The false doctrine of the trinity and baptism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Let's try something different. This goes to any of you out there that may have dabbled with biblical interpretation.
Can you prove only with bible, chapter and verse that the scriptures teach and say there is a divine trinity , Father , Son and Holy Ghost? Can you read that? Can you help us read and show of the divine three persons, three personalities, three distinct deities?
Can you prove alone with book, chapter and verse that one can be saved being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ?
To the letter verbatim, within the letter or epistle(s) , can all of these things be proven?
If so, please attempt to do so with scripture alone.
Let us learn and edify.
"The trinity is an overlay term for a complicated relationship between God, Christ, and the holy spirit. "Is this overlay term written in the scriptures where we can read it?Also does it say, can we read in the scriptures that being baptized in a name other than in the name of Jesus Christ saves ?You gave the book of Acts which supports baptism in the name of the Lord.
In other words, we have no scriptures to read verbatim that there is a divine trinity and likewise nothing for being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that we'd be SAVED under.
Con is able to quickly show scriptures as requested by pro. He then successfully defends them with a guitar analogy. Pro's weakness really shined in R3, when he pretended to have not read con's concise reply; betting the whole farm that the audience would believe him instead of the short paragraph above his words.
The imbalance of the resolution, makes this boils down to a foregone conclusion.
Con already with the Matthew verses and quote as well as the reference to John 10:30 shows direct and explicit references to Jesus as if he is God himself.
I will give Mall credit on one thing; Con did not actually ever give a verse about holy spirit but this 'baptism' thing was not only irrelevant but Con actually proved that baptism ITSELF is supporting side Con:
1. The Matthew verse explicitly referring to the trinity also mentions baptising.
2. Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
This doesn't seem to support Pro's constant allusion to it never explicitly being referred to even in context of Baptism.
Pro keeps saying 'where is the explicit line' where Con has already given several.
This was the TWO THOUSANDTH debate to be completed on this site!
Dishonest.
I do not hesitate to defend orthodox Christianity when given the chance.
!!VOTE NOW!!
It's kind of weird how this is my first Christian vs Christian debate.
I usually address everyone with "kid". I don't really mean to demean people that way.
If you really are as serious about respectful debate as you claim to be, I would recommend not using belittling terms like "kid" when addressing your opponent.