Gym Debate: The Bible teaches the Trinity (Phoenix v. spitndirt)

[Rayado]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

The Bible teaches the Trinity.

LilPhoenixofTerror will be defending the affirmative and spitndirt will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Phoenix makes his first post. The debate will last 4 rounds.

This debate is taking place here, (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=99470) and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate.

[Littlejoe9763]

Very interesting OP by phoenix! I for one will be watching this one closely!

:popcorn:

[Sparko]

should be interesting.

[BronzeArcher]

I'm subscribing to the thread so I can show people that non-Trinitarians can footnote just as good as the next. I pretty curious to see how spitndirt responds (hopefully not with more footnotes).

[Littlejoe9763]

I'm subscribing to the thread so I can show people that non-Trinitarians can footnote just as good as the next. I pretty curious to see how spitndirt responds (hopefully not with more footnotes).


:huh: care to elaborate?

[BronzeArcher]

Only suggestively. If you know what exegesis is, you'll see that he isn't doing any. There is nothing about original language. There is nothing about contextualization or even literary context.

[Littlejoe9763]

Only suggestively. If you know what exegesis is, you'll see that he isn't doing any. There is nothing about original language. There is nothing about contextualization or even literary context.

Hi BronzeArcher,

I do know what exegesis, what I don't know is who the "he" is that you are refering to here? Could you be more specific? Why would it be necessary to include original language IYO? What do you mean exactly by "footnote"?

Thanks,

LJ

[spitndirt]

Spit's point by point response to PF's round 2 rebuttal - PART 2

Nonsense syllogism #3. Let's look at it and remember our rules. A premise must be false, it must be misunderstood, or there must be a fallacy. However, I ask everyone to return to my OS and read this statement I made that SND should have kept in mind.

I suppose if PF were the supreme rule maker on the way to revelation he could effectually assert whatever he wished. What say he call down a little fire from heaven to confirm his authority. Again, do not let a trinitarian hem you in to his own rules. This is a trap that he sets. One that he truly is caught in himself.

I am not alone in this. In the work edited by Beckwith, Craig, and Moreland called "To Everyone An Answer," Abdul Saleeb in the chapter on Islam says this on page 365. (Please note this is an ex-Muslim speaking and Muslims are hardly friendly to Trinitarianism or even the idea of God having a "Son.)

Well, as they say....misery loves company. The composite is in fact found only to be in Jesus in the fullness of time. Of whom is Isaiah speaking when he says '...to us a child is born...a Son is given.... And He shall be called wonderful counselor...mighty God...everlasting Father...prince of peace...' Is. 9:6 .

He '...shall be called...' these things because He is the full and final composite - the fruition of the work our God began in the beginning. Reality converges in the man Jesus and is brought to bear on humanity in the fullness of time. When the trinitarian thrusts this real-time convergence back into eternity past (where not even he can see) he turns things exactly backwards. But the fact remains, there IS NO OTHER JESUS other than the one that has been ‘born (begotten)’ to us - and the same has been ‘given’ to us. This is the one true Jesus and there is no other.

And again, SND has a sloppy understanding of the Trinity. He is equivocating on the word God and taking it to mean something that we do not mean. The syllogism is invalid then in that he is not using the terms as Trinitarians use them meaning he has simply made a straw man.

Apparently my opponent makes another god out of his system of logic. But he still fails to understand that I am merely poking fun at this system. Illustrating absurdity with absurdity, so to speak. There is absolutely no difference between his sillygisms and mine. Accept for the one where I presented 'God / man'. ‘God / man’ is a 'two become one'. This is why sillygisms do not work. A 'two become one' comes with an added dimension that cannot be accurately captured within such a limited system of logic.

Yes. The word uses days because this is a figure of speech. It is a way of saying that Jesus will have the same nature for all time. SND would be the type to hear that it's raining cats and dogs and go outside hoping to catch a poodle and a Himalayan.

O....that's convenient. And ONLY Trinitarians are the authorities on what is literal and what is figurative. Note here my opponent's condescension (as opposed to my harmless jesting). Truly....I prefer Terriers. I would grab one of these for sure. The cats would only present an opportunity for a good round of target practice.

Also, if Jesus is not God in nature, why would Jesus do that which God is predisposed to do? There is no consistency here. SND says he stops where the Word stops. The problem is, he never even gets to where the Word is. He denies the first thing the Bible says about the Word.

God is disposed.....never predisposed. The man Jesus was predisposed. Perhaps my opponent would see consistency here if he could rightly interpret my speech.

But that was the claim. What did the high priest ask Jesus? He asked him if he was the son of the blessed one. Jesus said that he was and the high priest tore his clothes and said "blasphemy." The term on the lips of Jesus meant that he was the one who possessed the nature of God. This kind of understanding of "Son of" is shown throughout the NT such as in the Sons of Thunder and the name Barnabas. Now many times, it does refer to simply descendants, so the context is the clue.

There you have it.....Jesus was the Son. The high priest did not ask Jesus if He was the 'the blessed one' - but the Son of Him who is ‘the blessed one’ . Why? Because neither Jesus nor the high priest thought in such terms. Why? Because they at least had good sense.

Note here that my opponent is equating '...possessing the nature...' with '...the nature...'. The nature is true God (the Father) Himself. The very God who dwelt in the Son bodily via His expressed Word.

Why in the name of Jesus? Because Jesus was the one that they had denied and they needed to learn to submit to him as Lord.

No....they were denying the Father. The very One Jesus was sent to make known. By denying the Son they were denying the Father....the very One to whom they had never really submitted. And that was the point. They thought they were in submission but they were not......kinda like the trinitarian.

No man beyond what is written? To be sure, I did a Google search of the term and could not find it anywhere. It would help SND if he actually used terms that were understandable. Notice also I say only true God exists in eternity past. He exists in eternity past as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Notice also that SND does not explain why it is in the NAME (singular) instead of the NAMES. (plural)

I would invite my opponent to considered 1Cor. 4:6 ? I guess we can now safely assume that Mr. Google cannot be trusted to impart wisdom or the knowledge of the scriptures.

It is obvious that true God existed in eternity past. The question I am presenting is....why add to the scriptures by making a case for what true God consisted of there. The scriptures certainly do not contain the latter half of PF's assertion. So why does He add to the scriptures?

I believe it is undeniably, but how do I go past this? It's simple. I say it isn't true. The Trinity is the only doctrine that makes sense of Scripture and my opponent's lack of argumentation on this point is quite telling. I have not seen a single point refuted. I have not seen a single point made that made me pause. Instead, I have seen a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, lack of real exegesis of the text, and false syllogisms.

But sir.....the gift of the Holy Spirit is the prescribed way to be led into all truth and righteousness. Why are you continuing to look to a doctrine of your own creation....a mere work of human hands? If what you are asserting is so darn essential then it would be among the clearest truths ever to have graced the pages of scripture.....and we all alike would readily understand it by the Spirit of God within us. The Spirit by which we do recognize the very voice of our Lord! And guess what.....the trinitarian voice is by no means His voice. Though my opponent does not hear my Lord, I do....which is why I am forever inclined to flee from what he is asserting.

Note my opponents unsound way of speaking. He says in essence '...yes, it's undeniable...' and then adds '...but I deny that the undeniable is true anyway...' - as if to say '...I don't give a hoot what is or is not found written it the scriptures. I will believe what I will believe regardless...'. And by essentially saying this he is essentially saying to the rest of us '...and I will judge all men who exist in every corner of God's creation by what I have decided is true....cuz I am the truth and there is no other...'.

I mean, come on folks. Pf is demanding only that we believe as he believes when it comes right down to it. Ever notice how trinitarians tend to brush real sin under a rug of false grace and yet rail against all of creation when their triune brainchild is called into question? Hmmmm....ever wonder why this is?

Because a doctrine is not an action, we are not commanded to do a doctrine. However, SND says he claims that Jesus is Lord. What does he mean though?

PRECISELY!!! Because one cannot do a doctrine it will never be counted among those things that men are to be judged by. We will all be judged according to our 'deeds' - inasmuch as they are in line with the commands of our God. Those very commands Jesus has passed on to us. Now that my opponent has apparently had an epiphany I wonder if he will be retracting his assertion that assenting to his deduction is essential for salvation? No....he will continue to mandate it anyway - for poops and grins I suppose. That's what he does.

Let's look at the book of Jude to see an example.

Verse 4-Jesus is our ONLY sovereign and Lord.

5-The Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Now, if one goes through the text, they will see Jude referring to Jesus as Lord consistently. Who was it that the Jews would say brought the people out of Egypt and destroyed the unbelievers? Would it not be God?

Yep….

SND may say Jesus is Lord, but he is equivocating. Let's use another passage.

Romans 10:9-If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Where in this passage is SND commanded to believe that God is three distinct persons existing in eternity past? I have throughout this debate confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord....and because I have believed this in my heart I obey Him and not trinitarians.

Romans 10:13-For "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

Did that.....without a book in my hand or a trinitarian present. And guess what…..He answered me apart from these as well. So if my Lord has received me to Himself apart from these they are not essential to my faith. Now, the book is profitable to be sure, but is not an absolute necessity (what book did Abraham have?). The Trinitarian, however, I can do without. What continues to remain essential is my Lord continuing to answer me when I call.

Romans 10:13 is a quote from Joel 2:32. Who is Lord in that passage? YHWH. You must call Jesus YHWH.

Wrong. Jesus is the 'only begotten of the father'. He was 'begat' in the fullness of time via Mary's human ovum + the Word of God. This is the one and only begotten Son of the Father - the one 'born' to us and also 'given' to us. The 'one' PF is referring to contains the prefigurement of Jesus - or, Son of Dawn....who was not Jesus Himself. Jesus was a man and there was no 'man' included in OT YHWH's composition - comprehended, yes - but not included. Ever wonder why we now call the Son 'Jesus'.....and we now call true God 'our Father'.

Briefly (or not)....Satan overcame the initial prefigurement who was Son of Dawn - the 'son without flesh'. This in turn caused the fall of the first 'son with flesh' -Adam, the one made and not begotten.....the pattern for the one to come. Jesus, the only begotten of the Father, is He who was found in the very form of sinful flesh (man); the one who has come in the fullness of time to destroy the works of the devil. This only stands to reason since through the disobedience of 'a man' - Adam#1 - sin came into the world and it is though the obedience 'a man' - Adam#2 - that the world MUST be reconciled. You see, men and not prefigurements are the objects of God's observation and work. From the fall forward the prefigurement has been corrupt; from the very day iniquity was found in the prefigurement, Ez. 28:14,15 . God could not reconcile the world through this prefigurement....and this was never the plan to begin with. If God had planned to reconcile the world through a prefigurement 'a man' would never have been sent. As it is the man, and not the prefigurement, was predestined to become 'the Savior' of the world. But how was this accomplished? You see, Jesus - the one who was ALWAYS destined to come - is comprehended in the prefigurement as it appeared 'prior' to the fall. He is still comprehended from there, but along with another who became ‘not of God’ (Satan) . Jesus, the man, became the fruition of God's work in and through, and according to, the prefigurement. Once the work was accomplished the prefigurement was no longer needed. This is why the darkness fades while the light shines ever brighter. Darkness appeared only to be swallowed up by light. Mortality appeared only to be swallowed up by immortality. Sin and death appeared only to be swallowed up by righteousness and life.

Parallel. In the realm of mediation the prefigurement of the Son became satan.....in the world, which is the object of mediation, the Son prefigured and sent became sin. But neither satan nor sin could overcome the Light or the Life but were instead swallowed up by them. Why? Because true God IS God and there is no other. So the 'sent one’ and the corrupt prefigurement are not one and the same son. The former became corrupt and was destined to destruction....the latter took to Himself this corruption and became the destroyer of it.

Parallel: The rudimentary elements of creation (Gen. 1:2) appeared prior to the Word......Adam, the rudimentary pattern, appeared prior to the Word made flesh - Jesus. This is what I meant when I said '...the elements must appear first as a place to receive God's Word...'. In like manner, Adam must appear first - and also Eve - as a race of men to receive their King.

This King is Jesus, whom God has made king over all the earth. And this Jesus is 'the only begotten One' of true God. The God and Father of our Lord and King - even the man Jesus whom God Himself has made Lord and King over all men. Jesus - the very one who did appear in the fullness of time. Who are you O man to place this Jesus elsewhere?

God is complete? Then who is he loving? How was this answered. SND says God was not "doing nothing" in eternity past. It would be nice if he said what he was doing. I say God was in an eternal relationship of love within himself in the Trinity. Can SND say that? Nope.

Again, behold my opponents needy and dependant god. And why doesn't He take a stab at discerning what God may or may not have been doing in eternity past? O wait....he already has. God...I mean 'they'...were eternally stuck in a love triangle that apparently wasn't satisfying enough. They had to go and create us mortals so that more could join in the fun. Ever wonder why homosexuals are drawn to the Catholic priesthood....the very priesthood that gave us the doctrine of the trinity??? I'll leave that as a rhetorical.......



Actually, on my TWeb, when a word is not spelled properly, it is underlined in red. It's a simple way to check.

Also, I would say that if my opponent admits he made a mistake in citing Scripture in a serious debate, it makes me wonder why I should trust his exegesis. Why should I think he's reading the Scriptures as he writes?

Translation: '...O look! There's a gnat in my SND souffle. WAITER!!! Take this back please...and bring me a camel - lightly broasted and carved into three co-equal portions...'. Hehehe......

I hope I see something substantial next time.

Hmmmm....I wonder if my opponent would confess it if he did?

Peace, peace, peace.....it's been fun, fun, fun.

Spitndirt, you can't participate in the commentary thread of a debate you are participating in until it is over and you especially can't use it to post rebuttals to your opponent's posts in the actual debate and thirdly you can't post back to back posts to get over the 24K limit.