anything about it! The Church is saying that it is something we could not ever have come up with on our own, by human reason; it is something that we only know because God has revealed it.

2. The Trinity is a pagan concept as demonstrated by the pagan triads of gods, like the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus.
Something is not untrue just because a pagan believes it. But pagan triads of gods are not anything like the Christian concept of the Triune God. The pagan triads were part of a pantheon of many gods.
If pagan concepts are demonic deceptions, belief in the triads argues for the Trinity, because the demons would be trying to deceive humans by imitation of the truth (1Cor.10:20). If the pagan concepts are mere human intuition, belief in the triads argues for the Trinity.

3.The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. The doctrine cannot be stated without using extra-biblical terminology. The doctrine was formulated using Greek philosophical terminology therefore it originates in Greek philosophy.
It is not wrong to use extra-biblical terminology; the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Cults which deny the Trinity use extra-biblical terminology.
The word "Trinity" not being in the Bible does not make the doctrine unbiblical; the concept is in the Bible and can be stated without using extra-biblical terminology.
Early Christians used Greek terms to communicate their faith to the educated people of their day. The early Church Fathers denied that they received their doctrines from Greek philosophers. The Arians and other heretics used the same terminology.
telisw37

Con

Sorry if you agree,Trinity it is not in the bible, Common sense says Trinity, then it is not biblical. It is an idea taught by man.
Debate Round No. 3
1970vu

Pro

We are told that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we are told in Acts 17:30,31 that *God raised Jesus from the dead*. Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself or the three persons are the one God.
In *Christ's Great Commission* to preach the Gospel, he instructs his disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). It is important to note that the Greek word "name," used in this verse, is singular (homonos). It does *not* say, "in the *names* of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in the *name*...." In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct *persons*, have only one name. This clearly implies the Triune nature of God. Furthermore, the Trinity is revealed at *Christ's incarnation* (Luke 1:35) and *baptism* (Matt 3:16,17), in the *Apostolic benediction* (II Cor 13:13), and in *Christ's own teachings* (John 14:26; 15:26).
"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 the Greek, tou ("the") is used for each title, and each is separated by kai ("and"). This helps support the view that in this text three distinct individual persons are being spoken of:

...in the name of *the* (tou) Father *and the* (kai tou) Son, *and the* (kai tou) Holy Spirit.
If the Greek text had been referring to only one person, it would have most likely read:
...in the name of *the* Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
or,
...in the name of *the* Father, *the* Son, and *the* Holy Spirit.
telisw37

Con

"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 the Greek, tou ("the") is used for each title, and each is separated by kai ("and"). This helps support the view that in this text three distinct individual persons are being spoken of:
However there are not three distinct individual persons sitting on the throne of God.
" Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Juda the Root of David hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev 5:6 And I beheld and lo in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts and in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb as it had been slain having seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. "
Debate Round No. 4
1970vu

Pro

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.

Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.

He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias " a step long since taken by all the Apostles " but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).

Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.

The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.

He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST).
telisw37

Con

Notice the one throne for the one God! Not three thrones of God, just one.
However the elders have thrones in heaven, not any Trinity.
throne of God
(Found 6 times in 6 verses)
Mat_23:22, And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Heb_12:2, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Rev_7:15, Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev_14:5, And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Rev_22:1, And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev_22:3, And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Notice the singular tone in all those verses?
Rev_4:2, And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
Notice one on the throne?
Rev_5:7, And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Rev_20:11, And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev_21:5, And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
I say men have taking one verse Father, Son, & Holy Spirit (=Same guy and Spirit). Jesus who walked on water and hung on the cross, was in Eden as well, with Satan.
Eze_28:13, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze_28:14, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze_28:15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eze_28:16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze_28:17, Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
I rest my case with this. Christ alone as God will reign with those who love Him. 99.9% of religions serves a Trinity (Serve Satan in Ignorance) know not the real God of the bible. Adam was is the Alpha=The first Adam=Same Guy on cross.
Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
" Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last. Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev 22:15 For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright and morning star. "
God Bless!
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
None of those verses apply to higher criticism...
Posted by telisw37 3 years ago
telisw37
I love the higher critics as well!
Rom_1:21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom_1:22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom_1:23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom_1:24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom_1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
You amuse me.
Posted by telisw37 3 years ago
telisw37
I didn't lose. You and them are too proud to admit your errors!
one god
(Found 7 times in 7 verses)
Mal_2:10, Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mar_12:32, And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Rom_3:30, Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
1Co_8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Eph_4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti_2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jam_2:19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Trinity is fully accepted like Sunday Service ignoring the Sabbath!
Nor is the word in the bible, it is taught by men as you said yourself.
trinity
(Found 0 times in 0 verses)
I do not debate Adam to win debates! I do it to expose false teachers and religions. If I spoke correctly according to the precepts of man we would not disagree! If your message is well received then God did not send you.
Luk_6:26, Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Act_17:18, Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
"Example I will look past the cigarette and go home and bang the pretty woman. Instead of going home lonely to jack off alone. With my own self-righteous hand? Duh!"

Telis is easily the most amusing user to me on this site. I think his most charming trait is the way that he dismisses anyone who defeats his arguments as a "babbler" without rebutting their points.
Posted by 1970vu 3 years ago
1970vu
Guys. This debate is done. As a Catholic/Christian, I believe that there is al ot more that unites us rather then divides us.
Posted by telisw37 3 years ago
telisw37
I am addressing Cygnus. I live in a real common world. Where perfect English is not my reality. Example I will look past the cigarette and go home and bang the pretty woman. Instead of going home lonely to jack off alone. With my own self-righteous hand? Duh!
Posted by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
I want to address telisw37.

Good grammar is not key to winning a debate. I freely admit that. But to some, including myself, poor grammar clearly illustrates that you don't have a solid grasp on facts. You could be the greatest debater that ever lived in terms of knowledge the topic, but poor grammar kills it for me every time.

This is going to be a very poor analogy, but if I see a woman who is drop-dead gorgeous, but then lights up a cigarette, I'm immediately turned off. She could be absolutely perfect, but that first drag. Yuck.
Posted by 1970vu 3 years ago
1970vu
I am sorry. I UNDERSTAND NOW. We are however going to keep on debating. I will defend the Christ's teachings.
Posted by telisw37 3 years ago
telisw37
Please keep your personal comments to yourself and debate like a man. What is it you do not understand?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
1970vutelisw37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G is obvious. Arguments go to Pro for soundly responding to Telis' only real point (that the word "Trinity" is not to be found in the Bible). He did a good job of pointing out that the name of a concept does not have to be in a text for the concept to be espoused by said text. A good example would be the hypostatic union. Sources to Pro for using the only extra-biblical source.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
1970vutelisw37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: As was the case in their previous debate, neither Pro or Con used the vast wealth of sources that are at their fingertips in their arguments, although Pro did cite at least one extra-biblical source (Warfield). I enjoy the debates between the two, but I'd really like to see both use more sources than just the Bible. If either have access to them, it would be great to see them use peer-reviewed journal articles in some of their citations. If neither of them have easy access to journal articles, both have access to Google books. Still, Pro has better grammar and his arguments are more convincing. That said, Pro wins in terms of sources by a slim margin, simply because he refers to an extra-biblical source. Like their previous argument, Con seems to want to pontificate his point of view rather than make a solid, convincing argument. Finally, this is going to sound like I'm digging at Con, but I'm not. His conduct has improved, at least in direct the debate rounds.