₦airaland Forum

ooman: By the bolded, I understand you do not know the theory of the existence of God. God is said to be much more complex than the most complex things known to man, the brain and the universe. For if God made the universe, then he must be much more complex than it.

Such complexity is what I debate against. Such complexity cannot pop into existence from nothing, or self arrange from the stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything.

Perhaps now, you will understand how illogical the theistic and deistic state of mind is.



If this is solely your definition of God, if a self existing, conscious God, separate from nature is not part of your definition of God, then I have no problems with you. What I call natural processes is what you call God, and that is not my business.



Do you intend to bully me by this? Note that you saying this does nothing but re-enforces stup.id ideas into your deluded mind.



I dont exactly have the day off too, so keep your agenda to yourself.

Why dont you start your philosophical studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between things that are possible and things that are thought to be necessarily possible.

Please check this out.

https://www.nairaland.com/377521/oneness-infinity-explained

We'll chat later.

PS; No bullying intended, just soft soft yabbis

ooman: Deepsight without insight, and with a disappointing level of common sense. When will your cerebral hemisphere signal to your neocortex that the "beginning" of a thing may not necessarily be the source of that thing, but the process that acted on it and changed it into something more tangible, like a universe.

My argument is simple. There is no mind except consciousness, consciousness does not just pop into existence. If God is alive, then life must predate God. Life itself IS NOT AN IRREDUCIBLE UNIT. Therefore, any God that exists must be made up by some sort of stuff.

Tracing down this stuff, we must truly arrive at a point of irreducible simplicity, where this stuff that makes all things up cannot be further divided. At this point of irreducible simplicity, there must exist this thing that exist eternally, from which everything else formed and into which everything disintegrates.

Note that my use of what you bolded in my previous reply DID NOT include this stuff of irreducible simplicity because my argument is that this stuff is too simple to be a God.

My argument is this: what are the chances that a complex conscious God, great enough to be greater than the universe and to make a universe, can pop into existence from this stuff of irreducible simplicity to make everything?

The chances are 0. The theistic and deistic position becomes destroyed.

The atheistic position and the evolutionary view, however, becomes totally supported by the fact that change is constant in nature. Change experienced by this stuff of irreducible simplicity must therefore cause a b.ang and there, you have a universe, and a mind to debate it - us.

God is indeed rather said to be the irreducible simple and permanent self existent: I do not know whence you derive your idea of a complex God from: it certainly follows no known philosophical construct.

Understand: God is the eternal sum of self-existent laws of reality, which could not be otherwise.

The atheistic worldview is illogical, contradictory, meaningless, thoughtless, shallow, da.ft, inane, insane, puerile, contradictory, nonsensical, delusional, self-denying, sense-defying, in short: vacant gibberish fit only for swine playing in a rubbish heap.

I don't have the time now bro, i'm off to a meeting: start your studies by reading up on the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

plaetton: Why is it that most enlightened theists accept that the stars, galaxies, planets, etc. all evolved over time from star dust, but they bulk at the idea of biological life, especially conscious human life, also evolving from stardust?

Are there any evidence that human life and other biological life , no matter how complex, contains elements or minerals other than those contained within the very star dust of which stars, galaxies and planets are made ?

If stars and galaxies evolve, as Deepsight readily accepts, then what would make conscious biological life or the complex human brain an exception to the rules of universal evolution?

It is not an exception. There is evolution in everything. It just cannot be the case without other factors. Ditto the universe.

Logicboy03: Our evolution, our big bang is explained without God.

Not only is this remarkably foollish, it is also a blatant lie.

Oya, go ahead and explain how and why the big b.ang occurred.

ooman: Or the theistic school of thought is that "let us make ourselves a God, who will transcend creation, and who we can believe created everything". The theistic school of thought is based on assumptions and wishes without any shred of mathematical or biological evidence to support 0.1% of their beliefs.

The deist is also forced to accept this insanity, for he has no other option, being a deist.

Only nothing is eternal, and 'nothing' does not have consciousness. Therefore, if any man believe in a God, he believes in 'nothing', if any man believes in 'nothing', he can also believe 'anything'. Stuffs like spirits, angels, demons and fairies.

And by maths and logic, based on simple common sense, a man with at least a functioning brain (therefore, common sense, which is obviously not common), however empty, should know that everything there is must have a beginning. And a man with a functioning eye sight would know that nothing lasts forever.

The theistic school of thought therefore shows reasoning ability less than that of a chimpanzee.



This hair-splitting and ad hominem can't save you from this state of deep-fall you have thrown yourself.

Well the bold shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You need to go back and take time to read, study, meditate, cogitate, reflect and understand elementary concepts.

This is because it has not occurred to you that for anything at all to exist, something or the other must self-exist, since things may not arise from nothingness.

That you say nothingness is eternal, is another cringe-worthy and sad contradiction.

^^^ And yet, these thoughts, which will mean "naught" to a scientist, are the wellspring from which all scientific thought and process derive!

Would there be science without thought?

No.

And yet you say thoughts would mean "naught" to the scientist.

Please go back and start all over again. Think again from scratch, independently, out of the box, and un-influenced by new age materialist incoherence.

wiegraf: I nearly missed this. Anyways, conceptually it is possible, a few theories are flying around. Biologists discuss the odds here

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And this universe may be inherently probabilistic, but that is maybe not so relevant at this moment

Philosophically, your very existence proves abiogenesis did occur, no? Unless life occurred before the ingredients used to create it even existed, which obviously does not make sense. Same old; simple - complex. The question is how

Now, even if the leading theories of the day remain imperfect, invoking 'god did it' is obviously; 'god of the gaps'. How has that worked out? We'll work it out eventually, find a natural explanation, rather than continue to claim evil spirits cause diseases.

I aint talking about no God of any gaps.

And there's nothing u have written here to show the cause of first life from mindless matter.

So when you say "conceptually possible" you are fulfilling the OP's prediction: you are speculating, and therefore living on a theory and theories of gaps as well. Simple.

wiegraf: So inevitably, so long as life is conceptually possible

Life is not conceptually possible at all, given the blind chance pre biotic soup model.

In fact, i positively assert to you that in such a scenario, life is impossible, and could never have arisen. I also say to you that no scientist anywhere has ever shown how first life arose from such.

Can you tell me of any proper explanation or concept that shows how the first living thing would have become living, from dead matter and though chance events?

wiegraf: I'm talking about scientists. A scientist who believes immaterial was first cause is very well justified in saying NOTHING was first cause. As you say yourself here with the bolded

Then a scientist would be justified in saying that your thoughts do not exist.

There is the issue of what thoughts consist of, and I do think them physically based, as simply; computations.h

Do not hedge. I did not ask you if thoughts are physically based. I asked you if they are physical things themselves.

But I'm not making a case for that now, I'm making a case for your dreaded 'something from nothing'. Immaterial = nothing as far as the physical is concerned..

But physics is not all there is to reality.

Else i really have to stop arguing against your thoughts, which do not exist in physics, else i be considered mad.

wiegraf: They KNOW

And the appendix is mostly useless. It is useful to herbivores, not necessary to omnivores.

And all these other organs, I suppose they were just intelligently designed? It just happens to be a coincidence that whales and snakes have remnants of limbs, we have remnants of our days as herbivores via the appendix and of course, tails, etc. Even chickens that have lost the ability to fly, have wings because?

There was evolution. But it is illogical and improbable to suggest that it occurred by chance random events. Chance and random matter could not and would not contrive conscious beings.

Indeed, by the principles of evolution, unicellular organisms would not ever have evolved into statistically less successful multicellular creatures.

Not to speak about brains.

wiegraf: Why, oh why? Oh, please do take me seriously... I've already told you the fate of the universe rides on that.... Please..

Lolz, this is why I like you. You are so incredibly random, honest and humorous.

wiegraf: What does this have to do with anything? If you were a scientist that believed in the 'immaterial', would you put 'immaterial' into your equations? By it's very definition, something that can NOT be measured. Can you explain to me how that is science?

You have problems with 'something from nothing' but think it logical to put 'immaterial' into equations?!

Philosophical equations, yes.

And o, I doubt that there is any scientist who would deny that thoughts exist. I also doubt that there is any scientist who can ascribe the properties of matter to thoughts (has weight and occupies space)

wiegraf: That IS my point. For some concerned with the physical and natural, and that includes many scientists, the abstract qualifies as NOTHING.

As such, your thoughts being immaterial, qualify as nothing.

I see no point in arguing against thoughts that qualify as nothing.

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.

^^^

@ Anony and Desika -

My understanding of punishment here, is Karma.

As such, the punishment may well already be resident in the suffering they had to go through in starving themselves of food and water and wearing sack-cloth and ashes.

Unless of course, despite God's transcendence, you expect him to descend to specifically declare a punishment before the punishment is meted out, and also expect that the punishment must be meted out after the pronouncement of forgiveness, and not before? Is this your expectation?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

Mr anony: Lol, ok then here you go...

For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the LORD, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people. 2Chronicles 30:18-20

Does this satisfy you now?

Even more:

Jonah chapter 3

Jon 3:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying,
Jon 3:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you."
Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.
Jon 3:4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.
Jon 3:6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
Jon 3:7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, "By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water,
Jon 3:8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.
Jon 3:9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish."
Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.


Now as deSika has suggested, be a gentleman, acknowledge your ignorance and tender respectfully your apologies.

But surely, their acts of wearing sackcloth and ashes, denying themselves food and water, and all that - surely those acts served as penance and atonement which the Lord saw before averting the disaster.

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.

ooman: You are disappointingly wrong. The theistic school of thought is that all things there is must be made. Stupidly removing God from "all" things there could be. If God is, then according to the theistic school of thought, he must be made. This therefore self-mutilates the whole of the theistic school of thought.

O no, that is not theistic thought. Theistic thought is that anything that is finite and has a beginning, requires a cause. Eternal things do not have a beginning and as such cannot be "made."

When a 5 years old reads this, he/she can tell whose intuition is worst.

A five year old will also know that between two people or two options, there may be the worse, but there is no such thing as "worst."

wiegraf: As myopic as usual, I see. And it's some atheist scientists subscribe to that idea, and I can't see why theist/deist scientists can't as well. Isn't your god immaterial, timeless, skselaeefaesce-ness?

There is no theist or Deist that subscribes to that idea. All theists everywhere hold God as eternal in the past. It is rather some atheist scientists that advance somethingness from nothingness - a most unscientific, not to speak of illogical piece of nonsense.

So long as he can be 'immaterial', he can be 'nothing' for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

So long as your thoughts can be immaterial, they can also be nothing, for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

Or are you admitting a material base is necessary?

No.

Mr anony: I haven't seen the link.

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.

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

I agree with this.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

This is fine.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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

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

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.

[Edited: I first put up the Nicene Creed, but the Athanasian Creed is more appropriate]
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.

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.

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.

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."

plaetton: The idea of forgiveness of sins is very central to christian faith. Infact the concept is so important that it is usually a part of every sermon and every prayer.

It goes somewhat like this:
God loves you so much that he has forgiven the sins of the world through the blood of Jesus. Come to jesus, no matter how sinful you are, and your sins are forgiven. Ask for forgiveness and you are forgiven.

Forgiveness of sins is so crucial to the christian message that without it, christianity would lose it's appeal.
There is no doubt that the prospect of having ones sins instantly washed away was what made christianity very appealing to the new converts of the early christian movement in Palestine.

Its is perhaps the most clever psychological play on the basic human need for acceptance, self -esteem and worthiness, irrespective of previous sins , transgressions and crimes - And, it's been working ever since.
If there was one thing that made the nascent christianity to overshadow all the competing cults of 1st century Palestine, it had to be the concept of forgiveness of sins.

Unlike other cults, sects or schools of philosophy that had strict moral and ethical requirements for membership, the christian cult did the exact opposite by opening it's membership to all, with emphasis on sinners and other rejects of society.
And although they were largely mocked and scorned by the authorities for this, it proved to be the engine of exponential growth for the christian movement.

In an ironic twist, even Paul, a self-confessed mass murderer of christians, at a later point in his life, had to avail himself of the of boon of eternal forgiveness that the christians, his victims, offered.

Even Emperor Constantine, warlord, mass murder and genocidal maniac who murdered his entire family line for power, had to, at a later point in his life, avail himself also of the boon of divine redemption through christianity, something that his original religion of Mithrianism did not offer. By getting Emperor Constantine on board, the small nascent cult went on to be become the worlds dominant religion in a very short time.

My personal opinion is that the forgiveness concept of christianity is mostly what led christianity away from its humble roots into a political and economic monstrosity that it became over the millenia.
Think about it. Everyone , especially political and religious figures, can go out and exploit, enslave, rap.e , burn and plunder, and then in the still of night,whip out the bible and invoke the forgiveness clause and Viola! everything is wiped clean for yet another day.
This is exactly what human nature demands.

However, there are too many contradictions in this forgiveness concept when one juxtaposes it with other christian beliefs such as armagedon, rapture, judgement day and eternal damnation in hell fire.

When you look at all these beliefs, its impossible to figure out which comes first, which comes in between, and which comes last. Infact, that would depend on which christian sect you belong to.

For example, jesus died for all my sins- meaning that I am free of sins, right?. But which sins, the ones I committed yesterday, today or the ones I will definitely commit tomorrow?. How dos that make any sense?

If jesus already died for my sins, then why do I even need to ask god in prayer for forgiveness?

If jesus wiped away my sins and god accepts my prayers of forgiveness everyday, then what is the purpose of final judgement?

Who is going to hell since everyone is already sinless through the blood of jesus?

But now lets get to the meat of the matter.
The concept of forgiveness of sins is very very silly. But ofcourse, it is human nature to ignore what is obvious to embrace what is illogical as long as it is capable of catering to our human shortcomings.

Though illogical and contradictory to biblical facts, we take refuge in the notion of forgiveness of sins because it hides us(we assume) from the natural justice of karma.
Karma is an ugly b.i.tch that nobody wants to face.

Now back to the bible.
Forgiveness of sins is a grand delusion. The bible, yes the bible, makes no mention of god, a.k.a Yahweh, ever ever granting forgiveness without first exacting his own system of measured justice.

I challange any and all christians to show anywhere in the bible where Yahweh forgave anyone or group without punishment.

The bible says that the wages of sin is death. Where does forgiveness fit in?

Jesus says " do not be deceived,for god cannot be mocked: As a man soweth, so shall he reapeth" .
Between sowing and reaping, where does forgiveness fit in?

In the lord's prayer jesus asked for forgiveness of trespasses. He did not assure or guarantee it.

We see in the bible that each time there was a transgression of Yahweh's commandments, appropriate punishment and restitution had to be made to balance the books.
That is the law of nature. The books always have to be balanced.

A thief has absolutely no right to the boon of forgiveness unless he returns all that he has stolen and submits himself for punishment according to the laws of the land.
Same goes for every sin and every crime.

Kneeling down in supplication and asking for blanket forgiveness without punishment and restitution is a waste of time, a delusion,
and you will find out on judgement day when you are burning in hell, or as Frosbel would prefer, a lake of fire.
Ha ha ha.

N:B
I would particularly like to hear from the Anony, Ihedinobi and other spin meisters.

Bravo. Excellente. Superbly said. Nothing but the truth, the unadulterated truth.

But in this very, rests a recognition of a cognizant God.