Deep Sight:

O sorry, I thought I had posted it, turns out I forgot that tab in my browser.

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

So Rules 1 & 2 have been rejected and Rule 3 is endorsed. Rule 4, I still await your endorsement of after you read the link. Mind you, only the first rule of interpretation (literal [and literary, as you said] sense, that is, the plain meaning on the face of the grammar used) is the main rule. The others are emergency rules where a manifest absurdity has to be avoided.

I've read it now.
Rule 1 accepted now that we have both laid out our case,
Rule 2, I can't accept for the previously given reasons
Rule 3 accepted
Rule 4 accepted

Mr anony:
I've read it now.
Rule 1 accepted now that we have both laid out our case,
Rule 2, I can't accept for the previously given reasons
Rule 3 accepted
Rule 4 accepted

Great.

Now let us begin.

I await your proposition on A1.

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.

I am doing great bro, hope all is well at your end as weell.

Pastor Kun:

I am doing great bro, hope all is well at your end as weell.

AH, i have many great reasons to be joyous and grateful!

Deep Sight:

Great.

Now let us begin.

I await your proposition on A1.

A1. Go therefore 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

Now, what is interesting about this verse? Basically Christ is telling His disciples to baptize people based on His authority and that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now while this does not explicitly "prove" God is Trinity, It fits right into the doctrine in the sense that it names the three persons of God as the authority by which a person is saved.

A strict unitarian doctrine will have to further explain why God the Father isn't a sufficient authority by which men are baptized

I personally won't build a case for Trinity from Matthew 28:19 however, if The doctrine of Trinity is true, then Matthew 28:19 makes much more sense than if it were otherwise i.e. The doctrine of Trinity is the best explanation for the verse.

A1 - Rebuttal

Mr anony:
A1. Go therefore 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

Now, what is interesting about this verse? Basically Christ is telling His disciples to baptize people based on His authority and that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now while this does not explicitly "prove" God is Trinity, It fits right into the doctrine in the sense that it names the three persons of God as the authority by which a person is saved.

A strict unitarian doctrine will have to further explain why God the Father isn't a sufficient authority by which men are baptized

I personally won't build a case for Trinity from Matthew 28:19 however, if The doctrine of Trinity is true, then Matthew 28:19 makes much more sense than if it were otherwise i.e. The doctrine of Trinity is the best explanation for the verse.

I need only mention that -

1. As you have admitted, the verse does not prove the mentioned persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to be one

2. The verse does fit better into a Unitarian view than it does into a Trinitarian View: FOR if God were indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed separate Entities.

3. It still makes sense under a Unitarian view which sees God as the Almighty, Jesus as his instrument of Redemption, and the Holy Spirit as his all pervading power. Indeed, it would then make sense to do the baptism rite mentioning all these.

Do you have a response to this rebuttal, or, given that you have said already that the verse does not prove the Trinity, do we move on to A2?

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
[b]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.[b]

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.

This IMO means the Trinity are 3 distinct persons in one being.



The image above puts things in perspective. My current argument is that the concept involves a necessary contradiction. This is most glaring in the fact that propositions 1 to 4 are confuted by propositions 5 to 10.

Uyi Iredia:
This is most glaring in the fact that propositions 1 to 4 are confuted by propositions 5 to 10.

An inescapable contradiction indeed, which is obvious and glaring straightaway.

However we are limiting ourselves in this thread to a scriptural take on the verses on the matter, and not an ontological discussion on the philosophy of the matter.

Deep Sight: A1 - Rebuttal
I need only mention that -

1. As you have admitted, the verse does not prove the mentioned persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to be one

If you recall at the beginning of this discourse, I said that I will contend that scripture altogether only really makes sense in the light of the doctrine of Trinity. This applies especially for this verse. To illustrate what I mean; I'll use something analogous - Scripture altogether makes sense when read in the light of God being omnipotent. For this reason a verse that says "God created the heavens and the earth" may not necessarily "prove" that God is omnipotent however, the verse fits right in and makes sense in the light of God's omnipotence

2. The verse does fit better into a Unitarian view than it does into a Trinitarian View: FOR if God were indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed separate Entities.

Lol, I could say the exact same thing in opposite which is that
"FOR if God were indeed only the Father, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed three distinct persons of God."

3. It still makes sense under a Unitarian view which sees God as the Almighty, Jesus as his instrument of Redemption, and the Holy Spirit as his all pervading power. Indeed, it would then make sense to do the baptism rite mentioning all these.

Notice that here you have had to add meanings(in red) that we wouldn't normally get from the text by plainly reading it.

Do you have a response to this rebuttal, or, given that you have said already that the verse does not prove the Trinity, do we move on to A2?

I would rather we did D1 next and go back and forth that way.

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

btw , when are we meeting for our summer drink ?

shhhh. i need to see when this keels over

Is it possible for this thread to be free of distractions?

Pls abeg, this fight go sweet well well. Pastor Kun, Uyiredian et al I beg una.

A1. RESPONSE TO RESPONSE

Mr anony:
If you recall at the beginning of this discourse, I said that I will contend that scripture altogether only really makes sense in the light of the doctrine of Trinity. This applies especially for this verse. To illustrate what I mean; I'll use something analogous - Scripture altogether makes sense when read in the light of God being omnipotent. For this reason a verse that says "God created the heavens and the earth" may not necessarily "prove" that God is omnipotent however, the verse fits right in and makes sense in the light of God's omnipotence

And I have shown you that this would make sense with the concept of a Unitarian God as well. Summarily, anyway, as you have admitted, proves nothing.

Lol, I could say the exact same thing in opposite which is that
"FOR if God were indeed only the Father, there would be no need to baptize by mentioning these entities separately. Baptism would be sufficient in the name of God. The fact that these entities are being listed separately in a rite, shows clearly that they are indeed three distinct persons of God."

The bold is a falsity. While the list remains a list and discloses three entities, no where does it say or insinuate that these persons are parts of God, or persons within the being that is God.

Notice that here you have had to add meanings(in red) that we wouldn't normally get from the text by plainly reading it.

Those meanings are derived from scripture, and surely you would not dispute that scripture says Jesus is the Redeemer or that it says the Holy Spirit is the Spirit or Power of God. In essence the point is to show that these hold and rhyme with a Unitarian view as well.

Summarily, this verse proves nothing.

Going by our rules on posting, this verse is now treated and concluded.

I would rather we did D1 next and go back and forth that way.

Very well, I agree. I shall proceed to D1.

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

History and Authenticity:

The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, usually referred to simply as First Timothy and often written 1 Timothy, is one of three letters in the New Testament of the Bible often grouped together as the Pastoral Epistles, along with Second Timothy and Titus. The letter, traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, consists mainly of counsels to his younger colleague and delegate Timothy regarding his ministry in Ephesus (1:3).

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

Although there are modern day challenges as to the question of whether this epistle was actually written by St. Paul, it remains authentic for the purpose of this discussion given that it forms part of the normal and orthodox Bible and it has no verses alleged to be inserted or modified, and the verse in question is not in controversy in terms of being an authentic part of the bible.

Context

The context reads -

1 Tim 2: 1 - 7

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Logical Critique

We can see that the preceding verse speaks of the desire of God being that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We notice that he refers to God as "God our Saviour" and this is something many Trinitarians seize upon.

But the reality is that he instantly clarifies exactly what he is talking about, exactly which God, and the relationship between God, Man, and the Lord Jesus Christ - he says -

For there is one God [size=16pt]and[/size] one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus!

I have placed in bold the key elements of this verse which completely dash away any notion of the deity of Christ whatsoever.

He states clearly and conscisely that there is but one God.

He then says "And"

This word is very important and that is why i enlarged it above.

"There is one God and one mediator" - This conclusively discloses that aside from the one God, there also exists another entity which he is referring to there.

But the most important word in that verse is the word "mediator"!

A mediator, by definition, serves as a go between between two parties!

A mediator cannot be one of the parties itself: that is firmly illogical and destroys the very meaning of the word "mediator." This is undeniable, and absolutely inescapable.

I therefore assert that Jesus is here described as a mediator between two parties - God and Man. As such, he cannot be one of the parties. That word "mediator" hammers this down.

And finally, the mediator is described as "the man Jesus Christ" - which shows that indeed -

1. He was a man

2. He certainly was not God

3. But being the mediator, could not possibly of normal mankind, otherwise, he is no mediator. A mediator cannot be either of the parties.

Linguistics and Scholastic Views -

I cull the following from Bible Education.com -

Collins English Dictionary (1974) tells us that the word ‘mediator’ is the noun of the verb, ‘to mediate’ which means ‘to bring peace or an understanding (usually between people who are not on friendly terms).’ This meaning approaches but does not fully reach the meaning assigned to the Greek word, mesites - ‘a go-between, reconciler or intercessor’. A mediator is some one who effects, or attempts to effect, reconciliation between two estranged parties.

WHO IS GOD’S MEDIATOR?

But we are interested here in the necessary one mediator who can bring about peace and unity between God most holy, and us frail, sinful, mortal people. Who is God’s mediator? Only the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration of God can reveal this. In the New Testament the Greek word for mediator, mesites, occurs some seven times. Three times in Galatians 3/19,20, where the Apostle Paul speaks of a mediator to whom God gave the Law-Covenant at Sinai (the Law of Moses) to Israel, God’s chosen people. That mediator was the High Priest of Israel. Under the Mosaic Law, Aaron of the tribe of Levi and his successors mediated between God and Israel so as to effect atonement. This at-one-ment was necessary for both himself and Israel, and was effected annually on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus ch. 16). Paul’s point in the Galatians references above is that the High Priest’s Law mediation did not and could never bring about true unity with an holy God. This is only possible through "the faith of Jesus Christ", v. 22 - emulated, or copied by all who like Jesus, believe God’s promises and are baptized, vv. 22-29. The other four times ‘mediator’is used in the N. T. are in 1 Timothy 2/5, quoted above, Hebrews 8/6; 9/15; and 12/24. The Apostle reveals who is God’s true Mediator - "the man Christ Jesus" - our risen Lord, who mediates a new covenant which is better than the old Law-covenant of Moses because it involves faith in God’s Word and trust in His redeeming grace.

Jesus Christ our Lord is the one and only Mediator between God and men. He represents God because, as the Son of God, God sent Him to live an exemplary life of holiness and be obedient unto death. He represents mankind because he is "the man Christ Jesus" and once bore the same mortal nature with all its weaknesses as we now bear, and he died as an acceptable offering for our sins. God raised Him from the dead, granted Him God’s own nature, immortality, and made Him "high priest after the order of Melchisedec",(Hebrews 5/5-10), and "the one mediator between God and men", (1 Timothy 2/5).

http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/jesusandthepromises/onemediator.asp

I should place a caveat here. I extract this as a Christian view for your benefit. I do not say that I agree wholly with it - for I know that you may ask why the High Priest of Israel is designated a mediator if he is a man. To that, I say that he is a man, but is not the whole nation of Israel, who form one party in the mediation - in the same way that even where Christ is a man, he is not mankind as a whole, who form one party in the mediation referred to in D1. I also point out that when it is said - "One God AND one mediator", this still, inescapably, refers to two entities, two evidently separate entities. - [Edit: And it is clear therein that the Mediator is not the God]

As such, I conclude my Proposition on D1, by saying that it multiply denies the doctrine of the trinity or the idea that Jesus is God himself.

I appreciate the maturity with which this discuss is being pursued. I say a sincere prayer that God reveal his mind at some point to everyone who reads the thread.

And I could wish other discusses on subjects like law and grace, tithe, heaven and hell, etc, could be discussed with such civility.


Well done Deep and Anony.

thank God for this thread. just want to point 1 john 5: 7 though:

'for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three ARE one'

this thread is very educative, but i point out that the bible us a spiritual book that is spiritually discerned.

thank God for this thread. just want to point out 1 john 5: 7 though:

'for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three ARE one'

this thread is very educative, but i point out that the bible us a spiritual book that is spiritually discerned.

Chibuebem: thank God for this thread. just want to point out 1 john 5: 7 though:

'for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three ARE one'

this thread is very educative, but i point out that the bible us a spiritual book that is spiritually discerned.

That only appears in the KJV and has been deleted from EVERY newer version of the Bible because it was shown to be a latter day deliberate insertion by the Church, when older manuscripts were discovered.

Don't take my word for it: check and see whether those words appear in newer versions. They do not.

This is why even Anony did not bring that verse up.

Deep Sight:

That only appears in the KJV and has been deleted from EVERY newer version of the Bible because it was shown to be a latter day deliberate insertion by the Church, when older manuscripts were discovered.

Don't take my word for it: check and see whether those words appear in newer versions. They do not.

This is why even Anony did not bring that verse up.

wow. thanks for the info. just did my research. never knew that before.

Mr anony:
Lol, when would you like to meet up?

before end of summer , you choose, not this month though.

Location : London City or Central

As we always say , our heated debates end and stay on this forum

Deep Sight:

An inescapable contradiction indeed, which is obvious and glaring straightaway.

However we are limiting ourselves in this thread to a scriptural take on the verses on the matter, and not an ontological discussion on the philosophy of the matter.

Using scripture to interpret scripture. Good. However, Anony can't eat his cake and have it. This debate shows one can understand scripture using his/her intellect. A putative special insight due to the Holy Spirit isn't needed.

Deep Sight:

That only appears in the KJV and has been deleted from EVERY newer version of the Bible because it was shown to be a latter day deliberate insertion by the Church, when older manuscripts were discovered.

Don't take my word for it: check and see whether those words appear in newer versions. They do not.

This is why even Anony did not bring that verse up.

Furtherkills the notion you need to be a Holy-Spirit filled Christian to comprehend the Bible or appreciate it's insight. Also shows the Bible isn't infallible.

Uyi Iredia:

Furtherkills the notion you need to be a Holy-Spirit filled Christian to comprehend the Bible or appreciate it's insight. Also shows the Bible isn't infallible.

with all due respect uyi, you've just shown you dont know the spirit at all. You cant grasp fully truths of the word with the intellect. The words that i speak unto you-jesus said; they are spirit and they are life. And you arent smarter than God, who wrote the scriptures. The very fact that Gods word doesnt change your life, though you claim to know it. Shows that you dont truly know the power behind the written scripture. The word is spiritual, It deals with spiritual people.

Chibuebem: with all due respect uyi, you've just shown you dont know the spirit at all. You cant grasp fully truths of the word with the intellect. The words that i speak unto you-jesus said; they are spirit and they are life. And you arent smarter than God, who wrote the scriptures. The very fact that Gods word doesnt change your life, though you claim to know it. Shows that you dont truly know the power behind the written scripture. The word is spiritual, It deals with spiritual people.

oh just shut up! God wrote which scripture? The one that has been edited, remixed, added, subtracted and corrupted several times so as to render it almost unrecognizable from the ancient original manuscript? Even you here spewing nonsense dont even know that the part you quoted was a later addition put there by mischievous people that wanted to propagate the trinity doctrine.
You say Which god wrote which bible again?

frosbel:

before end of summer , you choose, not this month though.

Location : London City or Central

As we always say , our heated debates end and stay on this forum

i am in chiswick in august just for the drinks.. no argument

Yahweh is God
Jesus is God
Holy spirit is God

Please isn't this polytheism?. . .

Mr Troll: oh just shut up! God wrote which scripture? The one that has been edited, remixed, added, subtracted and corrupted several times so as to render it almost unrecognizable from the ancient original manuscript? Even you here spewing nonsense dont even know that the part you quoted was a later addition put there by mischievous people that wanted to propagate the trinity doctrine.
You say Which god wrote which bible again?

all scripture is given by inspiration of God...(1 timothy 3:16) there might be human errors and shadowy meanings in the various translations, thats why its good to know the root languages of the bible and study the original manuscripts.

Chibuebem: all scripture is given by inspiration of God...(1 timothy 3:16) there might be human errors and shadowy meanings in the various translations, thats why its good to know the root languages of the bible and study the original manuscripts.

your proof that all scripture is inspired by god is found where? Inside the same scripture. Ok. I'm done with you...

Mr Troll: your proof that all scripture is inspired by god is found where? Inside the same scripture. Ok. I'm done with you...

ok sir. Go your own way abeg. There is nothing wrong with that verse. Its in the original manuscripts

Mr Troll: your proof that all scripture is inspired by god is found where? Inside the same scripture. Ok. I'm done with you...

Don't you know, the Bible Scripture validates itself with.. itself no better lock.stock.barrel approach to validating scripture

Anony - What's happening?

Anony and team have gone AWOL.

Deep Sight:
Anony - What's happening?

Researching to return with a bang!

In my undergraduate dayz, I played a lot of chess. Three ways the game ran: the fast, called blitz. The regular which you could finish in half an hour. The lengthy one that could take months.

I think this discuss will be the lengthy type. So Deep, allow Anony to grab his arsenal and shoot to aim. I have my questions though; but I assume they would be answered as the debate goes on.

By the way I am cooking up this sort of thread to debate LAW & GRACE: with emphasis on the tithe.

Maybe I would ask Olaadegbu to be the antagonist. While I be the "actor"

Lol!!!