The Instigator
joshandr30
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
ANSmith
Con (against)
Losing
47 Points

Trinity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 17 votes the winner is...
joshandr30
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,276 times Debate No: 5336
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (17)

 

joshandr30

Pro

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity a Scriptural Doctrine?

Scriptures- Protestant 66 Book Holy Bible
Version- KJV or NIV. Choose one and then stick with it. I will give the contender the choose of version.
I will give Scriptural proof that the Doctrine of Trinity is a valid Doctrine.
No straw men please. Waste of time and characters.
Either version of Protestant 66 book Bible is reliable source for information is this debate.
ANSmith

Con

considering this debate is 5 rounds long, this round will just be my introduction and my acknowledgment of my opponent.

First I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate, I am looking forward to it.

I am using KJV.

By the Protestant teachings, the trinity is 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost', and believed that they are the same person. They are all "branch offs" if you will, of God. This is what you mean by "Trinity".

I look forward to this debate..
Debate Round No. 1
joshandr30

Pro

First let me begin by thanking you for your participation in this debate. I hope we will both leave this debate learning something we did not know before we began. I chose 5 rounds because it seems the first tow rounds are about clearing up meanings and such and leaves less room for debate. I am not sure if we have the same understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. It might help if you go to NewAdvent.com and study the doctrine on Trinity so that we are both well informed about this debate. I can give you a quick overview of the Trinity. The Godhead is made up of Three separate but completely equal "persons". Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All God and all together ONE. Not three Gods but One God in Three Persons. The Father is God, Jesus (The Son) is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And in Truth the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Catholic Doctrine and the Protestant sects kept the Doctrine when they separated from Her. I hope this clears it up a bit.
ANSmith

Con

we do have the same understanding of what the Trinity is. As a former Protestant (I'm now Mormon), I know all to well the teachings of the Trinity. I will let you post your opening argument to this debate when you are ready to do so. Simply opening argument, I guess the real debate with start in round 4 after we have both spoken our stand on the topic and such.
Debate Round No. 2
joshandr30

Pro

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Because the first verse is clear there is ONE God and the other verses I posted are clear there is more then One there is NO other explanation then the Doctrine of the Trinity.
One verse CAN not cancel the other or else all would be for not.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
One God in Three, the Doctrine of the Trinity.
ANSmith

Con

In Acts, Steven is preaching to the people while they are stoning him to death, he looks up at the heavens and sees God and Jesus Christ (2 personages) and is filled with the Spirit. So if Steven sees God and Jesus Christ, then that means that 2 of the 3 entities are in two different places. So two questions being:

1. how can they be one (God, Christ, and Holy Ghost are considered "God") if they are in 2 places?
2. if they are one, then why would God waste his time to manifest himself in this way? There is no logical explanation unless they were 3 separate persons.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" - John 3:16

1. John says VERY CLEARLY that Christ is a BEGOTTEN SON of God. He is the BEGOTTEN son, he is the SON BORN of God. He isn't just the son of God, he's the BEGOTTEN SON of God. So to say that they are one in the same, DOES NOT make sense.

Based on THESE TWO SEPARATE VERSES, the Trinity is 3 completely separate persons, but ONE in purpose
Debate Round No. 3
joshandr30

Pro

In Acts, seeing the two is the plain and simple Doctrine of Trinity. GOD is the Three. When you say God you are saying Trinity. I will explain more in answers to your questions.
1.I do not say (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) I say Father, Son, Holy Spirit) please stay inside what the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
2.They are one, this is called the Trinity. Is Duet. 6:4 wrong?Please answer this question first.
Begotten. Do you understand the Greek and English languages? Running in English can mean person running or machine running, two totally different things. Begotten-monogenes (in Greek) has three possible meanings. only-born;sole;only child. begotten can mean only child just as easy as it can mean only born. Your use of this word could be enough to prove your point IF the rest of Scriptures were left out. Begotten in Greek can also mean genno (Greek) procreate.But this word was not used in Jn 3:16, monogenes was used. Your whole argument hinges on Duet 6:4.Please explain.
ANSmith

Con

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..."
1. Although we will continue to use KJV, the NLT (a simpler KJV) defines begotten 2 mean the 1 and only Son of God. Not God himself. God loved us SO much that he gave HIS SON, because as a parent that would be very painful hence the significance. If God created Christ as an extension of himself, then this verse has no significant meaning. Also, in the time of the King James Bible, the term begotten in all forms literally meant offspring, & is used over & over again:
Heb 11:17 - By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: & he that had received the promises offered up his only BEGOTTEN son...
Mathew 1: 2-16 - Abraham begot Isaac. & Isaac begot Jacob. & Jacob begot Judas & his brethren...
To name a few.

In the KJV, the word begotten is consistently used to refer to a parent/child relationship. This consistency proves my point that Christ is the literal son of God. Not God himself. He was begat of God.
Debate Round No. 4
joshandr30

Pro

If you will remember I gave you a choose of versions and you choose KJV not NLT, and because you began this argument with it to try prove scriptures teach Jesus was born or made by God I will regard your entire argument as irrelevant Please stick to the debate we agreed to. I hope the readers of this debate will understand that because ANsmith violated an agreed standard of the debate her entire argument for this round should be considered irrelevant. Maybe we can get back on topic in the next round. You must show the Doctrine of the Trinity is false by using the KJV Holy Bible as evidence. Saying Jesus is made or born you must prove that from KJV Scriptures, so far you have given circumstantial evidence. Begotten can have more then one definition, you must prove Jesus was not a deity before He was "born" and in the beginning Jesus was not here.
ANSmith

Con

I'm afraid my friend that you have just wasted your final round. I made a quick reference to the NLT, comparing the translation of the two. & I have quoted the KJV this ENTIRE debate. I have provided multiple KJV quotes to assert my claim, you have YET to provide a concise assertion, rebuttal, or any substance for this debate, and have ultimately failed to back your claim. Your waste of a round to render my previous round void, is simply your vain attempt to avoid my assertions and a claim that you cannot disprove.

However, if it will please my opponent, I will drop the single reference to the NLT. However the rest of the points I have made in the previous round, with the exception of the NLT, still stand and your attempt to void my previous round has only left you unable to disprove my claims and ultimately offered you a complete failure to prove your point, and therefore a complete failure to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by my.matryoshka 6 years ago
my.matryoshka
Nice debate, I'm having fun watching it.
Posted by joshandr30 6 years ago
joshandr30
But still look at the debate without your personal beliefs. That is supposed to be what we are doing here anyway. The parameters of the debate are the KJV Bible is the only reliable source for this debate, so for THIS debate the Holy Bible is a reliable source. And then your opponent brings in verses from somewhere else. Would you let that go in one of your own debates, remember this debate is not about whether God exists or Hellisism or your beliefs. It is about what the KJV of the Holy Bible has in it's pages. If someone you were debating did not address one of your points you would just let it go? Or would it stand as truth unless it was addressed. Again remember this debate is NOT about what you believe, it is about the facts as presented in the parameters of the debate. But I can see this is usual tactics for SOME on this site.
Posted by joshandr30 6 years ago
joshandr30
Well actually that was my point. The Jews were the people of God, have you read the whole Bible. It is hard to understand unless you read the whole thing. Think about reading one or two lines out of a book, could you get what the book was saying by doing this? Actually there is no verses besides Duet 6:4 that say much about God being one like you believe the Jews believed. The Jews in Jess's time thought they could write there wives a letter of divorce, but Jesus explained the truth. In Gen. The Hebrew word for God is plural. And as you see in this verse from Old Testament (Jews) .Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
The Lord rained down fire from the Lord out of Heaven. So the Jews had verses like this. God spoke through His Prophets and told the Jews way before Christ that HE does not want there burnt sacrifices. So this says to me through out the Old Testament God was telling His people Truth but they would not listen. So now take Duet 6:4 and John 1:1. They say to opposite things when left to be judged alone separate from the rest of scriptures. But with the WHOLE Bible you can see that Trinity is the only logical explanation.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 6 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
This debate serves to highlight exactly what is wrong with biblical interpretation and reliance. Trinitarian doctrine was created to support Jewish doctrine and prophesy concerning ONE God. It is clear that Jews defined themselves as different to surrounding pagan societies with the declaration of a single deity holding true and tangible power. The OT is sprinkled with acknowledgment and proclamation of this doctrine. Then low and behold, the New Testament comes along with an account of a Son of God. Most Christians utilize Isaiah 9:6 as proof of a prophesy predicting a Son of God, but ignore that the verse is actually properly translated in past tense, and that the utility of the term everlasting father denotes the Jehovah, not Jesus.

In reality, Christianity is an attempt to mold Hellenistic ideas about God onto Jewish ideas about God. It doesn't really work that well, and causes conflicting verses utilized by both parties in this debate. The real debate is why the conflicting verses exist in the first place, not which conflicting verse is more valid than the next....

;-)

Thought I would stir the pot a little
Posted by jurist24 6 years ago
jurist24
Harlan, I think if both debaters stipulate to the validity of a source (as these two implicitly did), then there should be no need to establish merit.
Posted by Harlan 6 years ago
Harlan
Neither side pushed my opinion eitherway whatsoever. Neither side gave any logical deduction as to why this philosphy is meritable or "valid". The only thing they addressed was whether some or other book (the "bible" as it were) agreed with it. I should think the first step would be to establish wether the book has any merit before you use it as a given fact.
Posted by joshandr30 6 years ago
joshandr30
I am adressing what you said, very good debating skills. And have you seen your own comments in the comment section? Something about kettle and pot. Good luck.
Posted by ANSmith 6 years ago
ANSmith
I addressed Deut. 6:4, I said that they were one in purpose. 3 separate beings, making up the Godhead, each driven with the same purpose.

I went to Acts, John, Hebrews, Judges, and Matthew to back my claim that Christ was a seperate being from God. That's 5 to your 3. And the entirety of your whole argument was Deut. 6:4, to which I rebutted but you failed to rebut any of my claims. You just kept driving the same verse into the ground over and over again hoping that I would "see the truth". this is not debating, that's redundancy. And with the 1,000 character space, I could hardly prove more points because I didn't have the room. I rebutted your points, stated my claims and backed them up with multiple verses, though what I mentioned is not all the verses I could have used.

Again, you don't sound like a good debater here. you sound like a 5 year old who didn't get their way. let the voters decide who won and stop throwing a fit...
Posted by joshandr30 6 years ago
joshandr30
But you still. The but means you agree that that you in fact DID not address any of my comments. My argument was to prove the Trinity. You had to prove it was false. My evidence was Duet 6:4 and John 1:1. Duet clearly says ONE God, Jn1:1 say the WORD (Jesus) from the beginning was and was WITH God, suggesting 2 Gods. But because Duet 6:4 is also true the Doctrine of the Trinity is the only Doctrine that can explain this. You did not explain how Duet 6:4 and Jn 1: can both be true outside of the doctrine of the Trinity. In one doctrine Duet 6:4 has to be false and in another Jn1:1 has to be false, only in the Trinity does ALL of Scripture come together as TRUTH. You were the negative here, YOU had to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity is false, just because you believe it to be false does not make it false. My evidence that the Trinity is true should have been addressed by the negative first and then the negative could give evidence that the Trinity is false. As long as you did not address my evidence they stand. Please point out a verse of yours I did not address. Just because you do not like my argument against what you posted does not mean I did not at least address it. See after I at least address it, whether I am right or not does not matter, it is up to the voters to decide. If I did not address it then as far as the voter is concerned the statement stands as truth.
Posted by joshandr30 6 years ago
joshandr30
And yours
In Acts, Steven is preaching to the people while they are stoning him to death, he looks up at the heavens and sees God and Jesus Christ (2 personages) and is filled with the Spirit. So if Steven sees God and Jesus Christ, then that means that 2 of the 3 entities are in two different places. So two questions being:

1. how can they be one (God, Christ, and Holy Ghost are considered "God") if they are in 2 places?
2. if they are one, then why would God waste his time to manifest himself in this way? There is no logical explanation unless they were 3 separate persons.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" - John 3:16

1. John says VERY CLEARLY that Christ is a BEGOTTEN SON of God. He is the BEGOTTEN son, he is the SON BORN of God. He isn't just the son of God, he's the BEGOTTEN SON of God. So to say that they are one in the same, DOES NOT make sense.

Based on THESE TWO SEPARATE VERSES, the Trinity is 3 completely separate persons, but ONE in purpose

Please point out ONE verse that I used as proof af Trinity that you even half way addressed. You went to Acts and JOhn 3:16, and that WAS IT. Again please point out where you addressed any of my verses or explained what Duet 6:4 means. If you can point out where you addressed all of these verses then I will agree that you won. Did you expalin that some how Duet 6:4 meant there was really more then ONE GOD? No you never adrresed it, so becasue you did not address it it stand for the whole debate because you did not even attempt to show how there can be one and only ONE God but then go on to say several times they are more then one God with the same purpose. Just because you say there are three Gods with one purpose does not automaticlly make you right. It is either three Gods or ONE TRUE AND LIVING GOD.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 6 years ago
my.matryoshka
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 6 years ago
cmrnprk07
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by advidiun 6 years ago
advidiun
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 6 years ago
aaronr8684
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 6 years ago
JTSmith
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 6 years ago
ANSmith
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Casiopia 6 years ago
Casiopia
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Csavage472 6 years ago
Csavage472
joshandr30ANSmithTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
joshandr30ANSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05