I believe that a trinitarian God is the only conclusion one can reasonably have when trying to discern the nature of God from the Bible. This is drawn from the plain teaching as I will show here. There are three main points that make up the doctrine of the Trinity:
1. Christianity is Monotheistic
Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" which was echoed by Jesus in Mark 12:29.
The song that Moses taught Israel states, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me" (Deut. 32:39). We know that it was God Himself who gave these words based on Deuteronomy 31:15-19, and He is the one that the song is referring to.
I will include one more example from Paul, "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God" (1 Cor. 8:4-6). Paul is making it clear that though idols - or false gods - are perceived as gods and called gods, they are actually nothing because there is only one true God.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Three Distinct Persons
Based on the debate topic, it appears that there is no question that some distinction exists between these three. Where we will then disagree is whether these are three separate beings or three distinct persons in one being. "Person" is a word used to show that the distinction between the three members does not mean they are separate individuals but members of the same being - God. I will address this disagreement more later.
3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all Equally and Fully God
The Bible makes reference to all three persons as God.
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:2). The Father is clearly referred to as God and is distinguished from Jesus the Son.
"For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Here, Jesus is not only referred to as God, but He is also shown to be fully God. It should also be noted that the King James Version uses the term "Godhead" which is a trinitarian term.
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God" (Acts 5:3-4). Notice that Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit, and then proceeds to equate this with lying to God.
The Problem with Denying the Trinity
Here is a syllogism that shows the logical conclusion of the doctrine of the Trinity:
- The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinctly identified as God in the Bible
- The Bible claims there is only one God (monotheism)
- Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God
Since my opponent does not seem to be arguing for modalism in which there is absolutely no distinction at all between the Father, Son, and Spirit, that essentially leaves three options:
- One can agree that the Bible teaches monotheism, but then it must be shown that two of the three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) are not actually God. Monotheism does not allow for more than one being who is God.
- One can agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, but then it must be shown that the Bible does not actually teach monotheism.
- Lastly, one could reject both monotheism and the deity of Father, Son, and Spirit. But that just seems silly.
Now thats a debate!
That is interesting about the languages. Regarding your personal revelation as to which Scriptures are trustworthy and which are corrupted, have you ever been wrong? As in, have you ever been wrong either about which verses are accurate or the interpretation of those verses after receiving this revelation?
Yes, I am saying it, but, as I suggested in my post #18, James said it, too. So, as you believe Giod preserved the Bible as intended, follow James' advice. Pay particular attention to verses 3, 4 - making faith the precursor of patience, and letting patience do her perfect work. As I said, this is not easy, but God rewards patience. This is not a fly-by-night proposition. And it does work.
The four languages, English, first, then French, Italian, and Greek, with English again a few times in between. By the way, in regard to James specifically, they all say essentially the same thing, except in English and Italian, the 4th verse ending is rendered as "wanting nothing," but the French is "failing at nothing" and the Greek is "nothing melting." I particularly like the French version, because it marks a path leading to our perfection [as in letting patience do her perfect work], but as you see, and as my post #15 offered, it is not an identical understanding, so your premise that God has preserved the text, the evidence says it is not preserved with identical preservation. We need to ask God.
And just because I'm curious, what four languages did you read the Bible entirely in?
But you are still saying that, without a personal and subjective revelation, we cannot know what is true in the Bible. So I believe He preserved the text of Scripture as His chosen form of revealing Himself, and you are saying His chosen form is personal experience. Please tell me then how I am somehow guilty of limiting God while you are not?
No, I did not say that essentially, we can't confidently know. Re-read my post #15. I provide the method of knowing. That you may not believe it is not my problem. I do, and have proved to my satisfaction that it works if all elements are applied. That is a tall order, I know, but, who said this was easy?
I have read the Bible entirely in four different languages, and in English on several occasions. I know there are contradictions, but, again, God did not write it, and delegates the preservation to imperfect men. So be it. The delegation does not limit God's omnipotence; it just means he does not use all his available power all the time, and particularly not to overcome our free agency, a topic you igniore. You limit God by insisting that he does not speak to man today. I know differently.
The oldest known O.T texts are the Silver Ketef Hinnom Scrolls, which contain portions of Numbers, darting from 600 - 900 BCE.
But what you've essentially said is that we can't confidently know whether or not the Bible has been accurately preserved so we should just assume that it has been corrupted and that we shouldn't trust it's authenticity. Why can we not trust the Bible and that God has preserved His Word in that text? If God is capable of preserving a text that acts as an objective standard to measure our subjective experiences against, why should we assume He has not done so? Simply saying "you are limiting God" is not a very good argument.
Not only that, your argument about not having texts before 300 BC only applies to the New Testament, not the Old Testament. So you have a whole different set of arguments to make about textual criticism.
And just because we say that God is omnipotent, and I believe tat, does it mean that he should not limit the use of his power on some occasions> He remains omnipotet, but he does not force us, and does not live our lives for us. Free agency is our greatest gift after life and the Atonement of Christ.
You have to know that there may be records that were created, then lost, and we have not found them, and may never find them, mostly because we don't know about them. We do know of apparent books named in other books we have, but not the books named. Some of it may be very valuable scripture. Some of it may be shyte. Do you think maybe, since it's lost, and some of it is shyte, anyway, that God may be keeping it hidden, but for a man's insistence that he dig, and find, and even though it may be shyte and of no worth to us, somebody is going to believe it without taking the advice we have in James 1: 2 - 5?
I did not say that, did I? Did you read the last sentence of my post #15? Although it sounds like it, it's not a joke. What I am saying is that since God did not write one jot or tittle of the scriptures, but men did, it behooves men to preserve the record. That they've done a poor job of it is entirely on them, not God. God allows free will. That means we can make shyte or shinola of what we do, and God says, either, "Nice shot, Broken Arrow," or "You did good."
Are you saying God is incapable of preserving the text of the Bible from the time of it's writing until now?
I note Fruit_Inspector's #6 post posing a question about Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. In chronology, the Hebrew & Greek certainly precede any English translation, regardless of acronym, but it may be a stretch to consider any of the more ancient texts as accurate because none in current possession by anybody date any more anciently than about 300 BCE, so any traceability to "original texts" in Hebrew or Greek, from the periods they respectively describe is, to date, utterly without foundation. Further, transliteration [copying] and translation [one language to another] are both activities fraught with error potential, either by accident, or intentional. I suggest the only means to determine authenticity of any biblical text, since none of it was written by God or Christ in their own respective hand, is to inquire of them what is true, or not. revelation is alive and well to the sincere seeker who expresses sincere desire to know, with real intent, and having faith in Christ that understanding is able to be received. Or, what? You claim God is asleep, or refuses to converse with us? The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
Pro contends in the Description [has otherwise remained silent] "Because the idea of the trinity is a Christian belief..." as if it is exclusively Christian. Nope. The concept of multiple gods is consistent in many ancient religions of diverse cultures, and some modern reeligions. Therefore, the restriction to the Hoy Bible, but not even accepting that as source for argument is a bit cheeky if you ask me.
Mall claims "there is no scripture that says three separate beings." I assume Mall is restricting "scripture" to that of the Holy Bible, but, there is, nevertheless, other Holy Writ. However, employing just the Bible, The baptism of Jesus [Matthew 3] describes, in the last two verses, Jesus, a physical person, being baptized by John the Baptist, and when Jesus rises out of the water, the Holy Spirit [Holy Ghost] - a second distinct being, not Jesus or God the Father - is seen by Jesus to descend from heaven to rest upon him, while a voice FROM heaven [still there, not the Holy Spirit descending to rest on Jesus, nor Jesus himself], speaking, "This is my beloved Son." This being is God the Father, though not acknowledged as such by Matthew - but it is descriptively a third person, in heaven.
Yes there is no scripture that says three separate beings. No argument there so the forfeit.
I'm also a fan of the ESV. I might add that my opponent can choose between KJV and the ESV. I know of 3 good versions being the KJV ESV and the NiV, which I might change the rules to reflect.
The KJV was published for political reasons by King James, he had specific translation rules that influenced the text, the translators were not familiar with Koine Greek and had less Koine Greek manuscripts than modern translators have. I find the ESV and NASB to be the most accurate/literal translations of the Bible
I only mentioned that because this debate will rely heavily on interpretation and the way the rules are worded would seem to favor the KJV over anything else, including those manuscripts. Per your comments, that wasn't your intent though. Not sure if I'll take this either way still, but that clarification will help
There will be no further concessions in regards to the rules of this debate.
No, i just want to find a common ground version that is widely known, available and generally regarded as close to the originals
Edit: typo
Yes both testaments are allowed. I'll rethink the zero outside sources rule (or at the least reword it) since it seems to be causing some difficulties.
Are you trying to say that the English KJV translation is more authoritative than Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?
Does this include both Old Testament and New Testament?
And also How do you expect zero outside sources? You could cheat by using the English bible and misinterpret it while the original is in Hebrew
Nah. If biblical texts are the only evidence allowed, then I can’t do it.
I have changed the debate for time allowed and to clarify the rule.
Change the argument time to 1 week and I will accept
Could be a fun one. A little weird that biblical commentaries aren't allowed as evidence, but someone could paraphrase them so long as not giving source credit.