The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Matteo6450
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Trinity is not 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 2 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 62176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

kasmic

Pro

Resolve: The doctrine of the trinity is not 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 not biblical
Con will argue that the trinity is biblical

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: opening arguments
Round 3/4: rebuttals and arguments
Round 5: rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments.

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Matteo6450

Con

Hey bro there are over 50 biblical verses in the BIBLE!!! That mention the holy spirit such as Matthew 28:19 and corinthians 8:6 so man read your bible before you start making all kinds of accusations and wild statements
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and good luck to you.

I would like clarify that I do not intend to be disrespectful in anyway. Due to the nature of this debate, and that many hold the trinity to be sacred doctrine it is likely that some may be offended. That is not my intent.

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.

All verses from the KJV
(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...
Matteo6450

Con

I understand that your not trying to come across offensive sorry if I came across as enraged by your statement but with the chaging of the wording by the apostilitic fathers I think that they would have tried to stay as true to the original translation from greek I think and the apostilitc fathers were rewording the translation so it could become more understandable to the common man I this is just my opinion I am new to this kind of thing
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Thank you for responding, I was worried I was going to have to wait through forfeits. No need to apologize, religion is a very personal topic.

My opponent references "apostolic fathers."

Apostolic fathers "are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd Century. They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament."(1)

As I mentioned in my last argument it is "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)

Not only is the Trinity not taught in the Bible. It seems that it was not taught by the Apostolic Fathers either.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.auburn.edu...
Matteo6450

Con

Matteo6450 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Extended.
Matteo6450

Con

Matteo6450 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kasmic

Pro

Extended

I conclude as I did in round two. "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."

Thanks for reading and voting.
Matteo6450

Con

Matteo6450 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChrisL 2 years ago
ChrisL
Ahh. I see the newbie checked out early. Typical. Lol.
Posted by ChrisL 2 years ago
ChrisL
Kasmic is misusing the citation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the formulation of the "one being, three persons" construct. It did take a couple centuries for the church to find the rights words to define the doctrine, no one ever denied that. The term that we get the word "person" from didnt even exist until early 3rd century when it was coined by Tertullian. But that does not mean that the early church did not believe in the doctrine. There is Trinitarian language all throughout the church fathers. Anyone who says otherwise, just hasn't read them.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Lol!
Posted by ChrisL 2 years ago
ChrisL
Wow. I hope you are better prepared in our debate. You have not addresses the trinity at all in any of the verses you posted. Your arguments would be good against a modalist. Not a Trinitarian. It doesn't seem to me that you have studied the Trinity that much. What Trinitarians have you read or listened to?
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@Matteo6450 I hope you actually complete this debate, there was another member that I was messaging that was going to accept this debate. You just barely accepted it before them. Most new members on the site join than accept debates and then never complete them. I hope that this is not the case with you. I hope that you finish the debate.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Ok,
Posted by ChrisL 2 years ago
ChrisL
Apparently I don't fit the criteria. If you change the settings I'll be more then glad to debate this.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Feel free to accept it. I would never jest about such a topic.
Posted by ChrisL 2 years ago
ChrisL
Ok. I'll take it. But pls be serious. I don't like to play around with these debates. I aim to be cordial, well mannered, but direct. I hope you will do likewise. I will start reading your debates and aim to address this topic in light of where your coming from. I hope you'll do the same. I did a debate on a similar topic. You may get a good idea of where I'm coming from by reading it. God bless.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
10,000 characters
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kasmicMatteo6450Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
kasmicMatteo6450Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff several times. He also dropped all.of pro's arguments