The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
mmadderom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Trinity

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...
radz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 52413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

radz

Pro

For serious takers only. This debate challenge is for Unitarians /Devil's advocate who is knowledgable of the Unitarian Theology.

RULES:

Only the Bible must be used for reference.

Round 1:Arguments of Pro/ Rebuttal of Con
Round 2:Arguments of Con/ Rebuttal of Pro
Round 3:No new arguments;extend rebuttal for both sides(must be irrefutable).
Round 4:Conclusion

NOTES:

http://www.gotquestions.org...

http://books.google.com.ph...

ARGUMENTS OF PRO


The Father is neither begotten nor proceeds but the source (Latin: principium) of all things ( 1 Corinthians 8:6).

The monarchy or the source of the Son is the Father ( 1 John 1:1-3).

only-offspring from the Father. - John 1:14

only-offspring, who is God by nature, existing in the bosom of the Father. - John 1:18

* The Son has no beginning of existence because the one who begot him has no beginning (John 1:1, John 5:26,Colossians 1:15).

The monarchy or the source of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son:

The [Holy] Spirit is " out from within" ( Greek: Ek) God [the Father]. -1 Corinthians 2:12

The [Holy] Spirit "proceeds" (Greek: ekporeuetai) from the Father. - John 15:26

This shows oneness of nature between the Father and the Holy Spirit because both are in the same being. The Holy Spirit is in the Father for he is from the Father. Whatever we have inside us, it expresses itself from the inside out. It's never separate to us but is in our being ( MArk 7:23).

Mark 7:23 evil things "proceed" (Greek: ekporeuetai)from within (i.e. the heart).

Ps. 33:6 it is said of the Father, "By the breath of His mouth He made all their power."

2 Thess. 2:8, it is said of the Son, "whom the Lord Jesus Christ will destroy with the breath of His mouth."

John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the Holy Spirit to his disciples.

* The Holy Spirit has no beginning of existence because he came from both the Father and the Son who have no beginning of existence ( Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:14).

mmadderom

Con

It comes to interpretation. There are no Bible verses that 'refute' the trinity as it is recognized by most of Christianity and, frankly, the church took quite a liberal position in positing the 'trinity' as they describe it. The trinity is an ideal that came along WELL after the Bible was completed and printed. It is an interpretation of the early Christian church, not taught in the Bible. At least not as it is now taught.

That said, there are ALSO no Biblical verses that 'prove' the trinity as accepted by most of Christianity. The trinity as understood today was not Biblical in nature. At least it was not considered important enough to comprehend to be clearly described in scripture. The idea of a 'trinity' as is now accepted didn't come along until a few hundred years after the crucifixion. Considering just how important 'trinity' is to Christianity, one would think Jesus would have made this an emphasis of his teachings. To the contrary, he never claimed to -be- God.

Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew and observed Jewish law and tradition. As such, Jesus himself never once made the claim of a 'trinity' as is currently accepted by the majority of Christian denominations. Indeed, Jesus often submitted to God his "father" which flies directly in the face of the idea of a trinity where God and Jesus are one in the same but in different forms. Jesus prayed long and hard and was completely submissive to God. That doesn't jive with not only the idea of a 'oneness' but it doesn't even indicate that Jesus and God are on equal footing, let alone one in the same. Jesus referred to himself as 'the Son of God', not as God. That's an important distinction in those times as the Son was clearly inferior to his father. If Jesus himself didn't clearly make the claim of being part of a 'trinity' then how can the interpretations of the church centuries later trump that? Remember, this is the same church that changed the Sabbath without biblical authority to do so. (The Bible CLEARLY indicates Saturday as the Sabbath and gives no authority to change as even the Catholic church acknowledged...after changing it).

As there is no evidence that Jesus himself believed he was part of a 'trinity' as taught in Christianity and there is plenty of evidence he believed himself inferior to God, I believe it is impossible to prove the trinity as accepted by most of the Christian churches is not only accurate, but quite possibly heresy.

Belief in the trinity is belief in Church doctrine, not in Jesus teachings. As we well know, when man attempts to interpret what is written, he often (usually) fails in his interpretation. The words of the only infallible man do not support a 'trinity' as it is accepted by many denominations.
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

1.Con is right about the diverse view on the Trinity. To thoroughly evince his point, here's the two views on the Trinity:

NICEAN TRINITY

This is the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Apostles and handed down onto the pre-nicene church fathers ( i.e. sub-apostolic church leaders).It is codified in the Nicene Creed ( 4th Century).

* Note that the content of the Nicene Creed is the same faith of the first, second and third century Christianity and hence, the Trinity did not come into existence on the 4th century but rather, as history tells us, the Nicene Creed is a reaction against the heresy of Arius.

ATHANASIAN TRINITY

This is the doctrine of the Trinity of the post-nicene church fathers which over simplify the Biblical concept of the said doctrine.It is systematized in the Athanasian Creed ( 5th Century).

Notice the difference between these two:

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father and in one Lord, Jesus Christ.

*Note that this is a complete allusion from 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Athanasian Creed

The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God but they are not three gods but one God

*Note that this is not written in the Scriptures.

Although both expresses the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, the former evinces it scripturally because it directly alludes the scripture verbatim while the latter, interpretatively because it expresses the doctrine in a systematic theology.

Conclusion:

Con misunderstood the variance in systematic Christian theology that is why he came up with a bizzare idea that the Trinity wasn't taught in the 1st Century Christendom. Hence, the burden of proof is on Con.


2. Con said that Jesus never claimed to be God. Con's argument holds no water because in the New Testament, we have an explicit record from the gospel of John that Jesus claimed to be God:

John 10:30-33 (NIV)
30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Conclusion: Con's arguement that Jesus never claimed to be God is null and void.

3. Con said that Jesus wasn't a Christian but rather, he's a Jew who oberves Judaism. I totally agree with the former because Jesus wasn't a follower of himself but rather, we human creatures must "follow Christ" (Luke 18:22) and I also totally agree with the latter, because Jesus was indeed " born of a woman, born under the law" based on Galatians 4:4.
of the Trinity:

4. Con said that Jesus submits and prays to God as his Father and this don't evince that he is of the Trinity. Con has mistakently thought that the Son is equal to the Father in all things. The Christian Bible never claims so. There is a sense in which Jesus is equal to the Father while there's a sense in which they are not.

Trinitarian Theology teaches this:

Authority ( functional subordination)

The Father has authority over his own Son.It doesn't lessen his deity at all. Both are still God by nature.

Consider this:

President Barack Obama has authority over American people. Both are of same nature: human.

Nature ( ontological equality)

The Father begot the Son eternally ( Hebrews 1:2-7). The anthropomorphism conveys that they are of same nature.


Consider this:

My Dad is human by nature. I am his son. I am human by nature. ( Simple scientific reality of Genetics).

4. Con assumes that to be the Son of God means you are not God. Logically, Con's argument fails as we shall see:


The son of a human is human.
The offspring of an animal is an animal.
The Son of God is God.

This does not mean that God functions as a progeny in the sense humans do. God does not need sex nor a consort to have an offspring. According to the Christian Scriptures, God always has a Son and this Son of him is his very Wisdom ( Proverbs 8:22-30, 1 Corinthians 1:24-25).

5. Con is unaware that Jeuss did speak of the Trinity:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

19 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,

* Note that the name (Hebrew: Ha Shem) of God is YHWH.

The Trinity wasn't taught in the Sciptures systematically but experientially:

For through him ( the Son) we both have access to the Father by one Spirit ( Ephesians 2:18 NIV).

1 Corinthians 12:4-9 (NIV)

4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,

1 Peter 1:2 (NIV)

2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

And I ( the Son) will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever ( John 14:16 NIV)But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you ( John 14:26 NIV).

6. Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 ( First century reliable documents) show that First Century Christians worships God on the first day of the Week (i.e. Sunday). It's not a rest day but rather, the day where Christians worship. There is totally no evidence that these first century Christians changed the Jewish Sabbath into a Sunday Sabbath.The burden of proof rests on Con.

mmadderom

Con

Conceptually we can understand a 'trinity' in an abstract way, but in practice it is simply not possible at our level of knowledge. Indeed Jesus demonstrated multiple time that he is NOT God, (at least not THE God) but rather an entirely separate entity whose purpose was/is to lead people to God and to act as the ultimate sacrifice.

What you do quoting John 10:30-33 is common practice among both Christians and non Christians alike to claim the scriptures say one thing when in context they clearly say something else. It's disingenuous no matter which side presents the quote out of context.

If we read further down that very interaction, just two more verses, we see Jesus CLARIFIED what he meant which was quite different than he and God are the same entity (blasphemy punishable by death):

John 10-34-36
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are "gods""? 35 If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came"and Scripture cannot be set aside" 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God"s Son"?

In verse 34 Jesus is referencing Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

Quite clearly Jesus is NOT claiming to BE God, but rather Gods son. Further even at that, he references scriptures that says we are ALL 'sons of God', hence his words claiming to be the son of God was not blasphemy. He was stating that everyone is considered the children of God regardless of their DNA.

Actual Conclusion: You have misread a couple of verses out of context in order to fit your agenda. When put into proper context, they say something entirely different. Jesus did NOT claim to be God, doing so would have been Blasphemy as he understood and quite succinctly explained, if only you read it.

Your concession of a sense that Jesus is not equal to the father in all things should, on it's face, end the debate. Unless you hold a very abstract view of what the 'trinity' is, or believe it is actually three separate entities and not a trinity at all, then the entire concept falls apart the second one part of the trinity can be demonstrated to be lesser, or unequal to the other parts.

The concept of the trinity demands that all three be exactly equal as they are one in the same. The roles each part of the trinity plays is different, however, being the same entity no one role can be subservient to another. Jesus is CLEARLY subservient to his father throughout the New Testament. He consistently prayed to the father, taught others to do the same, even asked God to spare him:

Matthew 26:36-42
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. ...
O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

From the cross Jesus asked God why he had forsaken him:

Matthew 27:45"46
45 Now from the 1sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the 3ninth hour. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "aEli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Now, I concede that Jesus fully comprehended why he was having to endure what he was enduring and that he was acquiescing to Gods will rather than his own (another show of subservience). However, these words from Matthew clearly indicate an entity separate from God first begging to be spared and then accusatory/dismayed at God's decision. Unless you are accusing God of being schizophrenic, it is not possible to reconcile these words with a trinity in which God and Jesus are one in the same.

Luke 23:34

34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments.

Jesus clearly indicates he doesn't have the authority to forgive. That his father alone has that power. Jesus only authority is to tell those who follow his teachings what will happen as he does in

Luke 23:43

Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Conclusion: Even at the end of his life Jesus CLEARLY demonstrates he is lesser than God, not one in the same.

He asks God to spare him.
He advocates on behalf of those who are crucifying him. Though clearly cannot offer absolution of his own power.
But at the same time he confidently tells a follower dying with him that he is saved.

Jesus was the bearer of news and the preacher of God. The way, the truth, and the light. He was the supreme leader in coming to God. However there are very clear distinctions between Jesus and the Father. They are obviously not on the same level. Again, any logical definition of the trinity demands all three parts are equal.

Your Obama parallel is ridiculous on it's face. How Does Obama "having authority" over the American people (actually he doesn't, but that's a different debate) have any correlation to the trinity? To accept the trinity, you have to accept that Father and Son are THE SAME ENTITY. Not of 'the same nature', whatever that even means.

Your dad is human and as his son you are as well...again, this has nothing to do with the trinity...UNLESS you are also claiming that your dad and you are the same person (entity). The apple may not fall far from the tree, but it does fall, it doesn't remain a part of the tree.

By Jesus words quoted above, scripture tells us that we are ALL 'gods' "by nature". That has nothing to do with any trinity.

"The son of a human is human.
The offspring of an animal is an animal.
The Son of God is God."

This is not a logical progression.

Jesus was the son of a human + God. One can argue whether that by default makes him A God, but it certainly doesn't make him THE God. It does make him human (the entire purpose of his existence to begin with) while God absolutely is NOT human. Hence your progression fails.

Further to his point:

Is the son of a Doctor automatically a doctor?
Is the son of a murderer automatically a murderer?

The son of the King is a Prince, not the king. There is a clear distinction.

While Pro is correct that Matthew 28:19 is the closest Jesus ever came to describing a 'trinity', read it carefully.

"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"

Jesus clearly is speaking of three separate entities. Perhaps equal in importance in terms of spiritual growth, but not the same entity as we are taught the trinity is.

I found this quote by you curious as it goes to my argument:

And I ( the Son) will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever ( John 14:16 NIV)But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you ( John 14:26 NIV).

This passage CLEARLY indicates Jesus is describing three very different entities. He speaks of 'asking' his Father to give you an 'advocate' to 'remind you of what I have said'. It couldn't be more clear that Jesus is laying down a definite separation of himself from his father and the holy spirit. Three SEPARATE entities working together, not ONE entity working in different ways. This is akin to your mother, father, and nanny all working together to raise you. They all have the same goal in mind, but play different roles in achieving that goal. Each role is supportive of the other. But they aren't one in the same person (as a 'trinity' is)

"Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 ( First century reliable documents) show that First Century Christians worships God on the first day of the Week (i.e. Sunday)."

Exodus 34:21
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

It doesn't get much simpler than that

Out of space
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

1)
The church understands the Trinity in their Christian worship:

Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit

For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father ( Ephesians 2:8 ESV).

The only way to understand the immanent Trinity is to experience the economic Trinity:

Immanent Trinity: the relationship of the three to each other.

"No one has ever seen God yet: the only-offspring who is God by nature;being in the bosom of the Father; this [one] he did show." ( John 1:18)

"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." ( Matthew 28:19 NIV)

Economic Trinity: the relationship of the three to the world they created.

"Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him." ( John 14:23 NASB)

2)
In the Christian Scriptures, these are evident:

theos (anarthrous: divine, God's nature, as a title: god, God)

ho theos ( the God)- title of the LORD [i.e. YHWH].

https://sites.google.com...
http://www.christiandefense.org...
http://biblehub.com...

Jesus Christ claimed to be "theos" in the sense of having God's nature in John 10:30-33.

His disciple believe ( John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3).

3)
John 10:30-38 [ Jesus Christ claimed to be God ]


Here's the context:


>John 10:28 The Son has the ability to keep his saints in his hand
>John 10:29 the Father has the ability to keep his saints in his hand

Note:

The phrase " no one will snatch them out of my hand" is in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:39. It is clearly a divine attribute.

>John 10:30 The Son said that he and the Father are one[in ability to keep their saints in their hands].


Note:

The context is clear that the Son is claiming oneness with the Father in regards to the divine attribute of immutability, impeccability and omnipotence. Jesus is basically saying that he as the Son is one with the Father in nature.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus.

John 10:32 Jesus responded.He said that he did many good works from the Father and asked the Jews for which of these do they stone him. Jesus made a question to reveal his identity.

Note:

>In John 10:25, Jesus said: “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me." So, basically, Jesus is asking the Jews in order to reveal his identity to them.

>John 10:33 The Jews responded. They said that they are not going to kill him for the good works Jesus did but because of Jesus' blasphemy for he, existing as a human, claims to be God.


Note:

Blasphemy ( Greek: blasphemos, to speak evil). Based on context, Jesus is disobeying Leviticus 24:16 because he took the name ( the character, nature and identity) of the LORD God in evil by claiming to be God because he is human not God [ based on the belief of the Jews].

>John 10:34 Jesus defended his claim via a question from the OT Scripture( Psalm 82:6 LXX): “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? [Jesus is asking the Jews in order to defend his identity to them which they have understood].
>John 10:35 Done quoting the scripture for defense, Jesus now elucidates what it means. It means that if God calls humans "gods" ( gods by function: through whom the word of God came) and that's inffalible.
>John 10:36 Jesus asked: do you say of Him, whom the Father has set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? [Jesus is asking the Jews in order to defend his identity to them which they have understood].

Note:

Jesus is equating his claim of godhood to sonship because contextually, his godhood is explianed by his being a Son.
>John 10:37 Jesus said that his works testifies that he is telling the truth, that he is one with the Father by virtue of ebing the Son i.e. that he claimed to be God by nature and hence, God in identity. This is evident in John 10:25 and John 10:32. Jesus is asking the Jews in order to reveal his identity to them.

>John 10:38 Jesus said that if he does the works, then even if they don't believe* in his revelation of his identity, let them rather believe the works so that you may know that the Father and I are in unity [of nature].

Note:
The Jews did not believe* and this means they understood the claim of Jesus.

Understand the claim: disbelieve the claim ( John 10:33)
Believe the works: understand the claim ( John 10:38)


4)
Matthew 26:36-42, Matthew 27:45-46, Luke 23:34 all of these verses explicate these biblical truths:

The Son has no authority on his own ( Matthew 28:19) and this proves that he is the Son but his sonship also proves his godhood ( Phil. 2:6, Heb.1:3, John 1:1).It also proves the fact of the Incarnation, that Jesus has two wills and two minds because he has two natures ( Colossians 2:9, John 1:14). The Son is always not equal to the Father in authority ( John 5:19) but he is always equal to the Father in nature ( Johnh 5:18,Philippians 2:6).



5)
Con has misunderstood the Trinity doctrine:

The Father , Son and Holy Spirit are three persons NOT three gods.

Person:the set of consciousness, volition and emotion with aseity.
God: the title or nature of the LORD

The Father= the person who is the "only true God" ( John 17:3) against those fake gods who "aren't gods by nature" based on Galatians 4:8.

The Son= equally shares the Father's title of" God' because he is the "sophia theou" ( Wisdom of God) based on 1 Corinthians 1:24.
The Holy Spirit =equally shares the Father and the Son's title of "God" because he is the "pneumatos" ( breath, life, spirit) of them based on John 15:26 & John 20:22.

The relationship of the three shows that the three are one God not three gods. The other two persons are in the being of the Father that's why no second god or third god exists but only one. Matthew 28:19 shows that there are three persons who has the one name of "the LORD" ( YHWH, ho Kyrios -- based on context: Ha Shem; the Name: Leviticus 24:16).

F = God - ONE
S= God - wisdom of God
HS= God - spirit of God

6)
Con is oblivious about the Incarnation:

The Word was God - John 1:1
The Word became flesh - John 1:14

Jesus wasn't only human by nature. In him dwells all the fulness of deity bodily based on Colossians 2:9.

7)
Con said:

Is the son of a Doctor automatically a doctor?
Is the son of a murderer automatically a murderer?

The son of the King is a Prince, not the king. There is a clear distinction.

Response:


Con confuses appelations to quality. I am referring to the essence of a subsistence NOT the function. Therefore, Con's argument is null and void.

To avoid any nuances. Here's the substance of my argument in such a way that is explicit:

The son of a human is human [by nature]
The offspring of an animal is an animal [by nature]
The Son of God is God [by nature]

Con said that all humans are gods by nature. The burden of proof is on him. The Bible never speaks of humans as equal to God in nature and only Jesus did claim to be so ( John 5:18).

8)
I extend my argument because Con simply did not refute my argument:

Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 ( First century reliable documents) show that First Century Christians worships God on the first day of the Week (i.e. Sunday)."
mmadderom

Con

mmadderom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

I extend my arguments.
mmadderom

Con

"The son of a human is human [by nature]
The offspring of an animal is an animal [by nature]
The Son of God is God [by nature]"

You can type this as many times as you like, it's still not a logical progression.

The son of a human is A human (not the SAME human)

Therefore, by LOGICAL extension

The son of God is A God (not the SAME God)

Also, the Son of a human is a human in actuality, not "by nature".

"Con said that all humans are gods by nature. The burden of proof is on him. The Bible never speaks of humans as equal to God in nature and only Jesus did claim to be so "

Huh? Perhaps you should read my arguments rather than guessing. I gave you the scripture both from Jesus own mouth as well as what he was referencing:

John 10-34-36
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are "gods""? 35 If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came"and Scripture cannot be set aside" 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God"s Son"?

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

Jesus himself quoted Psalm in defense of himself and as evidence that he did not commit blasphemy by saying he was Gods son as indeed scripture equates all as 'gods' and sons of God.

"No one has ever seen God yet: the only-offspring who is God by nature;being in the bosom of the Father; this [one] he did show." ( John 1:18)"

Why are you altering scripture? To win a silly internet debate?

I checked 21 different versions of the Bible and not a single one contains the words "who is God by nature". Every version either states "Who is HIMSELF God" or some version of "at his fathers side" or "in his fathers bossom".

Which brings us to another issue. Different translations have very different meanings of that same verse. NIV and NLT state that Jesus IS God, one in the same. KJ and most other version state some variation of 'God's only Son'.

In any event, every versions states either that Jesus IS God in a literal sense, or that he is the SON of God. None of them sate 'by nature' or anything close to that.

Anyhow, as it is clear you have no trouble altering scripture to fit your arguments and I have no desire to go back and cross check each of your quotes to see which (if any) you accurately quoted and which you amended, I will end it here.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
I directly translated John 1:18 from the Greek regarding monogenes theos, this Greek phrase functions as substantive. Even Origen translate it as " the only begotten one, being God" ( ca. 200). Theos is anarthous and hence, it is referring about the nature of the monogenes. The theos in John 1:1 is anarthrous too.
Posted by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
"His only good point was calling Pro on his misquote of John 1:18."

That "misquote" of John 1:18 wasn't a misquote at all. It was an intentional manipulation of scripture to support his position. When you CHANGE your source in order to make it say what you WANT it to say rather than what it ACTUALLY says, you have in effect cheated. Nobody reading these arguments was going to fact check his quoting of scripture...except me...because I knew those words don't exist anywhere in any Bible I've read. That simply isn't how people talked or wrote at the time the Bible was written.

That I didn't accept my opponents arguments doesn't mean I didn't understand them, only that they were clearly inaccurate in regard to church teachings.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
Alright. then it must rather be " most cogent or reasonable per contextual analysis of the source (i.e. the Bible)" :)
Posted by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
"Round 3:No new arguments;extend rebuttal for both sides(must be irrefutable)."

I have a problem with this. NOTHING is 'irrefutable' in a debate. If it were irrefutable, it wouldn't be debatable. The two are complete opposites.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
Oh, awesome!
Posted by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
Eh, I'll give it a shot
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
When I say Bible only it does not mean the English Translation but rather, it includes the Greek MSS and its meaning. The only reference to be used is the Bible ( that's what I wrote) and all other things ( about the Bible) are accepted(e.g. Greek MSS, Ancient Versions, Greek Dictionaries etc).

Hence, a Unitarian must prove that the Bible verses they are using to refute the Trinity must be IN CONTEXT or else it is a pretext.
Posted by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
I understand that. But you are asking them to use only Biblical reference to disprove something that in their mind doesn't exist. That's just not possible. It isn't that they don't believe in God, Jesus as Gods son, and the Holy spirit. They absolutely DO believe in all three. Their position is simply that they are three separate entities, not one in the same taking on differing forms (the trinity). It is simply a different interpretation of scripture from yours.

Since not all translations of the Bible are the same, nor are ANY of them wholly accurate translations (the bible is incredibly difficult to translate as it was written in multiple different languages, some which no longer even exist, and often don't have a direct translation to other languages to the true thought is often lost in translation.) it would be nearly impossible for someone to debate your topic using only biblical verse. Afterall, you are asking them to 'prove' something doesn't exist based on YOUR interpretation, but also asking them to accept and use your interpretation to do so.

Your best option for this debate is probably a Jew or Muslim who simply don't take the New Testament as fact and use the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament) and Qu'ran as references rather than the new testament quotes. It is possible to do so and still leave an opponent a realistic ability to counter you. I just think you are asking to much of someone to use biblical verse alone to 'disprove' something. The only real argument is that the Bible doesn't talk about 'trinity' at all. It is itself an interpretation that came along several hundred years after the conclusion of the Bible.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
exist*
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
@mmadderom, Unitarians exists. They thought that the Trinity is not found in Scripture:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com...
http://www.angelfire.com...
http://carm.org...
http://www.jw.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
radzmmadderomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: In the first round, Con's case was much clear than Pro's. Pro made several statements and cited scripture, but did not explain how those scriptures supported his claims, and it wasn't entirely clearly what his claims meant. In the second round, Pro responded beautifully to Con's opening, and Con seemed to misunderstand some of what Pro said, especially about the different senses of Jesus equality and subordination with the Father. Con also appeared to confuse the Trinity with modalism. In Round 3, Pro corrected Con's misunderstanding of the Trinity, and Con forfeited (so conduct to Pro). In the last round, Pro extended his arguments, and Con gave his last response. Con failed to understand some of Pro's arguments, dropped his previous arguments about Trinitarian distinctions, and reiterated an argument (ye are gods) that Pro already responded to. His only good point was calling Pro on his misquote of John 1:18.