GYM DEBATE: IncRus vs. JB: Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible

[themuzicman]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible

IncRus will be defending the positive and JB will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as IncRus makes his first post. The debate will last five rounds.

Round 1: Opening statements
Round 2: Rebuttals with new material
Round 3: Rebuttals with no new material
Round 4: Final, summary rebuttals
Round 5: Concluding statements.

From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcomed here.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[IncRus]

OPENING STATEMENT

First of all, I thank God for using me as His instrument in proving that the TRINITY doctrine is INCONSISTENT with His WORDS written in the Holy Bible.

According to the Catholic Catechism, the TRINITY doctrine means that there is ONE God who is supreme, infinite and CANNOT have an equal. In this ONE God, there are THREE Divine persons, really DISTINCT, and EQUAL in ALL things – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The same Catechism defines “distinct” as separate; that is, not confounded or mixed with any other thing. It also states that the Father is God and the first Person of the Blessed Trinity; the Son is God and the second Person of the Blessed Trinity; and the Holy Ghost is God and the third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

These THREE Divine Persons are ONE and the SAME God, having ONE and the SAME Divine nature and substance. By the "nature" of a thing, the Catechism asserts, it means the combination of all the qualities that make the thing what it is. And by the "substance" of a thing it means the part that never changes, and which cannot be changed without destroying the nature of the thing.

The Blessed Trinity, the Catechism says, are THREE Divine Persons who are EQUAL in ALL things. Two persons are said to be equal when one is in no way greater than or inferior to the other.

The Catechism admits that we cannot find an example to fully illustrate the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, because the mysteries of the Catholic religion are beyond comparison. We also cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God, because this is a mystery.

A mystery, the Catechism asserts, is a truth which we cannot fully understand. Every truth which we cannot understand is not a mystery; but every revealed truth which no one can understand is a mystery. Nevertheless, the Catechism insists, we should and often do believe truths which we cannot understand when we have proof of their existence.

My job, I believe is to prove that everything the Catechism teaches about the Trinity is INCONSISTENT with the Bible. In so doing, I will rely ONLY on the Bible by “COMPARING spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Cor. 2:13). And the ONLY way we can COMPARE “spiritual things with spiritual” is by COMPARING scriptures with scriptures.

Admittedly, the whole Bible is the “word of God.” However, in comparing scriptures with scriptures, I will be guided by the following:

1. The Bible is divided into TWO dispensations of time: the time PAST where God spoke to our fathers by the prophets (Heb. 1:1); and, these LAST DAYS where God spoke to US by His son (Heb. 1:2);

2. Christ is the HEAD of the church, his BODY (Col. 1:18) and the church is SUBJECT to Christ (Eph. 5:24). The apostles and the first century Christians are the “body of Christ and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:27; Rom. 4:5). Therefore, the apostles are SUBJECT to Christ;

3. Everything that Jesus said is a COMMAND from God, what to say and what to speak (John 12:49-50);

4. God COMMANDS that we LISTEN to Jesus (Matt. 17:5); and

5. Jesus is our savior whose DOCTRINE we must BELIEVE and ABIDE in to have God and eternal life (John 3:16-18,36; 1 John 2:9).

[JB]

Introduction

I'd first of all like to thank IncRus for engaging me in dialogue on this crucial theological issue. I hope for and look forward to a reasoned, civil discussion that penetrates to the heart of the matter. I further desire to thank TheologyWeb for hosting this debate. It's hands down my favorite forum on the Internet, and the staff here really does work hard to make it a success.

On the Trinity

I am a Trinitarian, and IncRus is not. I wish to defend the consistency of that stance with revealed theological truth, just as he wishes to demonstrate the inconsistency of the two. As a Trinitarian, I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, the essence of which is ably articulated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. (Further, I tentatively affirm a perspective on the hypostatic union roughly akin to that presented in Morris 1986. This should be noted in the interest of disclosure, as it may prove pertinent at some point during the debate.) What, then, is this doctrine? Trinitarianism is a model that incorporates and harmonizes several other propositions set forth in the Scriptures:

(A.1): There is one and only one Being in possession of the unique divine nature (i.e., "there is one God")
(A.2): The Father is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "the Father is God")
(A.3): The Son is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "Jesus is God")
(A.4): The Holy Spirit is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "the Holy Spirit is God")
(A.5): The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

I suspect that IncRus accepts (A.1), (A.2), and maybe something somewhat akin to (A.5). I hence do not plan to defend them extensively here. What is hotly contested in those posts of his with which I am familiar is (A.3); I confess to being slightly perplexed as to what IncRus believes regarding (A.4), since he appears on occasion to espouse differing views of the meaning and referent of the phrase "Holy Spirit". I will focus chiefly on (A.3). I should also note that orthodox Trinitarians also accept:

(A.6): Jesus Christ is a human being.

Those who accept (A.3) and (A.6) do not consider them to be at all contradictory. The treatment by Thomas Morris of the distinction between "merely human" and "fully human" is instructive here (Morris 1986: 65). Likewise, the difference between "being" and "person" must not be neglected. As the Athanasian Creed declares:

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. [...] Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. [...] Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God.

This is essential to an understanding of the fashion in which a Trinitarian model of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been formulated by the brilliant theologians of the church.

There are several tactics that IncRus could endeavour to use in order to justify his anti-Trinitarian position. He could (i) demonstrate the incoherence of a particular proposition listed above, (ii) demonstrate the inconsistency of two or more of (A.1-6), (iii) demonstrate that (A.1-5) are jointly insufficient to permit/establish the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, or (iv) demonstrate that one or more of (A.1-5) conflicts with the contents of Scripture, which will be taken as axiomatic for purposes of this debate. My suspicion, based on prior observation, is that IncRus will utilize (iv) in conjunction with several biblical passages (e.g., John 8:40 and John 17:3); perhaps he will also employ (ii) with respect to (A.3) and (A.6). I do not intend to deliberately pre-empt his arguments in this post.

Word, Wisdom, and Spirit

The Jewish world in the intertestamental period developed several key ways of referring to divine involvement in the world: through Word, Wisdom, Torah, Shekinah, and Spirit (Wright 1996: 629; cf. also Longenecker 1970: 144-7). Thought about Wisdom, for example, developed at great length from Proverbs 8 through Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and other documents up to NT times; for a superb treatment of this, see Witherington 1994. Wisdom especially is seen as intrinsic to God's identity (2 Enoch 33:2-4; cf. Bauckham 1999: 21).

Jesus is often identified with Word (esp. John 1:1) and with Wisdom. For example, Hebrews 1:3, referring to Jesus, clearly draws heavily on the description of Wisdom in Wisdom of Solomon 7:25-26, even to the point of using the rare Greek term apaugasma. Matthew 8:20 has echoes of the treatment of Wisdom in Sirach 24:6-7 and 1 Enoch 42:2; Jesus' frequent meals with sinners enacted the deeds of Wisdom in Proverbs 9:1-6; Wisdom and Jesus are both said to sit by the Father's throne (Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-4; Matthew 26:64); Matthew 12:42 undoubtedly alludes to Jesus' identity as Wisdom, the "one greater than Solomon" (cf. Witherington 1994: 202); and comparison between Matthew 23:34 and Luke 11:49 makes clear that Jesus is Wisdom. Since Wisdom is a divine category, a conceptual pre-cursor to the sort of multipersonal monotheism postulated in Trinitarian doctrine, this should be seen as support for (A.3). The case has also been made for a New Testament connection between Jesus and the Shekinah in the Gospel of Matthew, drawing on the recurring theme of Jesus as the presence of God in, e.g., Matthew 1:23, Matthew 18:20, and Matthew 28:18-20 (Keener 1999: 67).

Now, elsewhere I've seen IncRus make statements to the effect that the Word and Wisdom don't actually refer to Jesus; rather, the Word and Wisdom are "literal". It's of course unclear what "literal" should mean in this context. I presume it to be an impersonal Word and an impersonal Wisdom. With respect to Wisdom, an investigation of the trajectory of Wisdom theology clearly shows that Wisdom gains increased personalization, and indeed may be deemed a true hypostasis prior to the NT era (Witherington 1994: 116). Further, the connection between Jesus as Wisdom, as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, makes the point somewhat moot. Hence, IncRus' position is misplaced. As for the Word, John 1:14 makes clear that the Word was something that could take upon itself "flesh", a bodily nature, and live among human beings. The context of the Gospel makes quite clear that this Word is Jesus. IncRus once raised the objection that while the Word became flesh, "that flesh into which the 'Word' became was named Jesus". However, this is merely a semantic point. When it is said that Jesus is the Word of John 1:1, what is meant is that there is a continuity of personhood between the Word, a divine person, and the person who bore (and bears still!) the name "Jesus", not that the name "Jesus" was borne by the Word prior to the incarnation. "Jesus" and "Word" here refer to the same person, and that is what matters, even though the name "Jesus" most properly applies to the temporal stages subsequent to the incarnation. Further, elsewhere in the Johannine corpus (Revelation 19:13), Jesus is given the title "Word of God", shedding light upon the use of logos in John 1:1. The argument that the Word is simply an "idea" in God's mind should also not be raised: it makes little if any sense of John 1:1c, it betrays the background of "the Word" in pre-Johannine Jewish literature and thought, and it provides great difficulty for proper understanding of the remainder of the Johannine Prologue. No solid reason appears to exist to regard the Word here as definitely impersonal. If IncRus would mean to contend that the Word/Wisdom is not Jesus, he will have quite an uphill struggle to defend that point.

Jesus as Theos

There are cases in the NT where Jesus is given the ascription theos, "God". If this is the case, then it serves as powerful support for (A.3). Such cases include John 1:1-18, in which, in accordance with what was discussed above, the Word is said to be, not just pros ton theon in 1:1b, but even (in 1:1c) theos. Later, this Word is said to become flesh in the incarnation (John 1:14). There's further the strong possibility that the reading monogenes theos in John 1:18 has sufficiently strong textual support to warrant using it as evidence. Jesus was thus, prior to his incarnation, existent as the Word. Since the Word was theos, it seems right to call Jesus "God" (cf. Bauckham 2007: 241). While on discussion of the Johannine Prologue, it should be noted that John 1:3, speaking of the pre-incarnate Word, finds remarkable parallel in 1QS 11:11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Vermes 2004: 116):

For mankind has no way,
and man is unable to establish his steps
since justification is with God
and perfection of way is out of His hand.
All things come to pass by His knowledge;
He establishes all things by His design
and without Him nothing is done. (1QS 11:10-11)

The language used here of God is used in John 1:3 of the Word, with such parallel that it seems reasonable to suppose that both texts reflect a common background of Jewish description of the divine. (I do not suppose that John was terribly influenced by Qumran ideology--see Bauckham 2007: 125-136.) Likewise, in John 20:28, Thomas addresses Jesus as "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou", as his Lord and God. Thomas thus ascribed deity to Jesus. Note Jesus' response: not a rebuke of Thomas as a blasphemer, directing him to not say such things, but rather a commendation for finally attaining awareness of Jesus' identity as the resurrected God incarnate. As Ben Witherington III correctly says:

The confession "My Lord and my God!" recapitulates some of the claims about God's Son/Wisdom made in the prologue in John 1. Jesus is not just the believer's Lord but also the believer's God, and so an appropriate object of worship, even before the ascension. (Witherington 1995: 344)

There's further the famed hymn in Philippians 2 in which it is said that Jesus existed "in the form of God" prior to his incarnation, and that he did not flaunt his divinity but instead took upon himself the "form of a servant". Analysis of the hymn reveals a divine christology (Fee 2007: 376-381) and has Wisdom overtones (cf. Witherington 1994: 257-266). In speaking of the "form of God", the contrast of verbs in the hymn highlights the requirement that Jesus pre-existed in the "form of God" before taking upon himself a human nature (Fee 2007: 377). The use of the Greek term morphe "was precisely the right word for this dual usage, to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave). [...] Hence, it means that which truly characterizes a given reality" (Fee 2007: 378). As the section concludes, mention is made of a scene in which the creation acknowledges Jesus' sovereignty, and I think that N. T. Wright is correct to say:

In Philippians 2:10 f. Paul credits Jesus with a rank and honour which is not only in one sense appropriate for the true Man, the Lord of the world, but is also the rank and honour explicitly reserved, according to scripture, for Israel's God and him alone. (Wright 1991: 93-4)

Fee points out further that when Philippians 2 refers to Jesus receiving "the name which is above every name", this indicates that Jesus will at last be universally acknowledged to bear the incommunicable sacred name of YHWH (Fee 2007: 396ff). There are also verses such as Titus 2:13 ("tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou") and 2 Peter 1:11 ("tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou"), in which the title "theos" is ascribed to Jesus (Longenecker 1970: 138). Both the Pauline corpus and the Petrine corpus call Jesus "God".

Although the term theos is not quite used, Colossians 2:9 affirms that in Jesus dwelt the fullness of theotetos, of "Deity", in bodily form. By this is meant that Jesus possessed the divine nature (Fee 2007: 308-9). (Fee refers to the word as "the abstract noun for divinity" and notes that as it serves "as a periphrasis for 'God' ", Paul "specifically refers to the Son as the divine incarnation".) Finally, it must be noted that in Isaiah 9:6, understood by the church to apply to Jesus, the Messiah is given the title "el gibbor" ("mighty God"):

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, El Gibbor, Avi Ad, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of YHWH of Hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

The title "el gibbor" is elsewhere given only to YHWH, the God of Israel (Isaiah 10:21; Jeremiah 32:18). I know that the Iglesia ni Cristo has previously attempted to deny the historical use of the passage in at least two ways: that the title applies not to the messianic ruler but to his government ("this government shall be called the Mighty God"--Pasugo, April 1975: 11), or that the title refers, not to the child at all, but to God the Father (Pasugo, May 1977: 4). Yet E. G. Manalo, the current head of the church, appears to conceivably assent to the traditional interpretation in saying that "God introduces a child - a son - to be born and whose name shall be called Mighty God" (Christ-God: Investigated-False 27). [This information gathered with gratitude from this page.] With respect to the first proposal, it simply doesn't fit the passage. It requires that initially, the "his" is the child ("the government will be upon his shoulder"), then the government itself ("his name will be called [...] Mighty God"), and then immediately back to the child ("his government"). As for the second proposal, that the titles belong to the Father rather than to the messianic child, this is simply implausible. Such is foreign to the passage, makes it incoherent, and makes of no sense the title "Prince of Peace". The correct view is that "el gibbor" refers to the child of prophecy.

All of these are, I believe, sufficient to establish (A.3), especially taken together.

Jesus and Divine Prerogatives/Attributes

It needs to be noted that throughout the NT, various distinctives of God are given to Jesus, such that Jesus is said to share a number of prerogatives and attributes of God. Importantly, Hebrews uses the category of eternity as a marker of true deity (Neyrey 2004: 229-242). This is something unique to God, and Hebrews applies it to Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:12, Hebrews 13:8). The pre-existence of Jesus is further established in John 6:38 and John 17:5. Furthermore, regarding God's creative and eschatological powers (cf. Neyrey 2004: 214), the Gospel of John grants both to Jesus (John 5:21-29). The Son is shown to bring the dead to life, to have life intrinsically, to act in judgment, and to receive divine honors. Jesus definitely participates in creative activity (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) and in eschatological activity (John 5:25-29), the roles of deity. That Jesus has all of these characteristics vindicates the proponent of (A.3).

Yahwistic Allusions in the NT

My final support for (A.3) is an NT phenomenon I call Yahwistic allusions, wherein NT authors use passages from the OT that applied uniquely to YHWH and place Jesus in that position, thereby including (I believe) Jesus in the divine identity (for which phrase, see Bauckham 1998). Romans 14:7-12 and Philippians 2:8-11 would appear to, together, plausibly identify the Lord Jesus with the YHWH of Isaiah 45:18-25. In John 12:37-43, Jesus is identified with the gloriously enthroned YHWH of Isaiah's famed Temple vision in Isaiah 6:1-10. The quotation in Hebrews 1:10-12, applied clearly to Jesus as "Lord", refers back to Psalm 102:25-27, equally clearly referring to the sole creative activity of YHWH. Likewise, the "Lord" of 1 Peter 2:1-5 is Jesus, and the language used clearly hearkens to Psalm 34:8-11, where the Lord is YHWH. Similarly, one might observe the connection between 1 Peter 3:14-16 and Isaiah 8:12-14, where Isaiah's "YHWH of Hosts" becomes Peter's "Lord Christ". Both YHWH in Deuteronomy 10:17 and Jesus in Revelation 17:14 are called "Lord of Lords". The activity of Israel's God in Psalm 68:18 is absolutely identified with Jesus Christ by Paul in Ephesians 4:7-10. There is further the curious interchange between the "Day of YHWH" in the OT and a few rare instances of the "day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6) in the Pauline corpus (Fee 2007: 406-7). These constitute a collection of Yahwistic allusions that, taken together, provide reason from several important NT bodies of literature (Pauline, Johannine, Petrine, and Hebrews) to believe that the apostolic church was quite aware that it included Jesus within the divine identity, thereby substantiating (A.3)--for only if (A.3) holds would it be appropriate to do such a thing to such a vast extent.

A Final Note on (A.4)

Pneumatology isn't my expertise, but as has been mentioned, the "Spirit" was one of the categories mentioned, on par with "Word" and "Wisdom", through which Israelites around the time of Jesus conceptualized divine activity in the world. The connection of the Spirit with the divine is seldom disputed; what is occasionally contested is the personality of the Spirit. In John 14:16-17, Jesus promises His disciples that He will send "the Spirit of truth", the Holy Spirit, as "another paraclete". Our first paraclete, of course, is Jesus (1 John 2:1). If the Spirit is to be an advocate on our behalf in a manner similar to Jesus, and someone who can be sent, it seems most fitting to conclude that the Holy Spirit is, like Jesus, a person. This is further supported by passages such as Acts 5:3-5, in which the personhood of the Holy Spirit, as the recepient of attempted deceit, is implied.

It is worth noting that IncRus has stated elsewhere that he believes the "Holy Spirit" of Acts 5:3-5 to be another way of referring to the Father, since "common sense dictates that since God, the Father is Spirit and Holy, therefore, the Holy Spirit in this verse is God, the Father Himself". However, it is certain that the phrase "Holy Spirit" was commonly used in the early church in a way that did not refer to the Father himself. In Luke 11:13, for example, Jesus mentions that the Father gives the Holy Spirit, which clearly indicates a distinction. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:26). Later, in Acts 5:9, the "Holy Spirit" is shown to be equivalent to "the Spirit of the Lord", hearkening back to the OT use of "the Spirit of YHWH". Yet further in the same chapter, we read of "the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him" (Acts 5:32). Here, the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father, and so it is reasonable to presume the same usage in Acts 5:3-5, in the absence of evidence otherwise. Unless IncRus demonstrates an instance in the Scriptures in which "Holy Spirit" is used as a title for the Father, the distinction shown elsewhere should be our guiding factor in identifying the referent in Acts 5:3-5.

It would also be a mistake to use Revelation 5:6 to argue for a plurality of "Holy Spirits", as the sevenfold nature in that verse is simply a numeric theme of Revelation, symbolic of perfection, rather than a literal statement regarding a number of individual 'spirits' at God's disposal. The "seven Spirits of God" are undoubtedly no more literal in number than the horns and eyes of Jesus, the elders around the throne, and various other numbered elements in the book. Where IncRus queries the motivations of those who would dispute the literal character of this text (i.e., "Why would anyone NOT take these verses LITERALLY? Why do commentators think BEYOND what is written?"), the error made is that a presumption of literality, given the apocalyptic genre of Revelation, is going "beyond what is written" in the sense of imposing a foreign interpretive schema onto a document meant to be read in a specific manner, as apocalyptic. The presumption ought, in such a case, generally be in favor of a symbolic interpretation.

The Spirit furthermore gives revelation (Acts 13:2) and "knows the things of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11). The Spirit is a witness to our adoption as children of God (Romans 8:16) and intercedes on our behalf, since the Spirit has a mind that God can know (Romans 8:26-27). The Spirit is thus clearly personal (Fee 2007: 587). The common Pauline use of the Holy Spirit in a list alongside the Father and the Son, in light of all this, supports a Trintarian construal. As Gordon Fee says:

What Paul forces on us are the twin realities that must be held tenaciously--if one is to be true to the apostle himself--and must be so held even if in not fully resolved tension; there is only one God, and the one God includes, as simultaneously fully divine, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Fee 2007: 593)

At the very least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should be admitted that (A.4) is consistent with the contents of the Scriptures.

Conclusion

Rather than belabor the matter, this seems like a fitting point at which to conclude and await IncRus' input. I believe it has been established that (A.3) is true, that (A.4) is at least plausibly true, and that (A.1)-(A.5) are all consistent with the Scriptures. As the conjunction of those five propositions is the essential framework of the doctrine of the Trinity, my conclusion is that the doctrine is consistent with Scripture, contrary to the position of IncRus.

Works Cited

• Bauckham 1998 = Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament
• Bauckham 2007 = Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John
• Fee 2007 = Gordon Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study
• Keener 1999 = Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
• Longenecker 1970 = Richard Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity
• Morris 1986 = Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate
• Neyrey 2004 = Jerome H. Neyrey, Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine
• Vermes 2004 = Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Revised Edition)
• Witherington 1994 = Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom
• Witherington 1995 = Ben Witherington III, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
• Wright 1991 = N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology
• Wright 1996 = N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God

[IncRus]

The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are not are not part of the Bible and do not, in any way, prove that the Trinity doctrine is consistent with the word of God. As a matter of fact, the Trinity doctrine contradicts truths that had long been established even before the birth of Christ.

The Old Testament says “the Lord He is God….” (Deut. 4:35; 1 King 18:39; Psalm 100:3), and “there is none like Him” (Deut. 4:35; Isaiah 44:8; 45:21-22; 46:9), and “before Him there is none formed neither shall there be after Him” (Isaiah 43:10).

This “Lord” who is the only one God, “alone made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the sea, and all that is therein, and the Lord preserves them all” (Neh. 9:6).

The prophets Isaiah and Malachi identify this “Lord” who is the “only one God” as the FATHER (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10).

According to the Athanasian Creed, the Father is one person called God, the Son is one person called God, and the Holy Spirit is one person called God. Nevertheless, these three persons are not three eternal beings but one eternal being.

The Creed says, “However, there are not three gods, but one God.” This suggests to me that the “one eternal being” is the “one God.”

Therefore, if the “one God” is the “one eternal being” why are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit called “God” if they are NOT “beings?”

This declaration of the Athanasian Creed is not consistent with the Bible, much less with rational thinking!

The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible.

This belief contradicts what Jesus said about himself. This doctrine is based, not on the Bible, but on opinions, allusions, misinterpretations or mistranslations of verses. And that’s the reason why this issue has continued to be debated upon for centuries.

There is not a single verse in the New Testament where Jesus himself said that he is God. On the contrary, the truth is, Jesus declared the Father as the only true God (John 17:3) and said that he is a man (John 8:40).

John 1:1 does not identify the Word with Jesus.

Just because the “word became Jesus” does not automatically mean that the word was Jesus. This is what one might call circular reasoning.

Prov. 9:1-6 is wisdom personified and does not identify Jesus as wisdom.

Heb. 1:3, Matt. 8:20, Matt. 26:64 and Matt. 12:24 do not identify Jesus with wisdom.

The reference to the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach does not make this allegation consistent with the Bible because these books are additions to the canonized Bible by the Catholic Church, much like the Book of Mormon and the writings of Ellen White. Only Catholics recognize these appendages to the Bible.

As Jesus says in Luke 11:49, it is God’s wisdom personified that is talking. This is similar to “the voice of Abel’s blood crying unto God from the ground” (Gen. 4:10).

Matt. 1:23 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Taken with Matt. 1:21-22, Emmanuel which being interpreted is “God with us” is the result of Jesus’ mission of saving God’s people from their sins. This means that those who are saved will dwell with God in the New Jerusalem, the Holy City (Rev. 21:1-3).

Matt. 18:20 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ receive adoption as sons of God (Gal. 4:5). And because they are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His son into their hearts crying “Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:5). That’s why when two or more sons of God meet together in Jesus’ name, Jesus is in the midst of them.

Matt. 28:18 proves that Jesus is not God.

Jesus says all authority has been given to him. The giver of the authority is somebody greater than Jesus. And we know that nobody is greater than God Almighty. And who is the giver? Jesus says, “My Father has given me all things” (Matt. 11:27 TEV).

Matt. 28:19 does not prove that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are Gods or persons of God, the “eternal being.”

Jesus simply commanded his apostles to baptize “by authority” (another meaning of “in the name”) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 28:20 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Apostle John wrote that he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son (2 John 9). Hence, as long as his disciples observe all things that Jesus has commanded them, he will always be with them.

JB questions what I mean by literal where word and wisdom are used. Literal means just that. God said (uttered the word), “Let there be light; and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). The word of God (what God uttered) created light. The wisdom of God is literally the wisdom of God which the author made to talk like a person in Prov. 8:1, again, like the voice of the blood of Abel crying to God from the ground (Gen. 4:10).

The word of God that was in the beginning with God is literally the word that God uttered to Abraham in Genesis 17:7; the word that God uttered to Moses in Deut. 18:18; and the word that God uttered to Isaiah in Isaiah 7:14 concerning His plan to send His Son into the world.

Of course, the word that God uttered was figuratively God because that word had the power of God who uttered it. In Num. 23:19 God said, “…hath he said and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

That’s the power of God’s word! The word of God carries with it the certainty of fulfillment!

JB contends that when Trinitarians say that Jesus is the word of John 1:1, what is meant is that there is a continuity of personhood between the Word, a divine person, and the person who bore (and bears still) the name “Jesus.” “Jesus” and the “word” refers to the same person, and that is what matters, JB continues.
This is a self-serving interpretation, opinion or speculation. One cannot find any of these in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that the Word is a person? Where does it say in the Bible that the Word and Jesus refer to the same person?

Nowhere in John 1:1 is Jesus mentioned.

If the word was God and we substitute Jesus for word, there would have been two Gods in the beginning. And that would contradict what the Old Testament teaches.

And where was the Holy Spirit in the beginning? If God, the one eternal being, was a Trinity composed of three persons from the beginning, how did John miss it?

The “word became flesh” is a figure of speech to mean that the word uttered by God to Abraham, Moses and Isaiah was fulfilled with the birth of Jesus. It is like saying, “his concept became the very first space shuttle to Mars.”

The title of Jesus as the “word of God” in Revelation 19:13 pertains to his being the voice of God on earth because everything he said was a command from God (John 12:49-50).

John 1:3 does not prove that Jesus is God.

John 1:3 is explained by apostle Paul when he wrote: “just as He chose us (the body – 1 Cor. 12:27) in Christ (head of the body – Col. 1:18) before the foundation of the world…. having predestined us (the body) to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of God’s will (Eph. 1:4-5).

Hence, John 1:3 means that everything was created “because of” and “for” Jesus, he being the “firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “in him all things consist” (Col. 1:17).

John 20:28 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Thomas’ statement was an expression of belief that Jesus has indeed risen.

In John 20:25, Thomas did not believe that Jesus had risen until he put his hands into the side of Jesus.

In John 20:27, when Jesus saw Thomas, he told Thomas to put his hand into his side and said, “Do not be unbelieving but believing.” Note that Jesus rebuked Thomas for not believing that he had risen.

In reply to Jesus’ rebuke, Thomas said in John 20:28, “My Lord and my God,” signifying his belief that Jesus had indeed risen, without putting his hand into the side of Jesus.

And Jesus knew by that statement that Thomas has finally believed that he had indeed risen. That’s why Jesus once again, rebuked Thomas by saying, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29), referring to his having risen. That meant that Thomas was not blessed because he believed that Jesus had risen only after seeing Jesus.

It is very unlikely that Jesus thought that Thomas was calling him God because he said, “Thomas, because that you have seen me you have believed.” Jesus knew that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and cannot be seen (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). Why would Thomas believe that Jesus is God by seeing him when Thomas was a disciple and knew that God is invisible?

As I said in my opening statement, Paul and Peter were apostles of Christ and Titus was a disciple of Paul. They are all the “body of Christ and members individually” (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4-5).

As such, they submit to Christ (Eph. 5:24 TEV) and Christ has authority over them (Eph. 5:23 Ibid.). Hence, they could not have written things that contradict what Jesus said in John 8:40 and John 17:3. And I definitely believe that they did not.

Therefore, verses that appear to contradict John 8:40 and John 17:3 must be mistranslations to make them appear as saying that Jesus is God. It’s like pitting Jesus against his apostles!

Isaiah 9:6 does not prove that Jesus is God. This popular version is a mistranslation.

The term “Mighty God is NOT mentioned as one of the names of the child but as part of the name which, in Hebrew is read as, Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom (Isaiah 9:6 Jewish Publications Society of America). The explanation in the footnote to this verse in the Jewish Publications Society of America states: “That is, wonderful in Counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.”

Hence, the Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders Isaiah 9:6 in a way that does not contradict the other words of God written elsewhere in the Bible, thus: “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called ‘Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace.”

If Christ were the Mighty God referred to in the verse, so many questions would be left unanswered: Is God a child? Was God ever born? Was God ever given? If the giver is also God, wouldn’t that make two Gods?

Other verses in the Bible would then be contradicted. Num. 23:19 says, “God is not a man….nor a son of man” (KJV). Mal. 2:10 states: “Have we not all one Father. Has not one God created us? John 20:17 records the pronouncements of Jesus where he said, “……I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”

John 6:38 and John 17:5 do not prove the pre-existence of Jesus.

Jesus coming down from heaven in John 6:38 is a figure of speech while John 17:5 does not mean that Jesus existed in heaven before the foundation of the world. If Jesus existed in heaven before the foundation of the world, he still would not have been God because two verses earlier, Jesus said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3).

John 5:21-29 do not prove that Jesus is God.

In John 5:30, after detailing the things that God gave him to do, Jesus said, “I can of myself do nothing. As I hear I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.”

If Jesus were God, what kind of God is he who can do nothing of himself?

Hence, the idea that Jesus is God who can “of himself do nothing” contradicts what the Bible teaches: that God is today (who is), yesterday (who was) and forever (is to come), the Almighty (Rev. 4:8; 1:8).

Apostle Paul was not using OT passage that applied to God and placed Jesus in that position when he wrote Rom. 14:7-12. In these verses, apostle Paul was echoing what Jesus told his disciples in John 5:22-27.

It is not plausible to identify the Lord Jesus with the YHWH of Isaiah 45:18-25 because in these verses, God says there is no God beside Him. The only way this could be plausible is if Jesus and God whom the OT identifies as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8) are one and the same.

Besides, Philippians 2:8-11 clearly states that “God exalted him and given him a name which is above every name.”

Heb. 1:12 and Heb. 13:8 do not prove that Jesus is God.

Heb. 1:12 was lifted from Psalm 102:25-27 which is a doxology to God. Heb. 13:8 refers to Jesus being the same man yesterday (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5), the same man today (Psalm 80:17), and the same man forever (Matt. 24:30; Acts 1:11). This is probably the only thing one can find in Jesus that remains the same yesterday, today and forever.

Yahwistic allusions do not negate the proposition that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible.

Yahwistic allusions are opinions or speculations that contradict what God spoke to our fathers by the prophets (Heb. 1:1) and contradict what God spoke to us in these last days by His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2).

Jesus said “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) and “Spirit does not have flesh and bones as we see Jesus has” (Luke 24:39).

That’s why Jesus said “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God…” (John 6:46 KJV). That’s why apostle John wrote “no one has seen God at any time…” (John 1:18) and apostle Paul wrote “to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise…” (1 Tim. 1:17) and “…who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see…” (1 Tim. 6:16).

There was only one Jesus mentioned in the Bible – the Jesus who walked, ate, and slept with people, the Jesus who was crucified on the cross, buried in a tomb, whom God raised on the third day.

If, as JB contends, Jesus is “fully human and fully God,” God would have been visible, not invisible. Men would have literally seen God, not that no man can see as Jesus has said.

And that’s a problem for JB to resolve because it would make Jesus, apostle John and apostle Paul, liars.

The Trinitarian belief that the Holy Spirit is God and is the third person of the Trinity is not consistent with the Bible.

As a matter of fact, JB could not show one verse to support this doctrine. Instead, what was presented were verses to prove that the Holy Spirit is not equal to God, the Father because it is the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends into all the earth (John 14:16-17; 26; 16:13).

Whether the Holy Spirit is a person or being, the Bible does not say. What the Bible teaches is that God has seven spirits that are sent into all the world (Rev. 5:6; 1:4).

Rev. 4:6 says that there are seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God (Rev. 4:6). Whether the seven lamps symbolize the seven spirits of God or literally are the spirits of God, it does not matter.

Rev. 5:6 says that the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that are sent into all the world. Whether the seven horns and seven eyes symbolize the seven spirits of God or literally are the spirits of God, it also does not matter.

What matters is the truth that there are seven spirits of God recorded in the Bible. Which of these seven is God the Holy Spirit whom Trinitarians regard as the third person of the Trinity?

[JB]

Introduction

I confess that there isn't much for me to say in the second round. In his opening statement, IncRus did not venture to give arguments on behalf of his position. It may well be that he misunderstood the purpose of an opening statement. Regardless of the reason, well, that's why we have five rounds. I look forward to seeing IncRus' arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Catechism and the Trinity

I'd first of all like to state that I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and hence I do not view the doctrines espoused in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as necessarily binding. However, I do believe that the Catechism, as portrayed by IncRus, does more or less concur with what I would say; nevertheless, for the purposes of this debate the synthesis of (A.1-5) takes precedence. It is unfortunate that IncRus has not cited particular locations within the Catechism from which each particular point is drawn. Nevertheless, I suspect that most of it can be found in this section.

However, a few notes. First, IncRus says that, in Trinitarian doctrine, any form of subordination (even if temporary?) would be out of place. However, Trinitarians have pretty much always allowed for the functional subordination of the Son to the Father. I wish that IncRus would have provided a specific quote from the Catechism on this point, but my strong suspicion is that whatever point in the Catechism is being referenced has been slightly misread. Second, without a quote, I'm skeptical that the Catechism "defines 'distinct' as separate", as often the two terms are, in the context of discussing Trinitarianism and the relations between the persons, non-synonyms, and it would strike me as potentially odd if the Catechism were to use one in the definition of the other.

Mystery and the Trinity

The Trinity can rightly be called a mystery. Humans cannot fully comprehend it. The doctrine of the Trinity is not something upon which humans might stumble through the powers of unaided reason. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the doctrine is incoherent, or that it is fundamentally irrational in some allegedly acceptable fashion, or any of the other myriad misconstruals of mystery. We will undoubtedly never comprehend precisely how multipersonal ontology could be unified in a Trinitarian sense, as such is foreign to our experience in this life--not contrary to that experience, but unparalleled. What really matters is that the Trinity is a coherent synthesis of propositions that can be defended from the Scriptures, from the overarching background themes, and from the correct theological development that transpired in the years after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

Weighting the Scriptures

Although IncRus agrees that the Bible is the "word of God", he lays out several guidelines by which he weighs the importance of different passages in the event of a potential divergence of perspective. My numbering does not correspond to the number of his bullets.

(B.1.1) God revealed previously through prophets and presently (and finally) through Jesus Christ.
(B.1.2) The New Testament is to be given a greater weighting than the Old Testament in arbitrating doctrinal disputes.
(B.2.1) Christ is the supreme and final authority to whom the church is subject, including but not limited to doctrinal matters.
(B.2.2) The apostles belong to the church, thus being also subject to Christ.
(B.2.3) Therefore, the recorded teachings of Jesus are to be given greater weighting than anything outside of the teachings of Jesus.
(B.3) The words and actions of Jesus were directly decreed by the Father, thereby imbuing them with their exceptional authority.
(B.4) It is the will of God that we accept the teachings of Jesus.
(B.5.1) Belief in all doctrines taught by Jesus is requisite for (a) connection to God and (b) eternal life.
(B.5.2) Belief in the remainder of the New Testament is, where divergent, not of soteriological import.

Several of the above, such as (B.1.2), (B.2.3), and (B.5.2), I have inferred from the original statements by IncRus by attempting to mentally investigate their relevance. However, I suspect that all of the above accurately represents IncRus' position.

For purposes of this debate, however, much of the above is less than relevant. The topic is whether the doctrine of the Trinity is consistent or inconsistent with the Bible as a whole, which is presumed to be self-consistent on this issue. Hence, I will have the burden of smoothing out any alleged inconsistencies, while IncRus will have the burden of answering any arguments to the effect that various biblical passages support the constituent propositions of (A.1-5).

I do not think, ultimately, that in the context of this debate, (B.1.2), (B.2.3), or (B.5.2) have any impact or are applicable. Passages must be dealt with on their own terms. I say this to pre-empt any arguments to the effect that, since one verse is presumed to speak contrary to what several other passages say, those passages are to be dismissed on the basis that the verse has the sort of weighting embodied in, e.g., (B.2.3). In terms of this debate, a passage in, say, one of the Pauline epistles will, properly understood, have the same or similar weighting as a statement attributed to Jesus in one of the Gospels, also properly understood. All of the Scriptural data must be accounted for, and if either myself or IncRus should fail to appropriately integrate some crucial Scriptural datum into the explanatory frameworks provided by our respective positions, that rightly counts against the position at hand, unless this occurs as a result solely of the lack of competence on the part of the one participating in this debate.

Conclusion

I wish that I had more to say, but I don't. IncRus' prior post doesn't really argue in favor of his position, so there isn't much there to rebut. I've really had to scrape to find points of contention. Hopefully, that'll change in the next round, after he's responded to my own opening statement.

God bless you all.

[IncRus]

My opening statement, as I understand what an opening statement is, outlined how I intend to prove that the Trinity doctrine as taught in the Catholic Catechism is inconsistent with the Bible. At that point in the debate, I did not see any reason to present any argument in support of the affirmative position because I was certain that this will come out as the debate progresses.

Hence, in my first rebuttal, you will note that I refuted with scripture every allusion, opinion or interpretation in support of the doctrine that Jesus is God presented in JB’s opening statement.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Catechism” as a “summary of religious doctrine often in the form of questions and answers.” The Catholic Catechism I stumbled upon is a set of questions and answers concerning the Catholic beliefs specifically the Third Chapter on Unity and the Trinity of God.

I don’t see any difference between JB’s A.1-5 and the Trinity presented in the Catechism except where the Catechism define “distinct” a “separate” and states that in “no way is one person greater or inferior to the other.”

The following is an excerpt of the Catechism from which my opening statement on the Trinity came from:

Q. 185. When are two persons said to be equal?
A. Two persons are said to be equal when one is in no way greater than
or inferior to the other.

Q. 186. {23} How many persons are there in God?
A. In God there are three Divine persons, really distinct, and equal in
all things--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Q. 187. What do "divine" and "distinct" mean?
A. "Divine" means pertaining to God, and "distinct" means separate; that
is, not confounded or mixed with any other thing.

Whether humans can or cannot fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity is not the topic of this debate. The debate centers on whether the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible or not. The fact that the Trinity is a mystery, is proof that the Trinity doctrine is indeed inconsistent with the Bible.

JB challenged the guidelines I set for this debate to arrive at the truth without giving any reason. Why?

Every debate has parameters. In the United States, the federal constitution takes precedence over state constitutions. It’s the same with the word of God. For the word of God to be rightly divided, it has to follow some kind of order.

This is my second rebuttal. My fourth post will be my final rebuttal summary.

[JB]

Intro.

I thank IncRus for his civil reply. In this response, length concerns lead me to omit discussion of the creeds, the Shekinah, and Isaiah 9:6.

IncRus' Case

Before I interact with any of IncRus' criticisms of my own post, it seems best for me to give consideration to the arguments he has put forward here on behalf of his own position.

This “Lord” who is the only one God, “alone made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the sea, and all that is therein, and the Lord preserves them all” (Neh. 9:6). The prophets Isaiah and Malachi identify this “Lord” who is the “only one God” as the FATHER (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10).

[...]

There is not a single verse in the New Testament where Jesus himself said that he is God. On the contrary, the truth is, Jesus declared the Father as the only true God (John 17:3) and said that he is a man (John 8:40).

[...]

Other verses in the Bible would then be contradicted. Num. 23:19 says, “God is not a man….nor a son of man” (KJV). Mal. 2:10 states: “Have we not all one Father. Has not one God created us? John 20:17 records the pronouncements of Jesus where he said, “……I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”

[...]

Matt. 28:18 proves that Jesus is not God. Jesus says all authority has been given to him. The giver of the authority is somebody greater than Jesus. And we know that nobody is greater than God Almighty.

[...]

If Jesus were God, what kind of God is he who can do nothing of himself?

[...]

Jesus said “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) and “Spirit does not have flesh and bones as we see Jesus has” (Luke 24:39). That’s why Jesus said “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God…” (John 6:46 KJV). That’s why apostle John wrote “no one has seen God at any time…” (John 1:18) and apostle Paul wrote “to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise…” (1 Tim. 1:17) and “…who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see…” (1 Tim. 6:16).

[...]

If, as JB contends, Jesus is “fully human and fully God,” God would have been visible, not invisible. Men would have literally seen God, not that no man can see as Jesus has said.

In these many quotations excerpted from IncRus' Round 2 entry, a variety of different approaches are used in an effort to demonstrate, from biblical data, propositions inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine. I judge them all highly insufficient and unsatisfactory, but I must engage in detailed examination.

First of all, I wish to address John 8:40, one of IncRus' favorite verses, in which Jesus is described as a "man accredited by God". In short, support is given in this verse for (A.6), which I mentioned in my opening statement. However, as I pointed out, Trinitarians wholly affirm (A.6)! The burden placed upon IncRus, then, is not to argue for it, but rather to show that it is inconsistent with (A.1-5). Such attempt is made by IncRus solely through citation of Number 23:19, which horribly misuses the verse. The intent of the passage is to deny that God is prone to inferior behavioral patterns, as are mere humans; the intent of the passage is not to deny the possibility of an incarnation that occurred over a thousand years after Numbers 23:19 was uttered.

Next, an excursus on a variety of passages cited in favor of monotheism. Again, as (A.1) attests, Trinitarians affirm that YHWH is the one and only God, the God of Israel whom the prophets and priests of the OT and the apostles of the NT worshipped with devotion. Hence, citing these verses does nothing for IncRus, for it would be sufficient to demonstrate elsewhere that some proposition derivable from biblical data or from (A.2-6) conflicts with (A.1).

Third, a quick look at John 17:3. All that needs to be said is that Trinitarians believe that the Father is the only true God. But this does not imply, without the unwarranted assumption of a universally unipersonal ontology of being, that only the Father is the only true God; rather, Trinitarians declare that the Father is the only true God, and that the Son and Spirit are also this only true God, without being separate deities or being identical in personhood to the Father. (IncRus' use of Malachi 2:10 may be categorized with this also, and it may further be noted that the use of "Father" in Malachi 2:10 has more to do with YHWH's role as creator of the world and establisher of Israel than of the particular Father-Son dynamic of the NT literature, e.g., John 20:17. Respecting that verse, it's conceivably noteworthy that "our" is not used, possibly implying a distinction in the relationship of the Father to Jesus and the relationship of the Father to the disciples.)

With John 8:40 and John 17:3 addressed, it seems safe to say that IncRus' claim that any verse that appears to conflict with these must be somehow misinterpreted, deserves to be put to rest; rather, these are the misinterpreted verses as he's used them.

Next, there's the matter of Matthew 28:18, which IncRus claims defeats Trinitarianism. Fleshed out a bit, the argument goes:

(C.1) Jesus receives authority from the Father.
(C.2) The person who gives authority is of greater status than the one who receives authority.
(C.3) No divine person can be of sub-maximal status at any time.
(C.4) Jesus is thus not a divine person.

One problem here is that Trinitarians see no reason to accept (C.3), as a major theme is the humility of Jesus in accepting, temporarily, the status of a human servant. Further, on some schemes, the Son is eternally subordinate (functionally, not ontologically) to the Father. Hence, (C.3) must be argued for, not presumed as IncRus does. (C.2) might also be conceivably questionable.

After this, there's a question as to why Jesus "can do nothing of himself", and how this can be consistent with God's omnipotence. The answer is simple: as the Son, Christ is dependent on the Father and does the Father's will, acting out in humility the part of a servant and fulfilling, in perfect obedience, his Father's commands. Nothing in any of this denies the omnipotence of Jesus.

Finally, IncRus raises an issue respecting the divine nature. To outline:

(D.1) God is an immaterial spirit and invisible.
(D.2) God could not make himself visible or manifest himself materially.
(D.3) No divine person ever has done what (D.2) denies.
(D.4) Jesus is visible and material.
(D.5) Therefore, Jesus is not a divine person.

Now, while the divine nature qua divinity is inherently invisible and immaterial, I see absolutely no reason in these texts to infer from that fact to (D.2). Further, IncRus ignores the totality of John 1:18, which reveals that the divine person whom no one sees is the Father, but that the Son, the monogenes theos, has now appeared. In light of IncRus' interpretation, I'd like to see him tackle the issue of OT theophanies.

To sum this up, then, has IncRus here defeated Trinitarian doctrine? Far from it! Rather, his arguments lack rigorous formulation, neglect to mention crucial premises (such as the presumption of unipersonalism) that are instead swept under the carpet, and do a disservice to a scholarly and informed awareness of the Scriptures. I mean only to point out that if this is the strongest he can provide against the Trinity, he may wish to seek a church other than the Iglesia ni Cristo.

IncRus and Wisdom

Moving on, it comes time to interact with IncRus' criticisms of my opening statement. I ignore his statements on the creeds for space concerns. IncRus' reply to my section on Wisdom consisted of:

Prov. 9:1-6 is wisdom personified and does not identify Jesus as wisdom.

Heb. 1:3, Matt. 8:20, Matt. 26:64 and Matt. 12:24 do not identify Jesus with wisdom.

The reference to the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach does not make this allegation consistent with the Bible because these books are additions to the canonized Bible [...] Only Catholics recognize these appendages to the Bible.

As Jesus says in Luke 11:49, it is God’s wisdom personified that is talking. This is similar to “the voice of Abel’s blood crying unto God from the ground” (Gen. 4:10).

First of all, I must say that IncRus has failed to follow the trajectory of Wisdom theology's development. That is the purpose of referencing Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and other non-canonical literature: to use it to illuminate the background of the NT, so as to understand rightly what it--a section in the canon--says. Hence, IncRus' third and first paragraph are irrelevant.

IncRus' second paragraph is exceptionally weak. He denies the link between Jesus and Wisdom, but provides no justification. As for Luke 11:49, IncRus has failed to note that it is the relationship between this verse and Matthew 23:34 which matters, and this he has ignored. All in all, IncRus' treatment of Wisdom must be judged insufficient to escape the strong support it lends to Trinitarian doctrine, and this is a critical flaw in his rebuttal.

IncRus and the Word

IncRus has much to say about the divine logos and its relationship to Jesus:

John 1:1 does not identify the Word with Jesus. Just because the “word became Jesus” does not automatically mean that the word was Jesus. This is what one might call circular reasoning.

[...]

JB contends that when Trinitarians say that Jesus is the word of John 1:1, what is meant is that there is a continuity of personhood between the Word, a divine person, and the person who bore (and bears still) the name “Jesus.” “Jesus” and the “word” refers to the same person, and that is what matters, JB continues. This is a self-serving interpretation, opinion or speculation. One cannot find any of these in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that the Word is a person? Where does it say in the Bible that the Word and Jesus refer to the same person? Nowhere in John 1:1 is Jesus mentioned. If the word was God and we substitute Jesus for word, there would have been two Gods in the beginning. And that would contradict what the Old Testament teaches. And where was the Holy Spirit in the beginning? If God, the one eternal being, was a Trinity composed of three persons from the beginning, how did John miss it? The “word became flesh” is a figure of speech to mean that the word uttered by God to Abraham, Moses and Isaiah was fulfilled with the birth of Jesus. It is like saying, “his concept became the very first space shuttle to Mars.” The title of Jesus as the “word of God” in Revelation 19:13 pertains to his being the voice of God on earth because everything he said was a command from God (John 12:49-50).

Nothing here refutes what I said. IncRus wishes to argue that the "Word" of John 1:1 is impersonal and has a relationship to Jesus akin to a concept's relation to the product, but this is entirely foreign to the concept of the "Word" in the background to the NT material. It's patently obvious that when the Johannine Prologue refers to the logos, which was theos even in primordial times and via which creation transpired, and when this logos is later shown to assume sarx in a unique fashion, this implies a continuity of personhood. Further, IncRus has only asserted his view, not defended it. I've pointed out that "Word" is a title of Jesus himself, which IncRus counters by claiming that this means only that Jesus is a perfect messenger of God. If IncRus desires to defend this assertion, I'll be waiting.

IncRus raises two other points here. The first of which is that, according to him, substitution of "Jesus" (or, presumably, "the Son") into John 1:1 would produce polytheism. Really? "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God" seems quite monotheistic to me: 1:1a announcing past eternity, 1:1b proclaiming the relationship between the Son and the Father, and 1:1c highlighting the deity of the Son. I see no reason why huios could not function as logos does, save that it served John's purposes better to use logos in light of the background.

Second, he asks why the Spirit is absent from this. Well... why should the Spirit be mentioned in the first few verses of the Johannine Prologue, which are about the incarnation of the Word?

IncRus and John 1:3

IncRus disputes the testimony of John 1:3 to Christ's role in creation:

John 1:3 does not prove that Jesus is God.

John 1:3 is explained by apostle Paul when he wrote: “just as He chose us (the body – 1 Cor. 12:27) in Christ (head of the body – Col. 1:18) before the foundation of the world…. having predestined us (the body) to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of God’s will (Eph. 1:4-5).

Hence, John 1:3 means that everything was created “because of” and “for” Jesus, he being the “firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and “in him all things consist” (Col. 1:17).

It would be nice if IncRus would support his interpretations. He views John 1:3 as saying only that Christ was the purpose of creation; but the phrase "panta di' autou egeneto" does not easily lend itself to such, nor does IncRus' view jive well with either the remainder of the verse or with the connection to 1QS 11:11.

IncRus and John 5

Ignoring my point, IncRus said:

John 5:21-29 do not prove that Jesus is God. In John 5:30, after detailing the things that God gave him to do, Jesus said, “I can of myself do nothing....

See earlier in this post for the "dependence" argument. The point I made, though, was that Jesus attributed to himself uniquely divine prerogatives in John 5. Discussion of this is nowhere to be found in IncRus' response.

IncRus and John 20:28

IncRus says regarding John 20:28:

John 20:28 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Thomas’ statement was an expression of belief that Jesus has indeed risen.

In reply to Jesus’ rebuke, Thomas said in John 20:28, “My Lord and my God,” signifying his belief that Jesus had indeed risen, without putting his hand into the side of Jesus.

And Jesus knew by that statement that Thomas has finally believed that he had indeed risen. That’s why Jesus once again, rebuked Thomas by saying, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29), referring to his having risen. That meant that Thomas was not blessed because he believed that Jesus had risen only after seeing Jesus.

It is very unlikely that Jesus thought that Thomas was calling him God because he said, “Thomas, because that you have seen me you have believed.” Jesus knew that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and cannot be seen (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). Why would Thomas believe that Jesus is God by seeing him when Thomas was a disciple and knew that God is invisible?

Ignoring the last paragraph (which does no more than set forth the spirit-invisibility argument answered above), nowhere in all of this does IncRus refute or even really interact with my point: in addressing Jesus as "ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou", Thomas called Jesus "God", and Jesus accepted the designation by not rebuking Thomas as a blasphemer.

Assorted Sections on Divine Eternity

IncRus first says:

John 6:38 and John 17:5 do not prove the pre-existence of Jesus. Jesus coming down from heaven in John 6:38 is a figure of speech while John 17:5 does not mean that Jesus existed in heaven before the foundation of the world. If Jesus existed in heaven before the foundation of the world, he still would not have been God because two verses earlier, Jesus said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3).

IncRus contends that John 6:38 is merely a "figure of speech" without providing any reason. Jesus has "come down from heaven", as he further attests in, e.g., John 3:13 and the remainder of John 6. As for John 17:5, IncRus does not elaborate, and so all the refutation needed can be summed up as: "Did too." As for IncRus' argument from John 17:3, already addressed.

Heb. 1:12 and Heb. 13:8 do not prove that Jesus is God. Heb. 1:12 was lifted from Psalm 102:25-27 which is a doxology to God. Heb. 13:8 refers to Jesus being the same man yesterday (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5), the same man today (Psalm 80:17), and the same man forever (Matt. 24:30; Acts 1:11). This is probably the only thing one can find in Jesus that remains the same yesterday, today and forever.

IncRus misses the point here. Hebrews 1:12 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Jesus, attributing eternity to him; and Hebrews 13:8 attributes both past and future eternity to Jesus. IncRus would do well to read some scholarly investigations of the Scriptures.

Yahwistic Allusions Revisited

IncRus says on these:

Apostle Paul was not using OT passage that applied to God and placed Jesus in that position when he wrote Rom. 14:7-12. In these verses, apostle Paul was echoing what Jesus told his disciples in John 5:22-27.

It is not plausible to identify the Lord Jesus with the YHWH of Isaiah 45:18-25 because in these verses, God says there is no God beside Him. The only way this could be plausible is if Jesus and God whom the OT identifies as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8) are one and the same.

Besides, Philippians 2:8-11 clearly states that “God exalted him and given him a name which is above every name.”

[...]

Yahwistic allusions do not negate the proposition that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible.

Yahwistic allusions are opinions or speculations that contradict what God spoke to our fathers by the prophets (Heb. 1:1) and contradict what God spoke to us in these last days by His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2).

To go through it part by part:

• I hope IncRus doesn't mean to deny the connection between Romans 14:7-12 and Isaiah, considering the direct quotation.
• IncRus shows in his second paragraph that he perhaps doesn't understand the Trinity, since it states that the Son is intrinsic to the divine identity of YHWH, and so is the same God, not a second God.
• IncRus quotes Philippians 2:8-11 without showing how it supports his position instead of mine, since it indicates that Jesus is YHWH.
• IncRus appeals to the alleged "inconsistency", which is precisely what we're debating.
• If the Scriptures use genuine Yahwistic allusions, and do so as often as I've shown, then that provides reason to believe that the apostolic church would have agreed with my position and not IncRus'. I've made my case, and IncRus hasn't really touched it.

IncRus and Pneumatology

Lastly, IncRus says:

The Trinitarian belief that the Holy Spirit is God and is the third person of the Trinity is not consistent with the Bible.

As a matter of fact, JB could not show one verse to support this doctrine. Instead, what was presented were verses to prove that the Holy Spirit is not equal to God, the Father because it is the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends into all the earth (John 14:16-17; 26; 16:13).

Whether the Holy Spirit is a person or being, the Bible does not say. What the Bible teaches is that God has seven spirits that are sent into all the world (Rev. 5:6; 1:4).

Rev. 4:6 says that there are seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God (Rev. 4:6). Whether the seven lamps symbolize the seven spirits of God or literally are the spirits of God, it does not matter.

Rev. 5:6 says that the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God that are sent into all the world. Whether the seven horns and seven eyes symbolize the seven spirits of God or literally are the spirits of God, it also does not matter.

What matters is the truth that there are seven spirits of God recorded in the Bible. Which of these seven is God the Holy Spirit whom Trinitarians regard as the third person of the Trinity?

I have to seriously question whether IncRus closely read what I wrote. I pointed out, contrary to his own statements, that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. I pointed out that the Spirit is portrayed in personal terms, and IncRus hasn't touched this. As for the "seven spirits", IncRus has failed to address the apocalyptic nature of the genre. The "seven" ought not to be taken literally any more than should be the number of elders or other various numerical features throughout Revelation. It is the burden of IncRus to make a case for supposing that the "seven spirits" should be construed literally, and he hasn't. (I challenge him to find a scholarly book that backs him in this, BTW.)

Conclusion

That was quite a lengthy interaction! Thus, it comes time to summarize precisely where the debate stands. This will seem a harsh and critical assessment, but I believe it nevertheless accurate. IncRus:

• has not justified many of his assumptions.
• repeatedly cites passages in support of (A.1) and (A.6) in vain.
• fails to appreciate the relevance of Wisdom literature, not as canonical material, but as relevant background material.
• dismisses the Wisdom connection with hand-waving, not with argument.
• deals incorrectly with what little of my Wisdom material he addresses.
• has advanced a bizarre interpretation of John 1 without any justification and in ignorance of the use of "Word" concepts in the Jewish world of the NT authors, esp. John.
• pays no attention to Jesus as monogenes theos in John 1:18.
• ignores the connection between John 1:3 and 1QS 11:10-11, and has furthermore provided an interpretation that simply can't be defended in light of the Prologue as a whole.
• essentially avoids the point made respecting John 20:28 altogether.
• ignores the Christological import of all but the last couple verses of the Philippians 2 hymn.
• fails to seriously engage the last few verses of the Philippians 2 hymn.
• has notaddressed Colossians 2:9.
• has not addressed other "Jesus-as-theos" passages in the NT epistles.
• contradicts his own church's teaching on Isaiah 9:6 and advances a position that, except perhaps for two idiosyncratic renderings, lacks support and is difficult to harmonize with the remainder of the verse (e.g., no biblical use of "prince" for the Father).
• has not refuted the attribution of past and/or future eternity to Jesus and the connection that has with divine status.
• ignores the attribution of divine prerogatives to Jesus, esp. in John 5, and the significance of this.
• deals with but a small fraction of the Yahwistic allusions I've set forth.
• ignores my arguments for the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
• misunderstands my refutation of his earlier (?) view of the Holy Spirit, namely as an alternate title for the Father.
• relies virtually exclusively on over-literal interpretations of Revelation to make his case against the unity of the Holy Spirit.
• completely ignores the scholarship cited in my opening statement, to the detriment of his critique.

In short, at this juncture I consider the Trinitarian position to have a very strong advantage over anti-Trinitarianism.

[IncRus]

I’m glad JB acknowledges that in my first rebuttal, I used different approaches in an effort to demonstrate, from Biblical data, propositions inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

What saddens me is JB’s judgment that God’s words are “highly insufficient and unsatisfactory.” What JB fails to realize is, a million angels testifying for the Trinity cannot negate one single word of God.

As apostle Paul aptly wrote: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

If this was how Paul felt about his teachings and was bold enough to say this, how much more would God feel about His words? How much more would Jesus feel about his doctrines?

JB pretends to know what was in God’s mind when he uttered His words in Num. 23:19. Nobody knows what’s in anyone else’s mind unless one talks.

Hence, the speculation that Num. 23:19 “does not deny the possibility of an incarnation that occurred a thousand years after” is absurd. This is like saying that God does not know the future!

Moreover, this speculation also makes God a liar. In the verse itself God says, “hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

Much later, God reiterated the truth that He is not a man when he said, “I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man…” (Hosea 11:9).

And about seven hundred years later, God again spoke to us by His son (Heb. 1:2; John 12:49-50) and said, Jesus is a man (John 8:40) and He, the Father, is the only true God (John 17:3). And God, whom the prophet Isaiah identifies as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 44:8), who also spoke in Num. 23:19, commands people to listen to His son (Matt. 17:5).

These are Biblical proofs - not allusions, nor opinions, nor interpretations, nor speculations - that God, true to His word in Num. 23:19, did not become a man as Trinitarians aver.

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible. And since one leg of the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible, then the Trinity doctrine itself is inconsistent with the Bible.

JB’s contention that John 17:3 does not imply that only the Father is the only true God defies correct understanding of what is actually written.

Jesus said to the Father (John 17:1), “……that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Clearly, without “adding to or subtracting from the word of God,” as God commands (Rev, 22:18-19), only the Father is the only true God.

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit “are” also “this” only true God, as JB asserts, Jesus would have used the word “us” instead of “you.” But Jesus specifically pointed to the Father as the only true God.

Also, JB asserts that Jesus and the Holy Spirit “are” also “this” only true God, without separate deities or being identical in personhood to the Father. I can assure everyone that JB won’t be able to find any Biblical support for this assertion.

JB’s comments on Malachi 2:10 and John 20:17 do not provide support to JB’s position that the Trinity doctrine is consistent with the Bible. Mal. 2:10 proves that the Father alone is the creator of everything, indicating that the so-called three persons of the Trinity are not equal as the Catholic Catechism teaches.

John 20:17 proves that the Father is Jesus’ Father and God. While the word “our” was not used, it is logical to assume that “your God and my God” means “our God.”

Hence, Jesus has a God, thereby precluding the possibility that Jesus is God since God has declared that there is no God beside Him, there is no God like Him and there is no God formed before Him neither will a God be formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8; 45:21; 46:9).

JB refutes my position concerning Matt. 28:18 with the speculation that Jesus was in a “sub-maximal” status as God because of his humility in “accepting, temporarily, the status as a human servant.” Further, JB admits that Jesus is “eternally subordinate (functionally, not ontologically) to the Father. Again, JB fails to show Biblical support for these speculations.

The truth is, God is forever the Almighty (Rev. 1:8; 4:8). Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “almighty” as having absolute power over all.” This means that nobody has power over God because God alone has absolute power over all.

Therefore, God is not subordinate to anyone, whether functionally or ontologically. The fact that Jesus is as JB concedes “functionally” subordinate to the Father, and the Father is the giver of authority is proof that Jesus is not God but man and only the Father is the only true God as the Bible teaches.

JB contends that the fact that Jesus can of himself do nothing does not deny the omnipotence of Jesus because Jesus was acting out in humility the part of a servant and fulfilling, in perfect obedience, his Father’s command. This belief is inconsistent with the Bible.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “omnipotent” as “having virtually unlimited authority or influence.”

Jesus said that he has power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10). Jesus did not say, “the Son has power to forgive sins.” There is no reason for Jesus to say “on earth” if his power to forgive sins is unlimited. Therefore, Jesus’ power to forgive sins is limited to his stay on earth – not now that he is in heaven.

Hence, Jesus who can of himself do nothing and has limited power to forgive sins is not omnipotent, and therefore, not God.

JB presents the argument that the Biblical texts I cited to prove that God is invisible, which Jesus is not, do not infer that God “could not make Himself visible or manifest himself materially.” Of course, this is not what these verses intend to prove.

These verses prove that God is invisible compared to man who is visible. And since Jesus is visible to the naked eye, then Jesus is a man and not God.

These verses also prove that God, despite His power to make Himself visible, did not make Himself visible or be seen by man. If he did, Jesus would not have said, “Not that anyone has seen the Father…” (John 6:46). And apostle Paul would not have said that God is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17) whom no man can see (1 Tim. 6:16).

JB accuses me of ignoring the totality of John 1:18 which according to JB, “reveals that the divine person whom no one sees is the Father, but that the Son, the monogenes theos, has now appeared.”

What is there to ignore?

John 1:18 says “No one has seen God at any time …” Therefore, Jesus is not God because Jesus was seen by men until he was taken up into heaven (Acts 1:11).

John 1:18 says “the only begotten Son, he has declared Him.” And that’s what Jesus did in John 17:3. Jesus declared the invisible and unseen God as the Father.

In 1 John 5:20, apostle John wrote: “And we know that the Son of God (referring to Jesus) has come and has given us an understanding, that we know Him who is true (referring to the Father), and we are in Him who is true (referring to the Father) in His (referring to the Father) Son Jesus Christ. This (referring to the Father) is the true God and eternal life (referring to John 17:3).

The OT Theopanies were material manifestations of God not God Himself. And these manifestations do not make John 1:18, John 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17 and 1 Tim. 6:16 false. Apostle Paul wrote: “Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made” (Rom. 1:20 TEV).

The burning bush was a manifestation of God – not God Himself. The angel who wrestled with Jacob was a material manifestation of God – not God Himself. The angels who went to Sodom and Gomorrah were material manifestations of God – not God Himself.

The expression, “I have come face to face with God” is a figure of speech much like saying, “In my short stay in Iraq, I faced death a thousand times.”

JB sums it all up by saying that I have not defeated Trinitarian doctrine. JB contends that my arguments lack rigorous formulation, neglect to mention crucial premises (such as the presumption of unipersonalism) that are instead swept under the carpet, and do a disservice to a scholarly and informed awareness of the Scriptures.

First off, I don’t know what JB means by “rigorous formulation” and “crucial premises such as the presumption of unipersonalism.” Secondly, JB does not say how my posts are a “disservice to a scholarly and informed awareness of Scriptures.”

Well, I’ll leave that for our readers to decide. To say that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus is not God and thus, proving in the process that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible is like saying that Spiderman is dead. I don’t expect JB or any Trinitarian to believe it.

Just as Spiderman is a pigment of imagination and does not die, so is the Trinity doctrine a pigment of imagination and it too does not die. I leave that too for our readers to decide for themselves. After all, their salvation is also at stake.

JB does not elaborate how referencing Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and other non-canonical literature prove that the verses JB provided in the opening statement clearly identify Jesus as wisdom.

JB’s demands that I provide justification for saying that Heb. 1:3,Matt. 8:20, Matt. 26:64 and Matt. 12:24 do not identify Jesus with wisdom. What is there to justify? The Bible itself provides the justification! These verses simply do not identify Jesus as wisdom. And Luke 11:49 clearly shows wisdom personified that is talking.

Therefore, the assertion that the wisdom referred to in Prov. 9:1-6 is Jesus and lends strong support to the Trinity doctrine is self-serving and does not in any way prove that the Trinity doctrine is not inconsistent with the Bible.

The position I am defending is the proposition that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible. Therefore, in order for John 1:1 to lend Biblical credence to the doctrine that the word that was God was Jesus, the Bible should corroborate it. So far, all JB has done is to cite interpretation or speculation that, of course, is inconsistent with the Bible.

There is nothing in John 1:1 that says the “word” is a “person” nor is there anything in John 1:1 that “implies a continuity of personhood.”

JB uses Rev. 19:13 to support the Trinitarian belief that the word of God in John 1:1 is Jesus. The “word of God” in Rev. 19:13 is a “name” given to Jesus, the man, into whom the “word of God” in John 1:1 became. On the other hand, John 1:1 does not say that “word of God” is a “name” given to the flesh or man into which the “word of God became” (John 1:14). Hence, the allusion of “word of God” in Rev. 19:13 to Jesus in John 1:1 is like alluding apples to oranges.

JB denies that substituting “Jesus” for the word would produce polytheism if “Son of God” is used instead of “Jesus.” Thus, JB continues, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God" seems monotheistic to me: 1:1a announcing past eternity, 1:1b proclaiming the relationship between the Son and the Father, and 1:1c highlighting the deity of the Son.

JB quips, “I see no reason why huios could not function as logos does, save that it served John's purposes better to use logos in light of the background.”

First off, JB’s argument that substituting “Son of God” for “word” would not make John 1:1 polytheistic cannot hold water.

Whether it is Jesus or Son of God who is with God in the beginning, that still counts as two! And if Jesus or the Son of God were God who was with God in the beginning, there is no way to go around the truth that the substitution would make two Gods. And that, definitely, contradicts what is written in Isaiah 43:10, 44:8, 45:21 and 46:9.

Secondly, JB cannot present Biblical proof that John 1:1 is about announcing past eternity, proclaiming the relationship between the Son and the Father and highlighting the deity of Jesus. All JB has done is speculate on what John was thinking when he wrote John 1:1.

Thirdly, JB’s use of huios in place of logos to make John 1:1 fit the doctrine that Jesus is God is outrageous! JB does not have the authority to alter the word of God.

JB questions my reason for asking why the Holy Spirit was not in the beginning with God. Well it is only natural to ask where the Holy Spirit is in the beginning if we were to believe that God is a “triune God” from the beginning. Hence, I’m asking JB where in the Bible does it show that the Holy Spirit was God from the beginning, like how Trinitarians believe Jesus was.

JB asks for proof that John 1:3 means that everything was created “because of” and “for” Jesus.

About seven hundred years before Jesus was born, the prophet Nehemiah wrote that the Lord God, whom the prophet Isaiah identifies as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8) “alone, made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and the things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein….” (Neh. 9:6).

This proves that Jesus did not have anything to do with creation.

It was the literal word God uttered that created light (Gen. 1:3). It was the literal word God uttered that created the firmament (Gen. 1:6). It was the literal word God uttered that created the waters under the heaven (Gen. 1:9). It was the literal word God uttered that created grass, herb, etc. (Gen. 1:11). It was the literal word God uttered that created lights in the firmament (Gen. 1:14). It was the literal word God uttered that created the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (Gen. 1:20). It was the literal word God uttered that created cattle and creeping things (Gen. 1:24). It was the literal word God uttered that created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27).

There is nothing in these verses that indicate or even imply that Jesus was the word that came out of God’s lips when he created all these things.

Therefore, the only logical explanation of John 1:3 is that everything was created “because of” and “for” him as was presented and supported with Biblical quotations in my first rebuttal post.

JB contends that in John 5:21-29, Jesus attributed to himself uniquely divine prerogatives. What JB failed to realize is that Jesus did not attribute these prerogatives to himself.

In John 5:22, Jesus said that the Father committed all judgment to him. And in John 5:27, Jesus said that the Father has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. These verses correspond to what apostle Paul wrote in Acts 17:31.

Again, the giver of authority is greater than the receiver of this authority. This proves that Jesus is not God.

JB asserts that Thomas called Jesus “God” and Jesus accepted the designation by not rebuking Thomas as blasphemer. That’s pure speculation that is not supported by the Bible.

In my first rebuttal post, I said that Thomas’ statement was an expression of belief – not an acknowledgment that Jesus is God. And I also posted that Jesus rebuked Thomas for not believing that he had risen until he put his hand in his side. After Thomas expressed his belief that Jesus had indeed risen, Jesus again rebuked Thomas by saying, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.”

This can be verified by reading through John 20:24-29.

JB contends that I did not present any reason to say that Jesus’ coming down from heaven is figure of speech. What JB failed to comprehend is my argument that if Jesus existed in heaven before the foundation of the world, what was he?

If Jesus literally came down from heaven, what was he before he came down?

Is JB willing to agree that there were two Gods in heaven before the foundation of the world? Is JB wiling to agree that Jesus and the Father are one and the same before the foundation of the world? Is JB willing to agree that Jesus was Michael the archangel before the foundation of the world?

JB contends that Heb. 13:8 attributes both past and future eternity to Jesus. Does JB mean that Jesus is the same eternity yesterday, the same eternity today, and the same eternity forever? What does this mean? Is this really what the Hebrews author meant to say? Can JB provide Biblical support for this? I don’t think so.

The only possible explanation to Heb. 13:8 that is supported by Scriptures is, as I previously posted, Jesus is the same man yesterday, the same man today, and the same man forever.

JB contends that the Trinity states that the Son is intrinsic to the divine identity of YHWH, and so is the same God, not a second God, who is referred to as YHWH in Isaiah 45:18-25. But there is nothing in Isaiah 45:18-25 that gives any impression that the YHWH being referred to alludes to Jesus.

Perhaps JB failed to comprehend my post where I stated that It is not plausible to identify the Lord Jesus with the YHWH of Isaiah 45:18-25 because in these verses, God says there is no God beside Him. The only way this could be plausible is if Jesus and God whom the OT identifies as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8) are one and the same.

Philippians 2:8-11 supports this view because it is clear that God and Jesus are not one and the same. The verse says God exalted Jesus Therefore, Jesus cannot be alluded to the YHWH referred to in Isaiah 45:18-25.

JB challenges me to find a scholarly book that backs my view that the seven spirits of God written in Rev. 1:4; 4:5 and 5:6 are literally seven as the Bible says.

That’s way out of line. The debate is about the Trinity being inconsistent with the Bible – not with scholarly books.

And the Bible bears me out that there are indeed seven spirits of God that are sent into the world. I don’t have to address the apocalyptic nature of Revelations. If JB disagrees with the literal seven spirits of God written in the verses I cited, it is JB’s burden to provide Biblical proof – not scholarly dissertations.

Whether the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father or not, or whether the Holy Spirit is portrayed in personal terms or not, JB has yet to prove that the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God, the so-called third person of the one eternal being, is not inconsistent with the Bible.

Failing to do that, JB’s position that the Trinity doctrine is not inconsistent with the Bible crumbles.

At this point of the debate, I would like to restate my position that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible. JB’s position is the negative view that the Trinity doctrine is not inconsistent with the Bible.

I understand that JB’s position is hard to defend using the Bible alone. Hence, JB relied more on allusions, opinions, interpretations and speculations. Oftentimes, JB would go into the minds of Bible authors and pretend to know what they were thinking when they wrote their books. That’s dangerous because as I have said, no one knows what’s in anyone’s mind until they talk.

The Bible writers have spoken through their writings. We now know what they were thinking by what they have written. There is no need for us to inject what we are thinking into their minds. And everything they wrote is true because they were moved by the Holy Spirit as they spoke (2 Peter 1:21).

All we have to do is compare spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Cor. 2:13).

To this end, I have proven from the Bible – not from any other source, that Jesus is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. And this is not a result of allusions, opinions, interpretations, speculations or scholarly literature as JB does, but from what is written in the Bible itself or by comparing scriptures with scriptures within the parameters set forth in my opening statement.

[JB]

Introduction

This again will, understandable, be a quite brief post, as IncRus' third round entry is brief, corresponding to the brevity of my second and of his first. It fascinates me how different IncRus has been in this debate, at least since the opening statement. He's refrained from capitalizing entire words; he's been non-repetitive; and he's been comparatively cogent. It's nearly as though he's another person entirely now!

On IncRus' Opening Statement

I pointed out that IncRus' opening statement lacked arguments for his position. He said:

My opening statement, as I understand what an opening statement is, outlined how I intend to prove that the Trinity doctrine as taught in the Catholic Catechism is inconsistent with the Bible. At that point in the debate, I did not see any reason to present any argument in support of the affirmative position because I was certain that this will come out as the debate progresses.

However, the debate proposition is "the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible"; surely this is something in need of argument! Yet in his first post, IncRus offered nothing of the sort, intending to reserve them for later.

IncRus and the Catechism

IncRus writes:

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Catechism” as a “summary of religious doctrine often in the form of questions and answers.” The Catholic Catechism I stumbled upon is a set of questions and answers concerning the Catholic beliefs specifically the Third Chapter on Unity and the Trinity of God.

I don’t see any difference between JB’s A.1-5 and the Trinity presented in the Catechism except where the Catechism define “distinct” a “separate” and states that in “no way is one person greater or inferior to the other.”

The following is an excerpt of the Catechism from which my opening statement on the Trinity came from:

Q. 185. When are two persons said to be equal?
A. Two persons are said to be equal when one is in no way greater than
or inferior to the other.

Q. 186. {23} How many persons are there in God?
A. In God there are three Divine persons, really distinct, and equal in
all things--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Q. 187. What do "divine" and "distinct" mean?
A. "Divine" means pertaining to God, and "distinct" means separate; that
is, not confounded or mixed with any other thing.

I should point out several things. First, it turns out that IncRus has been using the Baltimore Catechism, not the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is worthy of note, as he previously neglected to make any mention of this, giving the impression that he had been relying on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Second, it is not the formulation found in the Baltimore Catechism that matters here, but the formulation presented, for purposes of this debate, in (A.1-5). I do not always use terminology in the same manner as the author(s) of the Baltimore Catechism, and so for the sake of uniformity and coherent discussion, it would be wisest for IncRus to place less emphasis on the formulation presented in that particular document and instead focus on the formulation as set forth in my opening statement.

IncRus on His Round 2 Entry

IncRus writes:

Hence, in my first rebuttal, you will note that I refuted with scripture every allusion, opinion or interpretation in support of the doctrine that Jesus is God presented in JB’s opening statement.

This is, as can be seen, false.

1. IncRus did not address "every" point I mentioned, even if one counts "Nuh-uh!" as addressing my arguments. If one excludes that, I dare say he interacted with perhaps slightly above half.
2. On many occasions, IncRus' only response was to assert baldly, without supporting argumentation, that the verses I quoted did not establish my point, though frequently IncRus does not seem to have grasped my argument.
3. What IncRus did address, he did so largely insufficiently. (Such is to be expected, given the inferior evidential grounds on which he stands.)
4. IncRus failed to refute: (i) the Wisdom line of argument; (ii) the theos line of argument, (iii) the divine prerogative line of argument, or (iv) the Yahwistic allusion line of argument.

In light of this, it boggles the mind to read IncRus' remark about "refut[ing] with Scripture every allusion, opinion or interpretation in support of the doctrine that Jesus is God presented in [my] opening statement".

Mystery of the Trinity

IncRus writes:

Whether humans can or cannot fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity is not the topic of this debate. The debate centers on whether the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible or not. The fact that the Trinity is a mystery, is proof that the Trinity doctrine is indeed inconsistent with the Bible.

I contend that it is somewhat germane, as the only argument IncRus could set forth for your assertion "x is a mystery -> x is inconsistent with the Bible" (where x = Trinity) is alleged incomprehensibility. I wish to set forth a challenge for IncRus to elaborate on his anti-Trinitarian argument from mystery.

IncRus' Methodology Revisited

IncRus writes:

JB challenged the guidelines I set for this debate to arrive at the truth without giving any reason. Why?

Every debate has parameters. In the United States, the federal constitution takes precedence over state constitutions. It’s the same with the word of God. For the word of God to be rightly divided, it has to follow some kind of order.

The analogy is a poor one. The issue is one of truth, not legislation, and the proposition is whether the doctrine is consistent with Scripture. That means that IncRus cannot privilege one small set of verses (which he has himself misinterpreted and compounded with poor philosophy and logic) and use this as an impenetrable shield against the wide range of arguments offered by the other side using proper interpretation of other verses.

What IncRus really wants to do here is to stack the deck so that he doesn't have to seriously address passages that demonstrate the deity of Christ, because he knows that, given the situation of Jesus' ministry, and the comparative frequency of distinct statements by Jesus in the Scriptures in comparison to the magnitude of the overall corpus, such passages are largely found in the rest of the Scriptures (though this is not to say that the Gospels do not support the deity of Christ; I showed how they support an overall theme of Wisdom Christology).

IncRus' ploy will not pass muster. I gave reasons, and I continue to give reasons. If he believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, then he must accept that John 8:40 is not somehow more inherently authoritative than, say, Philippians 2. If he denies the inspiration of the Scriptures, then it must be asked whether he believes that the deity of Christ is genuinely taught elsewhere in the Bible. If not, then his guidelines are equally silly, for he should be able to win the debate while dealing with the Scriptures in an even and balanced manner. If, on the other hand, he sees the deity of Christ creeping up elsewhere, then he surely picked a poor battle cry to bandy about: "Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible!"

Conclusion

As of the conclusion of the third round, I see no reason to give much any credence to the anti-Trinitarian position. The Scriptures attest to the deity of Jesus Christ, both fully man and fully God, as articulated in the pious expressions of true doctrine in the early church. The Scriptures are ultimately best understood, if taken to be reflecting the true nature of God, as announcing a view very amenable to orthodox Trinitarianism.

[IncRus]

In accordance with the agreed upon format of this debate, this is my concluding statement on the affirmative side of the proposition that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible.

As such, I won’t be able to further refute in this thread, what JB will post in response to this. Hence, I leave it to our readers to judge for themselves what is Biblical and what is not.

It is worth bearing in mind that only the truth sanctifies and the truth is the word of God – not anyone else’s word. In his prayer to the Father, Jesus said, “Sanctify them by your truth, your word is truth” (John 17:17).

The word of God was put into writing by holy men of God, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), and compiled in what professing Christians call the Bible - not some scholarly literatures, commentaries, opinions, interpretations, or speculations.

Since these holy men of God who put God’s words into writing were moved by the Holy Spirit as they spoke and wrote, and everything God said is true, there is not one verse that contradicts another unless God meant it to be contradicted.

Naturally, it is God Himself who tells us through His word whether the contradictions come from Him or not.

As everyone knows, the word of God was written by these holy men of God in their own language. Thus, for the word of God to be understood by all people, these original writings had to be translated into languages that people of different ethnic origins could read and understand.

And this is where the trouble began. Just like anything else that is touched by human hands, the word of God was corrupted in an attempt to make it fit man-made doctrines like the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. Hence, it is not surprising to find verses concerning these matters that appear to contradict other verses.

However, God is not Almighty and omniscient for nothing. He did not allow all His words to be corrupted and His people to be left in the dark. By comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13), men of God are able to discern what is true and what is false and come to the accurate knowledge of what God means to say and wills to be done.

Jesus said that his doctrine is not his but His who sent him (John 7:16). Further, Jesus said, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak” (John 12:44, 49-50).

“All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and the one to whom the son wills to reveal him” (Luke 10:22).

And this truth is attested to by the Hebrews author who wrote: “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His son…” (Heb. 1:1-2).

There is, therefore, no justification whatsoever for believing that the apostles or the so-called “early church fathers“ are as authoritative as Jesus concerning himself (John 8:40), the only true God (John 17:3), and the mission for which God sent him – that of saving people from their sins (Matt. 1:21; John 3:16-18, 36).

My purpose in accepting JB’s challenge is not to win this debate by any means but to help people come to the knowledge of the truth that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible.

Hopefully, the parameters I set forth in my opening statement which I restate below, will guide people in “rightly dividing the word of truth that they may present themselves approved of God, workers who do not need to be ashamed” (2 Tim. 2:15).

1. The Bible is divided into two dispensations of time: the time past
where God spoke to our fathers by the prophets (Heb. 1:1); and
these last days where God spoke to us by His son (Heb. 1:2);

2. Christ is the head of the church, his body (Col. 1:18) and the
church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24). The apostles and the first
century Christians are the “body of Christ and members
individually” (1 Cor. 12:27; Rom. 4:5). As such, the apostles are
subject to Christ;

3. Everything that Jesus said is a command from God, what to say
and what to speak (John 12:49-50);

4. God commands that we listen to Jesus (Matt. 17:5); and

5. Jesus is our savior whose doctrine we must believe and abide in
to have God and eternal life (John 3:16-18,36; 1 John 2:9).

With these parameters in mind, no allusion, opinion, interpretation nor speculation can draw anyone away from the following truths:

1. There is only one God. No one else is called God but the Father.

The Bible teaches that when God spoke to our fathers in time past, He told them that there is no God beside Him, there is none like Him, there is none before Him and none after Him (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8; 45:21-22; 46:9).

God told our fathers that the Lord who is their God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10).

Jesus taught his disciples that they have only one Father, He who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9). Jesus declared that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and apostle Paul testified that there is only one God, the Father (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6).

Therefore, what is consistent with the Bible is the doctrine that there is only one God and that only one God is in the person of the Father alone.

On the other hand, JB declares, (A.1): There is one and only one Being in possession of the unique divine nature (i.e., "there is one God")(A.2): The Father is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "the Father is God")(A.3): The Son is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "Jesus is God")(A.4): The Holy Spirit is a person in possession of the divine nature (i.e., "the Holy Spirit is God") (A.5): The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

Clearly, what JB declares is inconsistent with what God declared to our fathers in times past by the prophets and declared to us in these last days by His son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Not only that, JB’s portrayal of God makes it appear that the “one God” has “unique” divine nature who, like a shell, encompasses three distinct persons who are “in possession of “common” divine nature (not unique as the one God) and are separately called God. Who this “one God” with “unique” divine nature is, JB does not identify.

2. No one is equal to God, the Father.

The Bible teaches that God told our fathers by the prophet Isaiah, “there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9). That means that no one is equal to the only one God. And that only one God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8).

Jesus said, “the Father is greater than all…” (John 10:29) and more specifically, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Apostle Paul says, “…one God, the Father who is above all…” (Eph. 4:6).

JB asserts that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal in one way or another. But the fact that the Father is greater than all proves that the three persons of the Trinity are not equal Gods in much the same manner that three dogs may be equal in nature or breed, but that does not make them all alpha dogs.

Thus, the doctrine that the so-called three persons of the Trinity are equal in any way is inconsistent with the Bible.

3. The Father alone is the creator of all things.

The Bible teaches that the only one God is the Father who “created everything” (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10) and “alone made the heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein…” (Neh. 9:6; Isaiah 37:16).

Jesus affirmed this when he said, “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth…” (Matt. 11:25). Apostle Paul also testified that God, the Father is the creator of all things (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV).

JB asserts that Jesus was the God who created everything because of what John wrote in John 1:3 and what Paul wrote in Col. 1:16. John 1:3 reads, “All things were made ‘through’ him, and without him nothing was made that was made.” And Col. 1:16 reads, “For ‘by’ him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth…”

These verses, taken by themselves, would convince anyone that Jesus is indeed God, However, questions arise when we compare them with the aforementioned verses in the Old Testament. Did God command John and Paul to contradict what the prophets wrote? Of course, not! The Bible teaches that God has spoken to us in these last days by His Son.

In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul wrote that God, the Father is the creator of all things. Yet in Col. 1:16, Paul wrote that God created all things “by” Jesus. Did Paul contradict himself? Of course, not! Paul is a holy man of God who was moved by the Holy Spirit as he spoke (2 Peter 1:21). It is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit would move Paul to contradict himself!

Therefore, JB’s assertion that Jesus was God who created everything is inconsistent with what is written in the Bible. There has to be another explanation for John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, and there is! “Through” or “by” could also be interpreted as “because of” like saying “lost through or by default.” Everything was created “because of” and “for” Jesus.

4. God does not recognize another God. Jesus does.

In Isaiah 45:22, God says, “I am God and there is none else.”

Jesus recognized the Father as his God (John 20:17).

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible, thereby making the Trinity doctrine equally inconsistent with the Bible.

5. God has no beginning. Jesus came from God.

God said, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10).

Jesus said he “came from God” (John 8:42).

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible, thereby making the Trinity doctrine equally inconsistent with the Bible.

6. God is omnipotent. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not!

God has unlimited authority over Jesus and the Holy Spirit. God sent Jesus into the world (John 3:17). God has seven spirits that are sent into all the world (Rev. 5:6). The Son himself will be subject to God (1 Cor. 15:28).

There is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus or the Holy Spirit had authority over the Father.

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “one and the same God” is inconsistent with the Bible, thereby making the Trinity doctrine equally inconsistent with the Bible.

7. God is Spirit. Jesus is flesh and bones.

Jesus said that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and therefore has no flesh and bones as he has (Luke 24:39). Hence, God is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17) whom no man can see (1 Tim. 6:16). Jesus is visible (Matt. 24:30; Acts 1:11).

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible, thereby making the Trinity doctrine equally inconsistent with the Bible.

8. There is only one mediator between the one God and man.

Apostle Paul wrote that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).

Paul was not aware that Jesus is God. Hence, Paul preached that Jesus is a man who is the one mediator between the one God and man.

Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus is God is inconsistent with the Bible, thereby making the Trinity doctrine equally inconsistent with the Bible.

9. Nobody beats Jesus!

JB asserts that there are numerous verses that seemingly or explicitly say that Jesus is God. I used to believe that too, until I realized that Jesus is my savior and my eyes were opened to the truth that abiding in his doctrine (2 John 9) and obeying his gospel (2 Thes. 1:8-9) is the only way to attain God’s gift of eternal life (John 3:16).

God spoke to us in these last days by His son, Christ Jesus (Heb. 1:2). Therefore, God commands people to listen to His beloved son (Matt. 17:5).

“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him” (John 3:36).

The Trinity doctrine is based solely on allusions, opinions, misinterpretations, speculations and mistranslations that are contrary to the explicit declaration of Jesus that he is a man (John 8:40) and the Father is the only true God (John 17:3).

Jesus said to the Father, “And eternal life means knowing you, the only true God, and knowing Jesus Christ whom you sent” (John 17:3 TEV).

Jesus did not say, “And eternal life means knowing you, me and the Holy Spirit, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

I therefore stand by my affirmative position that the Trinity doctrine is inconsistent with the Bible.

[JB]

The final round of my debate with 'IncRus' is finally here, so allow me to summarize what I've said:

• The doctrine of the Trinity is logically coherent.
• The doctrine of the Trinity allows for Jesus to be fully God and fully man.
• The doctrine of the Trinity accords with biblical data:
  
• The doctrine of the Trinity is largely explicable in light of first-century Jewish thought about how God interacts with the world.
• Jesus is commonly portrayed as within the categories of Wisdom and Word.
• Jesus is occasionally given the title "theos".
• Jesus is said to have divine prerogatives and attributes.
• Jesus is often included in the identity of YHWH, via Yahwistic allusion and other methods.
• The personhood of the Holy Spirit is at least implied by biblical data, and his deity is clear.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

Debate over. Thread closed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.