Refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity: - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

Debate Information

I have made a formal argument inspired by a refutation online:

John 17 1-3, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Argument #1

  1. The Father is the only True God

  2. Jesus is the not the Father

  3. Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Cor 8:4, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

1 Cor 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

Argument #2

  1. There is no God except one.

  2. This one God is the Father

  3. Jesus is not the Father

  4. Therefore Jesus is not God


Extra Note: In the same verse, 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,”.

From this, we can form the following conclusions: There is a clear distinction between the Father who is the only one God (1 Cor 8:4, 8:6) and Jesus Christ who even mentions the Father as the only true God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malachi 2:10, “Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?”


Premise #3 (taking into account #1 and #2)

  1. From Arguments #1 and #2 we can formulate the following: There is no God except the Father, for he is the only true God. 

  2. The Father who is the true one God is one meaning He has no persons.

  3. The one God, the Father is the only one that created us.

Explanation of #3: Christians believe that the Father creates through the Son which would refute the concept of one God creating mankind. But as this verse states, only one God created us, which is the Father. If the Son played a role in the creation, then Prophet Malachi who is the one narrating this verse would not have failed to mention this, as it is truly significant.


You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

Thank you c:

 





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -  
    I have made a formal argument inspired by a refutation online:

    John 17 1-3, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    Argument #1

    1. The Father is the only True God

    2. Jesus is the not the Father

    3. Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1 Cor 8:4, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

    1 Cor 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

    Argument #2

    1. There is no God except one.

    2. This one God is the Father

    3. Jesus is not the Father

    4. Therefore Jesus is not God


    Extra Note: In the same verse, 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,”.

    From this, we can form the following conclusions: There is a clear distinction between the Father who is the only one God (1 Cor 8:4, 8:6) and Jesus Christ who even mentions the Father as the only true God.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Malachi 2:10, “Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?”


    Premise #3 (taking into account #1 and #2)

    1. From Arguments #1 and #2 we can formulate the following: There is no God except the Father, for he is the only true God. 

    2. The Father who is the true one God is one meaning He has no persons.

    3. The one God, the Father is the only one that created us.

    Explanation of #3: Christians believe that the Father creates through the Son which would refute the concept of one God creating mankind. But as this verse states, only one God created us, which is the Father. If the Son played a role in the creation, then Prophet Malachi who is the one narrating this verse would not have failed to mention this, as it is truly significant.


    You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

    Thank you c:


    I decided to post this, in order to make it easier for those to refute my points.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 807 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    You are free to reply and refute my arguments but do so in a respectful manner please.

    This is a public, online, open forum and to dictate to others how to reply is nothing less than arrogance and self-centered ignorance The addition of the word "please" does not mitigate the situation one iota.

    The same applies to the subject; to stand up and declare that the one God that you happen to believe in is the one and only out of some 10,000 is totally ridiculous to say the least.

    Is that disrespectful enough to you?

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 108 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    Regarding John 17:1-3

    >>>1) The Father is the only True God

    >>>2) Jesus is the not the Father

    >>>3) Therefore, Jesus is not the True God.

    To conclude the preceding solely based on a few verses is to deny the entirety of Scripture on the subject. Simply, is not wise to draw conclusions based on a few verses read out of context. Especially when earlier in the same book we read, the Word was with God and the Word was God and became flesh to dwell among us. It would be more apt to draw the following conclusion:

    1) The Word is with God (separate person)
    2) The Word is God (One God in unity)
    3) Jesus is God, since He is the Word that became flesh

    To suggest that Jesus is distinguishing Himself from the only true God would be an erroneous conclusion. Instead the contrast is between the true God and the false gods of the heathens.

    Just as 1 Cor. 8:6 does not exclude the Father from being Lord.

    yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

    The verse tells us of the unity of the one God, the Father and the Lord, unified as God, yet distinct as persons, both equal in creating and sustaining all things.

     “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one(echad). (Deu. 6:4) Echad means one in unity, If on the other hand the word yachid(one) was used, it would mean one in singularity. The unity of persons in the Godhead is made manifest by the declaration that God is love. Love requires relationship, a singular yachid "God" would have no one to express love with and therefore could not know love, unless other entities were created to share  this relationship with, this however would be more that just God being love. Since God is love, God himself out of necessity must consist of a plurality of persons who are separate and distinct, yet one, as in Gen. 2:24,  "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one (echad) flesh", separate persons, yet one in unity. 

    This is also why when Scripture speaks of God it uses the word Elohim(plural) not Eloah(singular), or when is says 'Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (Gen 1:26). 

    As for Malachi 2:10, this is simply a generalization regarding God as creator. 

    Except as creator and preserver of all, God is not revealed as Father in the O.T. Jesus though is prophesied of as 'the everlasting Father' or 'Father of the everlasting age.' Isa. 9:6, and rightly so since we know that “through Jesus and the Father are all things and through whom we exist", a position shared in unity with the father as one God, re: 1 Cor. 8:6.

    KhasimAmedu
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -   edited May 5
    To suggest that Jesus is distinguishing Himself from the only true God would be an erroneous conclusion. Instead the contrast is between the true God and the false gods of the heathens.

    The context of the verse is indeed quite clear, and it is subject to many interpretations, but doesn't necessarily refute the notion that Jesus calls the Father the only true God. Why didn't Jesus mention himself as the true God as well? He does mention himself right after as "Jesus Christ, the one whom you have sent." but yet fails to mention himself as the true God. In fact, I believe Jesus affirming himself as a prophet and makes a clear distinction between the Father who is the only true God and Jesus Christ who was sent to profess the kingdom of God. Where is a mention of the "false god of the heathens", as I have found none in John 16 or the whole of John 17.

    1) The Word is with God (separate person)
    2) The Word is God (One God in unity)
    3) Jesus is God, since He is the Word that became flesh

    So God was with God? Or rather the Word is the same as the Father in substance but different in hypostasis.
    Then let me ask, how is the substance of the hypostasis or persons of the Trinity the same when each substance has a different cause? The cause of the Son or the Logos was the Father yet the Father has no cause in His substance. The cause of the substance of the Holy Spirit was indeed the Father, yet the Father has no cause in His substance. This implies a differentiation among the substances of the Trinity and thus a crisis among the doctrine.

    How can the persons be differentiated but the substance cannot. The substance is the hypostasis and the hypostasis is the substance, but despite being the same they are different. This is a logical contradiction.

    Just as 1 Cor. 8:6 does not exclude the Father from being Lord.

    It seems that you did not consider 1 Cor. 8:4, for this verse excludes Jesus as God. The reason I mentioned this verse is because it is vital towards Argument #2. The verse states, "There is no God but one." This suggests that indeed there is only one God, and sets up the argument from there. Meaning that once this one God is mentioned, there cannot be a God other than him. The question then arises, who is this one God? 1 Cor. 8:6, "yet for us there is but one God, the Father,". This one God has been singled out as the only God (1 Cor. 8:4) and now the only one God is the Father. 

    This is also why when Scripture speaks of God it uses the word Elohim(plural) not Eloah(singular), or when is says 'Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' (Gen 1:26). 

    The Qur'an does this as well and uses the plural pronoun  "we" when it speaks of God. But does this imply a Trinity? Absolutely not.
    The pronoun "We" is used referred to a royal subject and used to display respect and glorification. Kings and queens when announcing a decree or announcement normally say, "We have decided" or We have chosen". and so on. 

    An example is, "When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we
    ." And indeed God is royalty.

    As for Malachi 2:10, this is simply a generalization regarding God as creator. 

    I would disagree, there is a clear connection in Malachi 2:10 between, the Father (Do we not all have one Father?) and the Creator who is one (Did not one God create us), If the Father creates through the Son, then the Prophet Malachi surely would not have failed to mention this. I understand this may seem like a generalization but if this was truly a generalization he wouldn't have mentioned the Father. He simply could have said, "One God created us" and that would be in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe he was being very explicit, and the only reason this is viewed as a generalization is because it is not exactly in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. 

    @Neopesdom















  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -  
    I was just asking to be respectful. No arrogance intended. @Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 807 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    I was just asking to be respectful. No arrogance intended.

    Why should anyone with a modicum of intelligence pay the least amount of respect to completely unfounded, arrogant, unproven assertions such as: "The Father is the only True God, Jesus is the not the Father, Therefore, Jesus is not the True God, There is no God except one, This one God is the Father Jesus is not the Father, Therefore Jesus is not God."

    Not only is this nonsense completely contrived and untrue but is convoluted and meaningless. And you then declare "no arrogance intended?" Pull the other one.

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?


  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -  
    "The Father is the only True God, Jesus is the not the Father, Therefore, Jesus is not the True God, There is no God except one, This one God is the Father Jesus is not the Father, Therefore Jesus is not God."

    What? It was an argument and this is how theological arguments are supposed to be formatted. I simply stated premises based on biblical verses, there's nothing wrong with that. 

    Not only is this nonsense completely contrived and untrue but is convoluted and meaningless. And you then declare "no arrogance intended?" Pull the other one.

    Well, that's your own subjective opinion, but don't insult just because you don't agree. If you think that religious discussions are meaningless that's fine but you didn't have to come here and announce this. 

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?

    I never claimed this during the debate, nor is this the topic of the discussion. I humbly ask you to ignore this debate as you have nothing valuable to say other than deeming this debate useless. You can have your own opinions but don't insult others with it. Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems.

     @Swolliw



  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 108 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    >>>The context of the verse is indeed quite clear,....I believe Jesus affirming himself as a prophet

       You don’t seem to get the context at all. Do you really think that a mere prophet would say things only God could claim? Again you have to take into account all Scripture when coming to conclusions.

    But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

    This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:8)

    The Father is the only true God, Jesus is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. You could also say that the trinity is the only true God. Each one is the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

    >>>So God was with God? Or rather the Word is the same as the Father in substance but different in hypostasis.

    Yes God was with God, the Word is the same as the Father in position or title. As for substances or hypostasis, God is infinite and we are finite, these are things we simply cannot comprehend. God is a coregency or co-principality, where three persons occupy one office. So when Scripture speaks of the Father as the only true God it in no way excludes the Son, or the Holy Spirit from being the only true God as well. The Word did not come to earth in order to declare Himself as God, He came down from His condition to take on the form of a man and present Himself as a man. One would not therefore expect Jesus to come out and explicitly claim to be God, that is a truth that we left to realize on our own through a thorough reading of the entire Scriptures, not a superficial or partial reading. 

    “Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6–8).

    You cannot say this about any prophet. Prophets are merely human.

    She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat. 1:21)

    And we know from Isaiah 43:11 when God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior."

    It is not hard to put two and two together here.

    >>An example is, "When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we." And indeed God is royalty.

    Your example only proves my point, “We are not amused.” Queen Victoria was not speaking of herself alone, but for the ladies of the court, a plurality of persons. Outside Scripture, the “royal we” is used often because the ruler is speaking on behalf of the people or the nation, again a plurality of persons.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -  
    You don’t seem to get the context at all. Do you really think that a mere prophet would say things only God could claim? Again you have to take into account all Scripture when coming to conclusions.

    Firsty, this verse is being narrated by Jesus Christ himself. If Jesus calls the Father the only true God then I have no reason to believe that He somehow isn't. And secondly, this is my point, the Bible is a mix of truth and falsehood, and as a result we will find verses that mention one God and then verses that seemingly support the Trinity even though the basis of the doctrine is based on interpretation as Trinity is never mentioned in the New Testament. Therefore, we have one side saying one God and another side saying the Trinity and thus a contradiction.The only reason why the Trinity was created as one God was to adhere to the true teaching of Jesus Christ. But at the same time, they interpreted God to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in a effort to listen to their own interpretation as well as Jesus Christ they combined the two. Makes sense that the Trinity was finalized in the fourth century.

    If I were to take into account the whole Bible, I would have a contradictory conclusion. The Father is the only true God according to Jesus but at the same time he isn't, even though the Son and Spirit are not the Father.

    This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God(John 5:8)

    The notion of Jesus being equal with Father is already refuted by Jesus himself, 
    "You heard me say, "I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

    In another verse it reads, "Who is my equal?” asks the Holy One. Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars?"

    Note: Jesus was titled the Holy One of God, the Holy one is referring to the Father.

    The Word did not come to earth in order to declare Himself as God, He came down from His condition to take on the form of a man and present Himself as a man. One would not therefore expect Jesus to come out and explicitly claim to be God, that is a truth that we left to realize on our own through a thorough reading of the entire Scriptures, not a superficial or partial reading. 

    This is what I'm troubled with. The Word is God, and therefore before the incarnation he was fully divine meaning perfect, omniscient, and ultimately worthy of worship as a result of this perfect divine nature. Then the Word decides to become a human, or in others words, a imperfect and limited being that ultimately is not worthy of worship, as a result of this newly added imperfect nature known as the human nature.
    So now Jesus is fully human and fully divine. We know that Jesus was human because he was able to do human things and feel human emotion. But how do we know he was divine? The belief of Jesus' divinity is based on mere testimony and nothing more than that. There was never actually any manifestation of Jesus' divine nature. You could say his miracles but then I would say all the prophets were able to do so. You could say his prophecies and visions but all of the prophets had prophecies and visions and Jesus had some failed ones such as "this generation shall not pass until all these things take place" (his second coming)

    But this is my question: Why would the Word or Logos a fully divine, perfect and omniscient being prefer to incarnate into a imperfect and limited being which is the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Word's union with the humanity of Jesus Christ would make the Logos less worthy of worship as the divine nature is now associated (not mixed or changed) with a imperfect and limited nature. Would the Word prefer to be less worthy of worship? I think not, especially if he was God. So then why?

    Also address a point from my previous message. 
    How can the persons be differentiated but the substance cannot. The substance is the hypostasis and the hypostasis is the substance, but despite being the same they are different. This is a logical contradiction.

    She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Mat. 1:21)

    Prophets did this. Basic religion. Prophets did this by calling people away from sin and towards one God.

    Your example only proves my point, “We are not amused.” Queen Victoria was not speaking of herself alone, but for the ladies of the court, a plurality of persons. Outside Scripture, the “royal we” is used often because the ruler is speaking on behalf of the people or the nation, again a plurality of persons.

    The royal we, or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) to refer to a single person who is a monarch. The more general word for the use of a we, us, or our to refer to oneself is nosism.
    According to Wikipedia.

    @Neopesdom

















  • SwolliwSwolliw 807 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
     I simply stated premises based on biblical verses, there's nothing wrong with that. 

    Yes, there is. You are now shifting the blame of your claim onto another authority. And that authority (the Bible) is universally discredited as being inaccurate and full of myths and outright lies. Nevertheless, you quoted statements that are untrue, inflammatory and displays utter arrogance.

    So, out of 10,000 Gods worshiped around the world, yours just so happens to be the one and only, does it?
    I never claimed this during the debate, nor is this the topic of the discussion. 

    I never said you claimed such. I am pointing out to you that your God is NOT the one and only exclusive God in existence as you claim. And even though you don't wish it to be a topic of discussion (for obvious reasons) I did point out the obvious to you whether or not you choose to accept it. Further more, you will be no doubt aware that I am not the only person on this page to point this out to you.

    You can have your own opinions but don't insult others with it. Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems.

    My "opinions" are based on fact and reason.....you have made opinions which are totally ludicrous and insulting to others without any qualification except to fob off your responsibility by saying "I simply stated premises based on biblical verses". Not only are your assertions insulting and disgusting but your excuses and lack of explanation are pathetic. 

    And you have the gall to hurl baseless accusations against someone who is properly catching you out. It may not be pleasant but who is it that is publicly demonstrating such ignorance and arrogance, then expecting to get away with it? Answer: you in case those close to you haven't already politely told you.

    And you also have the gall to make such an erroneous baseless remark such as "Atheists are seriously troubled by choosing the wrong religion it seems."

  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 96 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Thats. Your. Opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch