Mr anony: Interesting. Are you sure you are up for this? The verses are plenty o. Please permit me to delay a bit in giving a response I'll use the NKJV just like you have as well So that we are completely on the same page.

Watch this space

Deep Sight:

Yes I am VERY up for it indeed. I have had thousands of Trinity discussions on this forum in the past: many of them very fiery and extensive. However I don't think I have ever done a verse by verse in this way, and I am looking forward to it. Happily, this comes at as close a time as I think I will ever be to being open to religious ideas, on account of certain deep personal experiences. As such, I can promise to keep a keen eye out for truth and to concede wherever I see a valid point made. I will ask the same of you.

I will wait for you to add to the verses above first, as the verses you intend to rely upon, and then I will list my verses. We will start the verse-by-verse with your verses.

For each verse, where appropriate, since we agreed to take a fairly academic approach to this, we should discuss -

1. History

2. Authenticity

3. Context

4. Linguistic Interpretation (Hebrew/ Greek) original meanings.

5. Logical interpretation.

6. Association with comparative scripture on same topic.

7. Scholastic views.

Agree?

Mr anony:
Beautiful. I agree

Deep Sight:

Okay then. I await your production of the other verses you will tag "in support".

In the meantime, I shall produce and tag my verses "against."

It will be my intention to show that all scripture taken into account, the bible does not support the doctrine of the trinity.

Mr anony:
I have now edited my post and added the verses. Let us find out what the bible teaches us about God's nature as He leads us.

A little word of caution: Let us not fall into the trap of pitting verses against each other to cancel each other out, rather let us seek to find out what the scripture points to altogether.

DrummaBoy: I consider myself a trinitarian but only bc that is the tradition I inherited. I have not come across any sound argument against the trinity and I am looking forward to where this thread leads.

The verses in the OP are very trinitarian and they seem to end the discuss but since its coming from an anti trinitarian he must have somethings up his sleeve

Pastor Kun a non trinitarian said in another thread something of this nature: I believe in the deity of Christ but do not believe Jesus is God. Is this statement compatible with logic?

Not believing Jesus 'Godship' does it deny one salvation?

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE EXEGESIS AND DO PERMIT QUESTIONS FROM NOVICES LIKE US ON THIS MATTER

Thanks

Deep Sight: Anony, apologies the delay with starting this. I have been quite busy and distracted. Now here are my verses -

D1 - I Tim. 2:5: - For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus Christ”


D2 - John 14:28 – “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”.


D3 - I Cor. 11:3 - “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God “


D4 - Eph. 1:15 - 17. - “15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him”


D5 - I Pet 1:3 - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"


D6 - Mark 10:18 - “So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.”


D7 - I Cor. 15:28 - “Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”


D8 - John 15:1 – 10:“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me."

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.


D9 - John 20:17 – “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”


D 10 - John 17:1 - 8 – “1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 “as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should[a] give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 “Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 “For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me."


D 11 - Mark 13:32 - “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”


D12 - Acts 2:22 – 24 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken[b] by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 “whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.


D13 - Luke 22:41 - 42 – “41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” (The Prayer in Gethsemane).


D14 - John 8:40 - “But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.”


D15 - Luke 23:32 - 34 – “There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”


D16 - Matt 21:33 – 42 “33 Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 “Now when vintage–time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 “And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.

36 “Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. 37 “Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 “But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 “So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’

(The Parable of the Vineyard)


D17 - Matt 27:45 – 46 “45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”


D18 – Mark 16:19 – “So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” [And all other scripture which refers to Christ as sitting at the Right Hand Side of God, including Psalm 110:1, and all similar scripture in the Book of Revelation].


D19 - John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. [Only Begotten Son - "Monogenes" - and all other verses in scripture where the term "monogenes" i.e: "only begotten" is used].


D20 - Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear o Isreal, the Lord our God, the Lord is One."

Deep Sight: DEFINITION.

I further propose that to have a coherent discussion, we must both be working with a given standard definition of the trinity and the deity of Christ.

I propose that we use the standard definition as articulated in the Athanasian Creed, which is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

We take this definition to render that -

God is ONE

The Father is GOD

Jesus is GOD

The Holy Spirit is GOD

If this definition is not okay for you, please propose one.

frosbel: ^^^
all this mumbo jumbo just to prove that GOD is 3 .

btw , when are we meeting for our summer drink ?

Deep Sight: Now please, I propose the following rules as binding for this thread, and I hope you agree with them.

Rule 1

- No Case Submissions - Where a cited verse (from you) does not expressly show the alleged three persons of the Trinity to be one being which is God, or does not show any of the three persons of the trinity to be the same as another being in the trinity, then such a verse may be discarded with a simple "No case submission" statement from me.

- In the reverse, where a cited verse (from me) does not expressly show the alleged three persons of the Trinity to NOT be one being which is God, or does not show that any of the three persons of the trinity is NOT the same as another being in the trinity, then such a verse may be discarded with a simple "No case submission" statement from you.

Rule 2

- Precedence of Verses - Where there is a stark and apparent contradiction between the words of Jesus himself and the words of any disciple, apostle or writer, the words of Jesus himself will always take precedence: the reconciliation of such verses will be treated from the priority point of view of the words of Jesus himself.

Rule 3

- Assumptions - No assumptions or inferences may be made or accepted if they are not strict logical inferences.

As an example, a verse which says "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is a list of three entities and unless the verse goes ahead to say that these three are one entity, then no assumption can be inferred that the verse in fact means that they are one entity: unless other scripture shows that it is meant that way.

Rule 4

- Rules of Interpretation - We will adopt the three rules of interpretation as used in the legal profession. The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule.

The Literal Rule shall come first and take precedence in all cases. The rule means that we read the scripture literally as it is written, without seeking to import any other meaning into it, other than its plain, literal sense as written.

Where both parties agree that the Literal Rule cannot apply to a given piece of scripture as such will lead to a manifest absurdity, resort will be had to the golden rule: in which case the parties are allowed to introduce a variation of the meaning of a word or words only to address the absurdity to toe the line of the intention of the writer, but no further.

Finally there is the Mischief rule, which seeks what defect or "mischief" the writer was addressing and then interprets the writing in line with addressing the defect or "mischief" as intended.

Remember, of course, that the main rule will always be the literal rule of the plain meaning of the words and grammar used. The other two rules of interpretation will only apply if there is a very clear logical absurdity which makes it obvious that the words CANNOT be understood in their literal sense.

Please indicate your agreement with these rules or otherwise, so that we may proceed.

Mr anony:

I see you have gone ahead to render the definition for me. Good I accept. To expand further I'll state it like this.

1. God is One
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father is not the Son
6. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
7. The Son is not the Father
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Son
10. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
11. God is one being and three persons.

I will contend in this debate that the whole of what scripture says about God can only make sense when read through the light of this doctrine and that a doctrine of a unitarian God cannot maintain coherence for all of scripture.

Mr anony: Hey I just noticed that you switched the Nicene creed half way and I mistakenly quoted it.

Deep Sight: Now please, I propose the following rules as binding for this thread, and I hope you agree with them.

Rule 1

- No Case Submissions - Where a cited verse (from you) does not expressly show the alleged three persons of the Trinity to be one being which is God, or does not show any of the three persons of the trinity to be the same as another being in the trinity, then such a verse may be discarded with a simple "No case submission" statement from me.

- In the reverse, where a cited verse (from me) does not expressly show the alleged three persons of the Trinity to NOT be one being which is God, or does not show that any of the three persons of the trinity is NOT the same as another being in the trinity, then such a verse may be discarded with a simple "No case submission" statement from you.

Rule 2

- Precedence of Verses - Where there is a stark and apparent contradiction between the words of Jesus himself and the words of any disciple, apostle or writer, the words of Jesus himself will always take precedence: the reconciliation of such verses will be treated from the priority point of view of the words of Jesus himself.

Rule 3

- Assumptions - No assumptions or inferences may be made or accepted if they are not strict logical inferences.

As an example, a verse which says "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is a list of three entities and unless the verse goes ahead to say that these three are one entity, then no assumption can be inferred that the verse in fact means that they are one entity: unless other scripture shows that it is meant that way.

Rule 4

- Rules of Interpretation - We will adopt the three rules of interpretation as used in the legal profession. The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule.

The Literal Rule shall come first and take precedence in all cases. The rule means that we read the scripture literally as it is written, without seeking to import any other meaning into it, other than its plain, literal sense as written.

Where both parties agree that the Literal Rule cannot apply to a given piece of scripture as such will lead to a manifest absurdity, resort will be had to the golden rule: in which case the parties are allowed to introduce a variation of the meaning of a word or words only to address the absurdity to toe the line of the intention of the writer, but no further.

Finally there is the Mischief rule, which seeks what defect or "mischief" the writer was addressing and then interprets the writing in line with addressing the defect or "mischief" as intended.

Remember, of course, that the main rule will always be the literal rule of the plain meaning of the words and grammar used. The other two rules of interpretation will only apply if there is a very clear logical absurdity which makes it obvious that the words CANNOT be understood in their literal sense.

Please indicate your agreement with these rules or otherwise, so that we may proceed.

Pastor Kun:

With these set of rules you have just incapacitated the trinitarians from being able to make any meaning submission as by their own admission, the trinity is a 'mystery' which can only be proven by conjectures and assumptions.

Deep Sight:

So the definition is firmed up as the Athanasian Creed and as expanded in your summary in the above. We will work with this definition for the thread.

Now, I am not being tiresome, please, but before we proceed, I want to introduce one more thing: I introduce this on account of the large amount of verses to consider, (you have 20, and I have 20, making 40, plus others that may come up). If we debate each verse extensively without end, the thread will go no where and we will never arrive at a point whereby all verses have been addressed and we, and readers, can take a snapshot or bird's eye view of the totality of biblical direction on the matter. For this reason I propose that our posts on each verse should be limited to -

Proposition
Rebuttal
Response to Rebuttal
Response to Response.

After these 4, the verse is concluded and we proceed to the next verse. That way, we do not go on forever. Also, that way, one person starts and the other person finishes, one person has the first say, the other person the last, and both in between says, would have had opportunities to respond. Any further comment intended for the last response should be saved for our concluding remarks when all verses have been treated. Also, we should make an effort to keep the treatment of each verse as short, clear and concise as possible, in light of the large amount of verses to be treated.

So for example, let us take my D2, which is John 14:28 - "The Father is greater than I"

I will start with my Proposition, quoting the verse, and saying why it disproves the Trinity. In so doing, I may factor all the elements mentioned earlier, regarding the verse, such as History, authenticity, context, linguistics, comparative scripture, logical interpretation, and scholastic views.

You will then rebut my Proposition.
I will respond to your rebuttal.
You will respond to my response.

And then, without further ado, we strictly proceed to the next verse. Anything that is left out should remain left out, until our concluding remarks after all verses have been dealt with.

Yes, I substituted it for the the appropriate Athanasian Creed (which is what you quoted). You accept that definition, I take it?

Deep Sight:

Lolz, well Anony has not accepted all the rules, for now he has only accepted Rule 3, and I am still awaiting his endorsement of Rule 4, after he acquaints himself with the Mischief Rule on the link I provided.

How have you been. Its been such a long time.

Mr anony: Hey I just noticed that you switched the Nicene creed to the Athanasian creed half way and I mistakenly quoted it.

Edit: Nevermind, I agree with the creed but bear in mind that equality in form/nature is what is in question here and not funtion. i.e. one person of the Trinity 'sending' another person of the Trinity does not make the sender greater nor the sent less God. The functions of each person of the Trinity does not translate to a hierarchy in "Godness". I just want to point this out from the onset

Mr anony:
This is fair enough, but first before you proceed to do that I will require that you make a post properly defining your position and describing exactly what you believe to be the nature of God according to the bible. Be sure also to make it plain which of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost you believe the Bible means by One unitarian God.

Secondly, before we jump into a verse by verse analysis, I am taking it that you are granting that the Trinity is not an incoherent concept to you. If it is I'll suggest we sort it out first before proceeding because I don't want us to go half way into a verse and then you suddenly reply "how can 1+1+1 be = 1?"

I think the Athanasian Creed goes into much more depth and i agree with it. However I have edited my post to add in a small word of caution which I'll suggest you give a look.

Mr anony:
I haven't seen the link.

Deep Sight:

I agree with this.



I believe that the Bible teaches ALL THROUGH that God is ONE and indivisible. I believe that this has always been the strict monotheist view of God right from the Old Testament.

The Unitarian God, is the Father.

I further believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the firstborn of God, God's monogenes - only begotten son, the light from God through which creation spawned, and that son of God sent into creation for the teaching and salvation of mankind. I believe that Jesus is not God, did not claim to be God, and is not equal to God, and said so plainly.

I further believe that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is the force or power of God, and emanates from God, just as sunlight emanates from the sun, but is not the sun.



It needn't necessarily be incoherent. It is possible to conceive God being the Almighty Father who descends into his creation as a man (Jesus) and whose spirit permeates all things (the Holy Spirit). It does, of course, become difficult when you say that that man, is not the father, but is still God, but my answer is no: I will not be bothering with the inherent or otherwise incoherence of the doctrine itself. This thread is dedicated not to the incoherence of the doctrine in and of itself, but to see whether or not the bible in fact teaches such a doctrine at all, and to see if scriptural references do not render the doctrine illogical in light of scripture.

So I could, for example, allow that the doctrine as conceived needn't be incoherent, but I would then argue in my arguments that it is illogical to say that the three persons are equal in light of D2, where Jesus says that the Father is greater than him.



This is fine.