Contact Information

The debate has now reached its conclusion and we would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have been following this debate.

Any inquiries are now invited and may now be directed to either or both participants of the debate.
Please allow time for response as there could be many inquiries.

The full email addresses of the participants are as follows:-

Prophetnick77@aol.com Trinity believer.

Searchingone1033@aol.com Non Trinity believer.

Searchingone1033: Summary Statement

Readers, we’ve finally discovered that my opponent’s Trinitarian theology is the product of him attempting to reconcile Scriptures which he considers would be contradictory without the conclusions he draws.

My opponent is confused by the passages which say that God cannot be seen, and the passages which say that He has been seen, and has to resort to a clumsy chain of reasoning in order to address what he sees as an otherwise irreconcilable contradiction.

The Bible makes it clear that God uses agents to represent Him (such as the angels), and that these agents bear His Name, and are spoken of synonymously with Him.

For example, in Exodus 23:20-21 an angel is given the name of Yahweh when he acts as God's agent, in Genesis 32:27-30 Jacob wrestles with an angel who tells him he has wrestled with God (and Jacob says he has seen God face to face), and in Acts 7:30 Stephen says that when 'Yahweh' spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was really an angel. This is how God could be ‘seen’ – by an agent who was representing God.

This entirely Biblical solution to my opponent’s problem has not occurred to him, and he resorts to his own inferences and extrapolations as a result. Why not accept the explicit teaching of the Scriptures instead?

My opponent has claimed to rely on the explicit teachings of the apostles, but in fact he has not. For example, he cannot find a passage where the apostles teach Christ is God, so he finds a passage in which Christ is described in such a way as he infers Christ is omnipotent, which he then extrapolates to claim that Jesus is God.

He has had to employ this combination of inference and extrapolation (appealing to the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle), every step of the way in the making of his case, and then combine all these faulty conclusions into a doctrine never taught by the apostles.

The fact that he has had to do this proves that he could find no passages in the Bible teaching the trinity, or else there would be no need for this extended chain of reasoning – he could simply show me the relevant passages.

I haven’t had to rely on personal inferences and then try to make sense of the mess they cause, because I have relied on the explicit teaching of the Bible. I can accept the explicit teaching of the apostles without trying to modify, amplify, or qualify their words with conclusions I have extrapolated from my own personal inferences.

A summary of the Biblical teaching follows.

The Father

* Christ declared that it is eternal life to know the Father as the only true God (John 17:3)

* The apostles repeatedly taught that God is one person, the Father

* Acts 2: 3,000 are baptized with the knowledge that God is the Father, and that Jesus Christ is ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’

* In the Divine throne room visions of Exodus 24, Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, Acts 7, and Revelation 4-5, God is shown as one person, not three

The apostles did not simply teach that there is one God, they taught explicitly that there is one God, the Father:

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father…

Since the apostles taught that there is one God, who is the Father, and since my opponent has agreed the Father is one person ('The Father is A Person'), then the one God is one person, the Father. Note that Christ is distinguished from God, not included in ‘God’.

Scripture states explicitly concerning God that 'The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deuteronomy 6:6, Mark 12:29), and that 'he [one person] is one, and there is no one else besides him [one person]' (Mark 12:32), never describing God as 'three in one'.

In Genesis 1:26 the plural pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used, but in verse 27 the noun and verb are in the singular, indicating that only one person is involved in the act of creation of man and woman, thus 'God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'.

Likewise in Genesis 2:8, 'he placed the man he had formed', Genesis 2:22, 'the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken... he brought her', Genesis 5:1-2, 'he made them... He created them male and female... he blessed them'. Christ described the creation of man and woman as the act of one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4, 'he made them male and female').

Readers, what you understand by ‘he’. One person, or more than one person? In Hebrew, Greek and English, ‘he’ means ‘one person’. Check standard grammars to settle the point for yourself.

Let the readers note that my opponent was utterly unable to answer this question, responding only with a question of his own (which I have already answered twice).

He asked me if I can show that ‘he’ cannot refer to ‘one being’, or one being with many persons, which is a complete blind, since personal pronouns count persons, not beings, as I have already said. Even if there was one being consisting of fifty persons, that one being would still have to be referred to with a plural personal pronoun (‘they’, ‘them’, ‘we’, etc), since more than one person is being referred to.

The Son

The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves (Romans 6:23 'the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus', Titus 3:5-6 'renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He [God] poured out on us in full measure in Jesus Christ our Savior', Galatians 3:15 'in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles', Hebrews 13:20-21 'God... working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ'), including justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10 ‘we have been made holy [‘sanctified’] through the offering of the body of Jesus’), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 2:12).

The apostles predicate Christ's work of salvation on his being a man identical to those he came to save, and really died (my opponent was unable to explain how Christ died). Christ also had to be justified (1 Timothy 3:16), sanctified (John 10:36), and glorified (John 7:39; 11:4; 12:16, Acts 3:13), meaning he had to be saved through the same process as those he came to save.

Christ has the authority to judge men not because he is God, but because he is a man whom God has appointed with this authority (John 5:22, 27; 17:1-3 Acts 10:42; 17:31). Christ explicitly attributed the creation to one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4).

Christ is not omniscient, he stated explicitly that there was knowledge he did not have (Mark 13:32). Christ's knowledge has clearly been limited from his life in earth up to and including his current life in heaven (Luke 2:52 'Jesus increased in wisdom', Hebrews 5:8 'he learned obedience', Revelation 1:1 'The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him').

Christ is not omnipresent, he told his disciples he would leave them and return later (John 13:33, 36; 14:2-3, 18, 28; 16:7), and the fact that he actually left and it was said by angels that he would return in the future (Acts 1:9-11).

In Matthew 18:20, Christ says that he is present when two or three are gathered in his name, which places a condition on his presence (if he was omnipresent he would be there regardless of who was gathered in what name). Paul says the same of himself, and does not say that Christ is literally present, only the power of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:4 ‘When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus’).

The Bible says there was a time when God's fatherhood of Christ was still future (2 Samuel 7:14), and the time that God became the father of Christ (Hebrews 1:5).

Thus there was a time when God was not the father of Christ, and there was a time when God became the father of Christ. Thus there was a point in time at which Christ was brought into existence, since in order to be a literal father a person must cause a son to come into existence when previously they did not exist.

Christ is not co-equal with the Father (John 5:19, 30 ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, ‘I can do nothing of myself’, John 14:28 'My Father is greater than I'), and the apostles taught that he is the servant of God (Acts 3:13, 26 ‘his servant Jesus’, ‘God raised up his servant’, Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your holy servant Jesus’).

The later Trinitarian distinction that Christ is ontologically equal but functionally subordinate is made nowhere in Scripture (which declares an unqualified subordination), nor in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (which declare an unqualified equality).

My opponent occupies a curious middle position between the Scriptures and the Athanasian Creed, insisting on a subordinationism which is only ‘functional’, a distinction made nowhere in either the Scriptures or the Athanasian Creed.

The Holy Spirit

The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’. The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'). An attribute is of course not a person, an attribute is, by definition, impersonal.

Regardless of the (scant), personification of the spirit, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources.

My opponent has attributed to the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’ meanings they simply do not have. These words are used of angels and evil spirits, but my opponent can hardly claim that the Holy Spirit is an angel or an evil spirit. Further, when they are used of an angel or an evil spirit, the words used are ‘a spirit’, whereas the Holy Spirit is never described as ‘a spirit’.

In numerous passages of Scripture we have God and the Holy Spirit distinguished from each other, not as separate persons, but as separate entities. Note that to the Trinitarian, the word God includes persons, so if you have a passage speaking of God and the Holy Spirit, then you have a passage distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the persons of God.

The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities.

The Trinity: Essential Christian Doctrine?

Did the apostles teach the Trinity as an essential Christian doctrine?

* Acts 2: 3,000 are baptized with the knowledge that God is the Father, and that Jesus Christ is ‘a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him’

* Acts 3: The apostles teach that Christ is ‘the servant of God’, that ‘the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus’, distinguishing Jesus from God

* Acts 4: The apostles attribute all creation to God as one person, and refer to Jesus not as God but the servant of God.

* Acts 5: The apostles teach that God raised Jesus (again distinguishing Jesus from God), and say that God exalted Jesus, raising him to the right hand of God (distinct from Jesus), preaching to everyone that Jesus was the Christ (not God)

* Acts 7: Stephen preaches Jesus is the son of man (not ‘God’), distinguishes between God and Christ, and says that he saw Jesus and God as two separate beings, with Jesus on the right hand of God.

* Acts 8: People are baptized after hearing ‘the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ’, not that Jesus is God

* Acts 10: A household is baptized after the apostles preach that Jesus is ‘the one appointed by God’, and say that Jesus could perform miracles ‘because God was with him’, not because he was God

* Acts 11: Peter defends his baptism of Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (not the Trinity), but does not have to defend neglecting to teach that Jesus is really God

* Acts 13: Christ is repeatedly distinguished from God, and the good news is that 'God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus' (not 'Jesus is God')

* Acts 17: God is repeatedly identified as one person ('He'), a person other than Christ, who made the world, and is 'going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated', identifying Jesus as a man who is the agent of God, not God Himself

My opponent dismisses these with the claim that there is no evidence that the apostles had to teach people the trinity. This begs the question in an extraordinary way. At Pentecost, Peter had to start by convincing people that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had risen from the dead, yet my opponent wishes us to believe he was speaking to Jews who already believed in the Trinity?

Absurd – there would have been no reason to teach that Jesus was the Messiah and had risen from the dead, if these Jews already believed in the Trinity.

Why did the apostles never make arguments of my opponent? Why did they use none of the passages of Scripture my opponent uses? My opponent claimed that they were speaking the words which would later become New Testament Scripture, but we don’t find these words teaching the Trinity. Nor does this answer why the apostles did not use any of the Old Testament passages of Scripture to which my opponent appeals. Nor does it explain why the apostles used none of the arguments my opponent uses.

The fact is that the apostles never taught the doctrine of the Trinity at all. As I have shown, later Christians admitted the apostles never taught Jesus is God, but could not agree why. The reason is that they did not believe in it.

The Scriptures teach that it is an essential doctrine to believe that there is one God, who is one person, the Father. My opponent has acknowledged that Scripture teaches it is a heresy to deny that Jesus is a man, and that the apostles taught that it is essential doctrine to believe that Jesus both was, and still is, a man.

Nowhere in the entire Bible is there a single passage teaching that the Trinity is an essential doctrine.

Searchingone1033 -- Point 4: Closing Statement

Point 4: Who or What is the Holy spirit?

Readers, the best part about having an imaginary friend is the fact that no matter what questions are asked about your friend, you always know the answer. When people ask you questions about your imaginary friend, you can't find the answers in a book, you can't find the answers by asking other people, you can't dig them up with archaeology, or prove them with objective evidence. The only place you can find the answer is in your own head. Why? Because you made up your original friend. He's a product of your imagination.

What we have here in this debate is the exact same situation. For example, I point out that Jesus says that the Father is greater than himself, and my opponent claims that Jesus was functionally equal to the Father, but subordinate to the Father as a son.

Where did my opponent get this information from? Not from the Bible, because it makes no such distinction anywhere, and nor does Jesus in the passage I presented, in which he says very simply and plainly that his Father is greater than him. Like the person describing an imaginary friend, my opponent took his claim straight out of his own imagination.

Defenders of the trinity are forced to continue making things up in order to try and support it. When challenged with the Scriptures, they make something up.

They can’t show you where the Bible says that only Jesus’ body died, because the Bible doesn’t say that. They can’t show you where the Bible says Jesus is only functionally subordinate to God, because the Bible doesn’t say that. They can’t show you where the Bible says that Jesus’ human nature was added to his Divine nature in the ‘hypostatic union’, because the Bible doesn’t say that.

Where did they get all these ideas? Like the person with an imaginary friend, they just made them up. That’s why they can talk about the ‘hypostatic union’ in all kinds of intricate detail, even though there isn’t a word of this detail in the entire Bible. When you made up the idea yourself, you can add all these details, because it’s your imaginary friend.

My opponent didn’t understand that David and Paul were figuratively poured out, not literally poured out in the sense of being ‘distributed’. People can be figuratively poured out in the sense of being exhausted (David), or offering themselves to God (Paul), but not literally poured out in the sense of being distributed. Yet the Holy Spirit was literally poured out in the sense of being distributed, and it was even visibly seen to be so, proving the Holy Spirit is not a person.

I am familiar with Wisdom Christology, especially with the fact that it is not taught in the Bible. Held by a number of the Early Christian Fathers’ from the 2nd century AD onwards, it was later rejected by 4th century Trinitarians due to a number of problems. One of these was that the wisdom of Proverbs 8 (to which my opponent has appealed), is specifically a woman, and not a man (thus clearly not speaking of Jesus Christ), and another was the fact that the wisdom of Proverbs 8 is specifically said to have been a creation of God. This fact was the reason why, by the 4th century, it was the Arians who were arguing Wisdom Christology, whereas the Trinitarians rejected it.

On the issue of equality, my opponent falsely claims agreement with the Bible and creeds. Do they describe Christ as ‘functionally subordinate’ or not? You judge.

It was claimed that ‘definitions do not always bring out the full meaning of a word—context and usage do’, which is a misunderstanding of lexicons. Lexical definitions do always bring out the full meaning of a word. What they do not do is inform the reader of which specific meaning of a word is intended in any given text. My opponent has attributed to the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’ a meaning it simply does not have. It is used of angels and evil spirits, but my opponent can hardly claim that the Holy Spirit is an angel or an evil spirit. Further, when it is used of an angel or an evil spirit, the words used are ‘a spirit’, whereas the Holy Spirit is never described as ‘a spirit’.

It was claimed falsely that I was representing my opponent as saying that the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’ actually mean ‘person’. I actually pointed out that he was treating the nouns as if they have this meaning, though he acknowledged they do not have this meaning.

My opponent changed his original argument from EKEINOS, now claiming that it is not the gender of the word which is relevant here (which was his previous argument), but the fact that the personal pronoun is used. He seems to have thought that personal pronouns necessarily indicate personhood, but of course the word ‘it’ is a personal pronoun, and no one would describe a rock as a person, though it uses a personal pronoun (‘it’).

My opponent failed to address my identification of his use of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, and then presented several examples of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Contrary to my opponent’s claims, the Holy Spirit and God are described as separate entities. In numerous passages of Scripture we have God and the Holy Spirit distinguished from each other (see here). They are not distinguished as separate persons, but as separate entities. Note that to the Trinitarian, the word God includes persons, so if you have a passage speaking of God and the Holy Spirit, then you have a passage distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the persons of God.

My opponent helpfully reminds us that his argument has not been based on the semantic domain of the noun. I agree! This is a fundamental flaw in his argument. What argument for the meaning of a word takes no notice whatever of the actual semantic domain of the word? My opponent is once more making things up as he goes along, without even checking the meaning of the word.

Yes, my opponent has certainly been consistent in arguing for personality simply from the three attributes of intelligence, rationality, and consciousness, but I have already pointed out that this is an entirely false argument, since you cannot ascribe literal intelligence, rationality, or consciousness to a word which speaks of an impersonal entity such as the Greek and Hebrew words used for ‘spirit’ describe. You might as well ascribe them to an orange, as I already pointed out.

My opponent claims that I acknowledged that the Holy Spirit is consistently personified in the Bible. I acknowledged no such thing, and in fact denied it. The Holy Spirit is not personified anywhere in the entire Old Testament, and is personified in only a handful of passages in the New (my opponent was able to find about half a dozen).

My opponent asks me how I determine the personality of the Father, and my answer is simply that the Father is described explicitly as the only true God. A god, by definition, is a person. I don’t have to try and define the Father as a person based on His attributes, the fact that He is God means that He is necessarily a person, because a god is, by definition, a person. This is an argument which my opponent simply cannot make for the Holy Spirit, because as he has acknowledged, the ‘spirit’ is not, by definition, a person.

Readers, how do we know that the president of the United States is a person? Do we check to see if he has intelligence, rationality, and consciousness? How absurd, of course we don’t. We know that he is a person because the president of the United States is, by definition, a person. We know also that the president of the United States is a human being, and a human being is, by definition, a person. My opponent is using a totally alien means of determining personhood.

My opponent misrepresented me as faulting him for not presenting evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a person. In fact, I faulted him for looking for evidence to support his presupposition, and not checking to see if there existed any evidence contradicting his presupposition. He didn’t even check the semantic domain of the relevant Greek and Hebrew words, which is the very first thing he should have done.

My opponent falsely claims that the Holy Spirit is always personified, and never described in impersonal terms. The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’. The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'). An attribute is of course not a person, an attribute is, by definition, impersonal.

Prophetnick77 Point 4: Counter Rebuttal

Point 4: Who or What is the Holy Spirit?

It seems that my opponent is not at all familiar with Wisdom Christology, which I have actually made reference to in previous posts (see closing of Point 1; closing rebuttal to Point 2 and summary statement). The Wisdom of Proverbs is God’s supernal Wisdom—this is none other than the pre-incarnate Son, thus we don’t have a 4th person of the Trinity, (which is obviously impossible)—this point doesn’t hinder my position at all. Remember, Jesus is said to be the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24)

Next, an appeal was made to the Greek and Hebrew nouns for “Spirit” not meaning “person”—this was NOT my claim. I clearly set forth the criteria for personality and that is: 1. Intelligence, 2. Rationality, 3. Consciousness. I have been consistent throughout with holding to this standard thus to argue based on the semantic domain of the noun is nothing more than straw man in that my original argument was not based on the meaning of the nouns for Spirit. And of course, lexical definitions do not always bring out the full meaning of a word—context and usage do.

I’d point out that angels and demons have personality. They are intelligent, rational, and conscious. Searchingone1033 still hasn’t stated his criteria for determining the personality of the Father. To do so would render his argument invalid because whatever criteria he uses can be used to show the personality of the Spirit—the argument is self-refuting.

Next we’re told that “it doesn’t matter how much the Spirit is personified in the Bible” and in the very next paragraph it is admitted via an analogy of an orange that Spirit is “consistently personified.” Well that’s just it… The Spirit is ALWAYS PERSONIFIED in scripture. We have no examples in scripture where the Holy Spirit is not presented as a Person; therefore it would be foolish to conclude that He was anything other than a Person! This isn’t the case with other personifications.

It was asserted that my methodology is backwards because I compiled evidence showing the personality of the Spirit and not evidence showing the His non-personality. I’m not really sure how my methodology is backwards here. All persons have certain attributes, scripture presents the Holy Spirit as a Person; therefore we see the Holy Spirit with these attributes. My conclusions follow from the premises. And obviously I can’t compile evidence of a negative—I have to first establish what the Holy Spirit IS to know what He ISN’T.

It was said that an attribute is not a person and the Wisdom of God is not God. This is merely question begging in that it assumes what has yet to be proven, namely that God is only one person. It also ignores Wisdom Christology and any relevant Ancient Near Eastern literature on the subject. This also fails to acknowledge that God’s Word is an essential attribute, yet the Word is God (John 1:1). Searchingone1033’s argument doesn’t account for the parallels between God’s Word and Wisdom. I’d love to go off on a tangent and delve more into this topic, but the point of debate is the Holy Spirit, not Wisdom.

Also, some irrelevant conclusions were drawn. It was said that the Grace of God and the Wrath of God are not God and are not persons. True as that may be, it has no bearing on either Wisdom of the Holy Spirit being God or Persons. Grace and Wrath are not seen doing the things that God alone does, nor are they consistently personified as the Spirit is.

It was said that the Holy Spirit is a separate entity and the Bible describes God and the Holy Spirit as separate entities. This is incorrect as has been shown repeatedly. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing one name. The Bible describes the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing the essential attributes of deity. The Bible shows the procession of the Spirit from the Father. They are described as distinct Persons without doubt, but not as separate entities.

An argument was then made that the scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit. This is nothing more than a false analogy in that the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS spoken of as a person while the scriptures are not.

Once again, the Spirit’s being poured out in no way detracts from His personality. Whether or not David was figuratively poured out is beside the point—Paul was as well (Philippians 2:17)—and so was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:12. Point being, persons can be poured out.

Acts 5:3-4 has been addressed in previous posts. Searchingone1033’s denial of the passage is obvious.

It appears that the point was completely missed in my reference to “ekeinos” being used in for the Holy Spirit. It had nothing to do with the gender of the Holy Spirit, but rather the fact that this PERSONAL PRONOUN was used to refer to the Holy Spirit. This seems to be the criteria that my opponent used to decide upon the personality of the Father, although we can’t be sure since he has not told us what his standard is.

More charges of illogical syllogistic reasoning surface. I was accused of committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle but up until this point I haven’t presented my position syllogistically although I can do so easily, with the same result:

God alone is Eternal
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Eternal

God alone is Omnipotent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipotent

God alone is Omniscient
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omniscient

God alone is Omnipresent
The Holy Spirit is God
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent

All Persons are Intelligent
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Intelligent

All Persons are Rational
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Rational

All Persons are Conscious
The Holy Spirit is a Person
Therefore the Holy Spirit is Conscious

Each conclusion is justified from the premises. Placing this in syllogistic form hasn’t altered the conclusion in any way.

Another straw man argument came in the form of charging me with rejecting the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly—this is obviously not the case. The apostles explicitly taught the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The conclusion drawn from this is the Trinity. My opponent seems bent on having an exact passage or verse to say something the way he would like it said—this ain’t gonna happen. We have to take scripture as it is and systematically derive doctrine.

Searchingone1033’s statements concerning the creeds this late in the game are laughable. As anyone keeping up with these posts can plainly see, the creeds have been his focus. He has made consistent appeals to the creeds and the language used in the creeds in nearly every post. To say that I’m somehow confused over their relevancy is ridiculous. The point I have been making is that although I do agree with them, they are completely irrelevant because we have the Bible to make the case for the Trinity! Later creeds are not at all necessary no matter how true they are! And for the record, I have backed off of nothing; I took one proposition from the Athanasian Creed in my opening to Point 1 and cited the scriptural support for it. This of course was in response to its being brought up originally by Searchingone1033.

The Bible asserts a functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Not an ontological inequality or Subordinationism. I have demonstrated this in Point 3. The language of the Athanasian Creed clearly is in reference to the equality of substance (i.e. nature/essence) and allows for the doctrine of functional subordination. The lack of understanding on the part of my opponent has no bearing on the language of the creed. And I would note yet another straw man argument. My position is NOT that the Son is subordinate to the Father as a man—my position IS that the Son is subordinate as a Son, which He has been from all eternity, even before the incarnation and the addition of a human nature. The substantial inferiority of the human nature to the divine nature is a given.

And finally, anyone reading the posts can see for themselves the creedal red herrings. This has been Searchingone1033’s theme throughout. From my opponent’s response to my arguments on the Holy Spirit, I am confident that they were too strong to merit any kind of refutation. All the evidence was relegated to saying that the Holy Spirit is merely personified. Not exactly what we would consider compelling stuff. Perhaps if it could be shown that the Holy Spirit was ever spoken of as anything other than a Person, then maybe there could be some consideration of this argument. But since this isn’t the case, we won’t consider it. I wonder how it would be received if I said, since the Father is always spoken of in personal terms, possesses all of the attributes of personality, and acts like a Person, then that must be a personification. Chances are I would be laughed at… Now you know how I feel.

*Note: This is my final post--May the Triune God Yahweh bless each and every reader!*

Searchingone1033 -- Point 4: First Rebuttal

Point 4: Who or What is the Holy Spirit?


Readers, the previously unsuspected fourth member of the Trinity is the woman called ‘God the Wisdom’.

Wisdom speaks, cries, utters her voice, and does so in public, where she can be seen (Proverbs 1:20; 2:2; 8:1-3), has daughters, a house, and maidens (Proverbs 9:1-3, Matthew 11:19), proving that wisdom is a person.

Wisdom is omnipresent because she indwells all believers (Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 36:2, Deuteronomy 34:9, 1 Kings 3:28, Job 38:36, Proverbs 2:10, Luke 2:40, Acts 6:3, Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 3:16, James 1:5), wisdom can be sinned against (Proverbs 8:36), and wisdom is omnipotent because she created the heavens and the earth (Psalm 136:5, Proverbs 3:19), all of which proves that wisdom is God.

We all know this isn’t true. Wisdom isn’t a person, and wisdom isn’t God. It doesn’t matter how many passages we find which attribute these qualities to wisdom, the fact remains that wisdom is an attribute, not a person, and certainly not God.

How do we know this? How can we tell, given the huge amount of personification of wisdom which we find in the Bible? It’s easy readers, the simple fact of the matter is that the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘wisdom’ are nouns which mean exactly that – ‘wisdom’. You can look in any lexicon you like, and you will not find that the Greek or Hebrew nouns for ‘wisdom’ mean ‘a person’ (for the meanings of the Greek adjective and noun, go here). It doesn’t mean ‘a person’. It is a noun which means ‘wisdom’.

It’s exactly the same with the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘spirit’. It doesn’t matter how much the spirit is personified in the Bible, the fact is that the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the spirit do not mean ‘person’. You can check this for yourself with a reputable lexicon which quotes historical sources (see here for the Greek). You can see for yourself that ‘person’ is not within the semantic domain of the word. It means a lot of things, but ‘person’ is not one of them. It can refer to a spirit being such as an angel, pagan spirit being, or demon (and only these), but does not mean ‘person’ of itself. In the phrases ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘spirit of God’, clearly none of these are being described.

My opponent can present all the passages in which the spirit of God is personified, he can make all the claims he wants about the spirit being called ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ (it isn’t), he cannot assert that the word has a meaning which is not contained within its lexically attested semantic domain. It would be like claiming that the word ‘orange’ really means ‘person’, just because you found a book in which an orange was consistently personified.

My opponent’s methodology is entirely backwards. He has tried to compile evidence that the Holy Spirit is really a person, whilst failing completely to even check for any evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a person, when a simple reading of the lexical meaning of the relevant word would have told him this.

My opponent wants to know how I can tell that the Holy Spirit is not a person, even though it is described in personal terms. My answer is simple:

* The Greek and Hebrew words used for the Holy Spirit never mean ‘person’

* The Holy Spirit is described consistently as an attribute of God (‘the spirit OF God’), and an attribute is of course not a person

* Following on from this, an attribute of a person is not the person themselves – the wisdom OF God is not God, the grace OF God is not God, the wrath OF God is not God, all of these are attributes OF God (not persons and not God), and the same applies to the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit OF God


Since the Holy Spirit itself is an attribute of God (referred to consistently 'the Spirit of God'), and explicitly the agent by which He works (Job 26:13 'by His spirit', Zechariah 4:6 'by My spirit', 1 Corinthians 2:10 'by His spirit', Ephesians 3:16 'by His spirit'), we should expect to see it personified, and we should expect acts which God carries out attributed to the Holy Spirit.

The very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent by God proves that the Holy Spirit and God are two separate entities. Note that, the Bible identifies the Holy Spirit as one entity, and God as an entirely separate entity.

The Scriptures are personified in the same way as the Holy Spirit (they are said to speak, indwell, comfort, foresee things, prophesy, teach, instruct, reprove, admonish, build up, exhort, bless, sanctify, and save, etc), and yet we know that they are neither a person, nor are they God, because the Greek and Hebrew nouns used for the word ‘Scripture’ simply do not mean ‘person’ or ‘God’.

My opponent made very few other claims to substantiate his position, so I can deal with the remainder briefly:

* Of the counter arguments he anticipated, I would in fact use almost none of them, but I do want to correct something he said. In the example he gave, David speaks of himself as being figuratively poured out, a Hebrew phrase which actually means ‘exhausted’. Nor does he say he is poured out on anyone. But the Holy Spirit is literally poured out, and is literally poured out on people, and visibly so (the dove on Christ, the tongues of fire on the apostles).

* My opponent could find only one verse could be found from which he could claim that the Holy Spirit is called ‘God’, but on inspection we find that the verse in which the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ occurs does not even contain the word ‘God’.


* The claim was made that use of the masculine Greek word EKEINOS to refer to the Holy Spirit proves that the Holy Spirit is a person, and is male. My opponent appears ignorant of the fact that Greek noun declensions are not necessarily indicative of the things to which they refer. The Greek word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is neuter, and the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ used of the Holy Spirit is feminine, but my opponent would reject the idea that this proves the Holy Spirit is an ‘it’ or a woman.


My opponent continues to employ the same logical fallacy to which he has appealed throughout this debate, the fallacy of the undistributed middle (definition here).


In this case, he has presented the following arguments:


1: God has qualities X, Y, Z


2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z


3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is God


1: Persons have qualities X, Y, Z


2: The Holy Spirit has qualities X, Y, Z


3: Therefore the Holy Spirit is a person


Not only has my opponent committed this logical fallacy, his entire process of argumentation is flawed. He rejects the idea that essential doctrine is to be identified as what the apostles taught explicitly, claiming that essential doctrine is to be derived by uninspired inferences from a range of verses scattered throughout the Bible (I have never said ‘randomly’, as he falsely claims).


I have asked repeatedly for Biblical evidence which says we should interpret the Scriptures in this way, and have received no answer. I am asking again.


My opponent demonstrates confusion over the relevancy of the creeds to this debate. I shall explain:


* The fact that the earliest creeds not only have no reference to the Trinity but include faith statements which contradict it, is historical evidence that the Trinity was a doctrine absent from the Christian community until a later date


* I have never asked or expected my opponent to make his case from the creeds, but I have asked him repeatedly to defend the creedal definition of the Trinity from Scripture


My opponent initially attempted to relate the Trinitarian creeds to Scripture, but has in the last few posts moved away from this, acknowledging they make statements which the Bible does not make, and presenting a view of God and Christ which contradicts the creeds.

The Bible asserts the total subordination of the son to the Father, the Athanasian creed asserts the total equality of the son with the Father, but my opponent holds a different view to both of these, believing that the son was subordinate to the Father as a man, but equal to the Father as God. Neither the Bible nor the Athanasian creed makes any such distinction.

My opponent has claimed I have 'consistently moved away from what the scriptures say about the Trinity and moved toward what the later Christian creeds stated'. This false charge, for which he provides no evidence whatever, is easily refuted by a reading of my posts. My references to the creeds occupy a mere fraction of my total word count, and all of the arguments I have made for my understanding of God and Christ have been made from Scripture.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 4: Opening Statement

Point 4: Who or What is the Holy Spirit?

In response to the question asked of Point 4 I must answer that the third Person of the Trinity is WHO the Holy Spirit is and God as to His essential nature is WHAT the Holy Spirit is.

Now as has been sufficiently demonstrated in previous posts, the Holy Spirit is by nature God as evidenced by His being in possession of all of the attributes of Deity, i.e. Eternality (Hebrews 9:14), Omnipotence (Isaiah 40:12), Omniscience (1Corinthians 2:10-11), Omnipresence (Psalm 139:7-18). The Holy Spirit is also called God (Acts 5:3-4) as well as Lord (2Corinthians 3:17). The Holy Spirit Creates (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4), Regenerates (Titus 3:5), Gives Life (2Corinthians 3:6), Justifies (1Corinthians 6:11), Sanctifies (1Peter 1:2), Resurrects (Romans 8:11), Indwells Believers (2Timothy 1:14), and Searches the Heart (1Corinthians 2:10). His Deity is firmly established beyond refutation.

Since this is true then my main task in this post is to set forth the personality of the Holy Spirit. I will judge this according to the definition I laid out for the term “person” in my opening to Point 1. This is the same criteria I used to establish the Father's personality in Point 2 (i.e. intelligence, rationality, and consciousness.)

The Holy Spirit has a Mind and Knowledge (intelligence)

And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:27)

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1Corinthians 2:11)

The Holy Spirit Reasons (rationality)

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28)

The Holy Spirit is Self-Aware (consciousness)

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2)

This should be sufficient to prove that the Holy Spirit is a Person, but I’ll continue to build the case—at this point though I’d like to state that any denial of the Holy Spirit’s personality according to this criterion logically necessitates denying the personality of anyone who possesses these traits.

Thus far we haven’t been told the method my opponent has been using to determine the personality of the Father, other than perhaps the use of personal pronouns applied to Him. As I have mentioned repeatedly, whatever criteria is used to assert the Father’s personality can be used to prove the Holy Spirit’s as well. If personal pronouns are the test, or even a part of the test, then the Holy Spirit passes.

In Acts 13:2 (quoted above) the Holy Spirit refers to Himself as “me” (Gk: moi) and also “I” (“I have called” – Gk: proskeklēmai). Likewise in John 15:26 and 16:13, the Holy Spirit is referred to by the masculine pronoun “He” (Gk: ekeinos). Thus we have a personal Spirit.

We must also take into account that the Holy Spirit has emotions—for example, The Holy Spirit Loves (Romans 15:30) and can be Grieved (Isaiah 63:10; Ephesians 4:30). Emotions are personal characteristics, not impersonal.

To add to the evidence I would mention that the Holy Spirit Speaks (2 Samuel 23:1; Acts 8:29; 1Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:7-8; Revelation 2:7). He can be Lied to (Acts 5:3), Resisted (Acts 7:51), Tested (Acts 5:9), and Blasphemed (Matthew 12:32). Once again, these are all personal characteristics and the fact that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed is further proof of His deity.

As if the case hasn’t been built enough, we can see the personality of the Holy Spirit in His many functions. Functionally the Holy Spirit Witnesses (Acts 5:32, 1John 5:7), Glorifies Jesus (John 16:14), Teaches (John 14:26; 15:26), Makes Intercession (Romans 8:26), Anoints (1John 2:27), Appoints (Acts 20:28), and Convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). Surely these are not impersonal acts.

I believe that at this point an airtight case has been made for the personality of the Spirit so now I’ll move on to the objections I expect my opponent to make, and offer a preemptive refutation. Truthfully, I have to do this just to use up the word limit since the personality of the Holy Spirit is so easily established.

I expect to see an argument stating that the Holy Spirit is merely another term for the Father or is simply the Father’s “power” or “energy.” The latter argument nullified in the above treatment, but the first argument merits some attention. That the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father is clear from many passages of scripture.

Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (Psalm 104:30)

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:16-17)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Joh 14:26)

Now clearly in each of these passages it is the Father who sends the Spirit showing that they are two distinct Persons. We also see Yahweh AND His Spirit sending the Messiah in Isaiah 48:16 which says, “Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.” We see the definite distinction between the Father and Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:16-17 at the baptism of Jesus where the Father speaks from heaven as the Spirit descends upon Christ.

Other passages to take note of are 1Corinthains 12:4-6 and Ephesians 4:4-6. These verses show clear distinctions between the three Persons of the Trinity, which obviously includes the distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The next argument I would expect to see from Searchingone1033 would be methodologically similar to his argument against the deity of the Son. If you noticed, he ignored passages referring to Jesus’ deity to focus instead upon passages that referred to His humanity. On this point I would expect to see passages that make the Holy Spirit seem to be impersonal focused upon while those which show His personality are ignored. This usually comes via arguments like:

1. “The Holy Spirit can’t be a person because he was poured out on people.”

2. “People are filled with the Holy Spirit therefore he is not a Person.”

3. “The Holy Spirit is a gift, and persons aren’t gifts.”

4. “The Holy Spirit can be quenched and persons can’t be quenched.”

These types of arguments are common and easily refuted.

1. Joel 2:28 (3:1 MT) says that the Yahweh will “pour out” (Heb: Eshpoch) his Spirit on all flesh. David said in Psalm 22:14 “I am “poured out” (Heb: Nishpachti) like water.” Both verses use the same root word “shaphak” meaning poured out. No one would deny the personality of David based on this, so it doesn’t make sense to deny the personality of the Spirit based upon this either.

2. Ephesians 3:19 speaks of believers being “filled (Gk: plērōthēte) with all the fullness of God.” Likewise, Jesus is said to “fill (Gk: plērōsē) all things” in Ephesians 4:10.

3. Ephesians 4:8, 11 speak of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as “gifts”—no one would doubt the personality of these individuals based on this.

4. The word “quenched” (Gk: sbennute) used in 1Thessalonians 5:19 is used of men in the LXX. The Lord spoke of an army of men being “extinct” (Gk: esbesthēsan) and “quenched” (Gk: esbesmenon) in Isaiah 43:17, while Ezekiel was told to take up a lamentation for Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Ezekiel 32:2) and tell him that God would “extinguish” (Gk: sbesthēnai) him (vs. 7). Unless “men” and “Pharaoh” are not persons, this argument is invalid.

Of course this isn’t an exhaustive list of all such arguments, but it is representative of what I expect to see. Rest assured, others like it are just as easily refuted and of just as little substance. I’d also point out that as Searchingone1033 has consistently moved away from what the scriptures say about the Trinity and moved toward what the later Christian creeds stated, then I expect to see some type of argument about the Holy Spirit not being mentioned as God or a Person in the earliest creeds—but I will stay true to form and keep my arguments based upon the Word of God.

Prophetnick77: Summary Statement

Readers, so far you have seen me argue affirmatively for the doctrine of the Trinity from a scriptural standpoint. Any reference I have made to creeds for the most part has been to acknowledge that the debate has gotten off topic and needed to be brought back to the God-Breathed scriptures. Now let me say that I fully affirm every statement that these creeds make, but I don’t need them to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible is certainly sufficient for this task

Since this post is a summary and not actually part of the arguments, I want to take the time to finally comment on the creeds. I think that Searchingone1033 in arguing against them is not only missing the point of this debate, but the point of the creeds themselves. The creeds in question were drafted as statements of faith in response to heresy. They were defensive declarations that reaffirmed the already accepted doctrines of the Church. Had the teachings of Arius and later the Pneumatomachians (a.k.a. Macedonians) been the normative views of God then there would have been no controversy. More precise definitions would not have been necessary but once again as Robert Letham said, “This was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”

Philip Schaff noted in the introduction to his History of the Christian Church,

“Every important dogma now professed by the Christian church is the result of a severe conflict with error. The doctrine of the holy Trinity, for instance, was believed from the beginning, but it required, in addition to the preparatory labors of the ante-Nicene age, fifty years of controversy, in which the strongest intellects were absorbed, until it was brought to the clear expression of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Christological conflict was equally long and intense, until it was brought to a settlement by the council of Chalcedon.” [1]

And truthfully speaking, we don’t need to rely on Letham or Schaff to know these things—the fact is that the earliest Christians embedded Trinitarian “creeds” into scripture in the form of salutations and benedictions (2Cor. 13:14; 1Pet. 1:2), as well as doxologies or compact doctrinal statements asserting the deity of Jesus (Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-11) and to argue that this isn’t the case is to ignore the very Word of God. We need to remember that the New Testament was not bound together in one book the way we have it now, and had it been, a good number of the people to whom it would have been given were illiterate; therefore Christians would sing hymns or recite short phrases which were passed along orally from the apostles to the churches.

Now having gotten that off of my chest, I’d like to point out that as it stands I haven’t been able to present all of the relevant data that I would have liked to because of the word limits, and believe me, there is much more that I could present—but what has been presented so far has not been refuted. Sure, we have seen my opponent say things like, “this isn’t what that really means” and then offer alternatives that aren’t consistent with the evidence he excludes.

Likewise, you have seen me ignore some of his points of argument, not because they were too strong to be dealt with—on the contrary—I ignored them because they were either off topic or unsubstantial. Truth be told, I have wasted much of my word limit addressing arguments that I would have just as soon ignored, and correcting caricatures of my actual arguments that I never should have had to in the first place—but such is the nature of debate and this is an ugly fact that I was aware of entering into this dialogue.

It has been made clear from my posts and more importantly scripture that there are Three Persons who possess all of the essential attributes of Deity—The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. All Three Persons are Eternal, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and Ever-Present. We’ve seen attempts to say this isn’t so, but scripture disagrees. We’ve seen the humanity of the Son in his incarnated state focused upon while his deity is purposely ignored so as to make it appear that the Bible presents a finite Son, a created being separate from the Father. But once the scriptures are viewed as one homogenous whole, we see that this is anything but true.

I was accused of stringing together random verses of scripture to form doctrines that didn’t exist within the pages of the Bible, when the fact is that I have examined the Bible from beginning to end and systematically arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity. I feel it necessary to explain my methodology here.

First of all I’m a theist. The reason I’m a theist is expressed in Romans 1:19-20 which basically states that God’s eternal power and divinity are clearly seen in His creation. So as a theist I obviously believe in a God, but there are a number of things out there vying for my devotion, adoration, and worship so I was faced with the decision of which God is the right God. I have come to believe in the God of Judeo-Christianity, Yahweh because of His Word.

What I mean is this… out of all the alternative “gods” there are to worship and believe in, this is the one I have chosen because out of all the scriptures or holy writings (e.g. Qur’an, Vedas, Book of Mormon, Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, etc.) that have allegedly come from all of these other gods, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures of Judeo-Christianity are the only ones that stand up to the claim of divine authorship via the accuracy and fulfillment of predictive prophecy, internal consistency, etc…

So now I am forced to approach the scriptures with the supposition that because of their divine authorship they cannot lie and by consequence cannot contradict themselves, because God who is their source cannot lie (Heb. 6:18). Can an infinitely perfect God testify to having been seen and not having been seen at the same time and in the same sense? Of course not! This would violate the law of non-contradiction and God cannot contradict Himself therefore His Word cannot contradict itself.

So while the Bible tells me in more than one place that no man has ever seen God or can see God and live (Ex. 33:20; John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12) it also tells me that God has indeed been seen by human eyes and these men have survived (Gen. 32:30; Ex. 24:11; Jud. 13:22). Thus I’m left to reconcile an apparent contradiction in scripture that was inspired by a God who cannot contradict Himself. The only way this is possible is with a Trinitarian theology.

A polytheistic theology is clearly out of the question because the scriptures from cover to cover unabashedly pronounce that there is one and only one God in all of existence (Deut. 4:35, 6:4; Is. 43:10-11, 44:6, 8, 45:5-6, 14, 21-22, 46:9; Mal. 2:10; Mk. 12:32; Rom. 3:30; 1Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1Tim. 2:5; Jam. 2:19). A Unitarian theology allows the contradiction to stand and offers no sufficient explanation. A Trinitarian theology brings harmony to the text because it allows for multiple Persons to share One Nature of Deity. Hence, all Three Persons are equally God without violating monotheism, yet one or even two of the Persons can claim to have never been seen, while another can have been seen, and both statements are true.

This is one small example out of many—another being the use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 (cf. Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8). Now as I briefly commented on in my closing rebuttals to Points #1 and #2 the Trinitarian has no problem explaining such an apparent aberration of language, yet the Unitarian view forces the text to say that God consulted the angels in creation and as we have seen, irrelevant texts that do not use plural pronouns were cited in support of this idea (i.e. 1Kgs. 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6). The Trinitarian view rightly notes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all active in creation, which agrees perfectly with Genesis 1:26-27, not to mention the passages of scripture where the Hebrew text speaks of “Creators” (Eccl. 12:1) and “Makers” (Ps. 149:2; Is. 54:5) in reference to the One God Yahweh.

It is this same method of that I consistently use to interpret every word of scripture. Scripture cannot be “theopneustos” (God-Breathed, 2Tim. 3:16) and contain contradictions. It just doesn’t work that way. Therefore you have seen me argue in favor of the Trinity based upon this supposition that the Bible is true and God cannot lie. If the Bible tells me that there is only One Being in existence that possesses the essential attributes of deity (Isaiah 43:10), and then turns around and shows me that there are Three Persons who possess these attributes and also share One Name (Matt. 28:19), then I am forced to arrive at a Trinitarian conclusion. These are some of the facts that I mentioned in my opening post and continued in Point #1 of this debate.

When the topic turned to the Father in Point #2 you saw me present a scripturally sound and logically irrefutable proof for the eternality of the Son based upon the eternality and immutability of the Father. In fact the case was so strong that in the subsequent rebuttal, it was asked that it be held until Point #3!

To review the argument, The Father is God (Mal. 2:10) --> The Father is Eternal (Ps. 90:2) --> The Father is Immutable (Mal. 3:6). If these statements are true then logic demands that the Father has always been the Father. Likewise they demand that the Father must have always had a child otherwise the title “Father” is meaningless. Even in the symbolic sense of the title this still demands that something or someone existed alongside the Father from all eternity. Since the Son created all that exists and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17) then it follows that the Son has been the one who was with the Father from all eternity. He pre-existed everything else that would be able to even be considered a child of God.

The pre-existence of the Son was also demonstrated in Point #3 by showing the use of the imperfect tense of John 17:5 in terms of the Son possessing glory with the Father from before the foundation of the world. Likewise this was shown from my closing rebuttal to Point #1 by mentioning the imperfect tense and its use in John 1:1.

Searchingone1033’s closing rebuttal to Point #2 offered a response to the effect that the Father’s fatherhood was yet future and he based this upon 2Samuel 7:14 and Hebrews 1:5 which is a quote of Psalm 2:7 and 2Sam. 7:14 while neither text negates John’s statements; neither do they negate the pre-incarnate Christ existing as God’s supernal Wisdom in Proverbs 8. The crux of the issue is this—even if Searchingone1033’s argument were sufficient to refute my position, it still offers no explanation for the how the Father can be eternal, immutable, and the Father without a Son. In other words, refuting my position (which obviously has not happened) does not prove Searchingone1033’s.

I’d love to offer a rebuttal to his points but this is not the format for doing so.

From where I’m standing there are some very fundamental issues that haven’t been addressed, and they are:

1. The abovementioned concerning the Father having a Son from all eternity.

2. The use of plural pronouns for a God that Searchingone1033 believes to be one person.

3. The criteria by which Searchingone1033 asserts that the Father is a person.

4. The criteria by which Searchingone1033 denies that more than one person can share one essential nature.

On a more peripheral issue, I’d like to know what Hebrew, Greek, or even English language references would support his grammatical claims that personal pronouns such as “he” can’t refer to one being and why this one being cannot exist in three inseparable persons.

And then there is the issue of the logical fallacies such as the loaded questions he asked in his last response concerning the arguments the apostles used to prove the Trinity or why they didn’t use the quotes I use to prove the Trinity. The questions assume that the apostles had to argue with people concerning the Trinity or that they had to convince people of the Trinity—this is an unproven assumption. Also, the apostles did use the quotes I use—the only thing is that they weren’t quoting—they were the original speakers… I’m the one quoting!

Already mentioned were the consistent red herrings concerning the creeds and now more recently the ‘soul sleep’ question that was asked. I’d love to get into the state of Jesus soul and spirit after the death of his body but that is not the topic of debate. But we can be confident that the body is the only thing that dies on anyone. Natures certainly don’t die.

In closing I’d just like to reiterate that the Tri-unity of God has been set forth and supported with scripture.

The first point of debate was whether or not the Trinity was a sound Biblical doctrine. It has been shown to be exactly that via my arguments concerning the attributes of deity inherent in the Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) as well as the divine functions in Creation, Salvation, and Indwelling. The titles “God” and “Lord” were the icing on the cake.

The second point was the Person or Being of the Father. I set forth an affirmative position on the Father’s personality as well as his eternal fatherhood via his eternally immutable nature. This went un-refuted even with the two references quoted against it.

The third point was the Person of the Son. I showed from Jesus’ own claims and His audiences understanding of them that He was God. I also briefly showed the “I AM” parallels between Yahweh and Jesus in Isaiah and John. This was topped off with Yahweh’s titles as applied to Jesus and Old Testament passages speaking of Yahweh applied to Jesus. Overwhelming evidence was shown that the Son was indeed worshipped by his followers and secular history corroborated this fact, and it was written off as a mere “bowing down” before Jesus. Hardly compelling enough to convince one that Jesus was not worshipped. And finally, I answered all the relevant questions that my opponent demanded I answer (saying, “Questions I WANT Answered” is a demand).

The fourth point of debate on the Holy Spirit will prove to be interesting. Until then I leave you with one of the Trinitarian benedictions of the apostle Paul, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (2Cor. 13:14).

Notes

[1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, rprt. 2006). Vol. 1, p. 10.

Moderator Correction

Correction, Prophetnick77 will have the opening argument in this fourth and final point in our debate. Searchingone1033 had the opening arguments in one and three and Prophetnick77 had the opening argument in points two and four. Sorry for any confusion.

Moderator Comment

We have now come to the end of part three of our four point debate. We will now be starting the last section the person or being of the Holy Spirit. Searchingone1033 will have the opening argument and Prophetnick77 will have the first rebuttal.

Also, at this time I would like to invite both participants if they wish to make one summary statement consisting of 2500 words with no external links or rebuttals by either party. Because Searchingone1033 had the opening argument at the start of the debate, Prophetnick77 will have the first summary statement.

Summary statements are not to be presented as arguments only a recap of stated beliefs on each of the four points of the debate.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 3: Closing Statement

Point 3: The Person of the Son

Let me begin by stating that I unapologetically stand by my use of extra words in my last post, but because my opponent has cried foul I’ll limit this post to 1200 words.

OK… So we are back to claiming that I have to prove creeds. This has been maintained throughout and as I said in my very first post:

“Before beginning this debate Searchingone1033 asked me what kind of Trinitarianism I hold to and I told him that I hold to orthodox Trinitarianism as affirmed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The question was then asked if I would be arguing based on these creeds and my response was “no.” I explained that I would be arguing my point based on the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures.”

I’ve held true to my word. My task was to debate my position on the 4 agreed upon points. So far I’ve done this. If the Trinity can be proven (which it has been) to be Who and What God is then it follows that it’s essential to salvation. But once again, I don’t need to defend the creeds.

I will now define my use of the word Biblical. “Biblical” refers to that teaching which is inherent in scripture and brings harmony to the text and our theology. The Trinity by this standard is clearly Biblical since nothing has ever been set forth to contradict or refute it. Searchingone1033’s problem seems to be the extra-Biblical language employed by the creeds, but as Robert Letham said, “This was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”[1] In other words, both the orthodox and heterodox were using the same words to describe different things, therefore the orthodox needed to provide more precise definitions of what the Bible taught so the heretics couldn’t twist it.

It was said that I had no answer for the “wealth of information” provided in Searchingone1033’s arguments, but is this the case? As I stated, there was nothing of substance in disproving the Trinity therefore I presented an affirmative position that nullified all arguments against the Trinity. Once again, Jesus is a man, yes—a God-Man. To say that the apostles taught that Jesus was merely a man is ridiculous in light of their praying to Jesus (Acts 7:59; 1Corinthians 1:2) and their worship of Jesus (see last post), and their calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Even secular reference is made to this fact (see Pliny the Younger, Epistles X.96)

I’d like to correct the claim that I said Yahweh applying the title “Savior” to Himself meant that no one other than God could be called “Savior.” The claim was that only Yahweh is able to save, He alone is the Savior. He did after all say that there is NO SAVIOR BESIDE HIM. Of course we are referring to the salvation of our souls and the conferment of eternal life. Something the men in Judges could not do.

Jesus never corrected the men in John 5 in fact to say that He could do nothing of Himself only showed the essential unity of the Father and the Son. Jesus’ statement that the Father is greater was a reference to function, not ontology. Regardless of what my opponent would have you believe, functional subordination is conducive to Trinitarianism. And Jesus’ being a servant in no way detracts from His being God. Philippians 2:5-8 so eloquently explains the humiliation of the Son (cf. Heb. 2:7, 9).

The Granville Sharp rule is anything but ambiguous. It’s an irrefutable rule of grammar with absolutely no exception. And if my only proof of Jesus’ deity was based upon this rule then maybe I’d have reason to worry, but it has been clearly shown that the title “God” in one of a multitude of proofs.

Searchingone1033 is guilty of equivocation concerning the word “one” in John 10:30 and John 17:20-23. Clearly the contexts are completely different and the word “one” is used differently. But let’s imagine that Jesus did mean a unity of purpose and will in John 10… How would that hurt the Trinitarian position?

I’d note that HO ŌN is the present participle of EGŌ EIMI thus Jesus’ saying “I AM” is in keeping with the text. But that ignores the Isaiah parallels.

Concerning the Glory issue I’ll offer A.T. Robertson’s note:

“And the glory (kagō tēn doxan). Literally, “And I the glory,” with emphasis on “I.” It is the glory of the Incarnate Word (Bernard), cf. Joh. 1:14; Joh. 2:11, not the glory of the Eternal Word mentioned in Joh. 17:24.”[2]

Searchingone1033 actually helped the Trinitarian position by mentioning the Angel of Yahweh. Clearly when read in context there is no mistaking that the Angel of Yahweh is indeed Yahweh Himself. Many have concluded this to be the pre-incarnate Christ and with good reason. I can’t possibly cover all the passages so I’ll point readers to some references: Genesis 16:7-13; 21:12-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exodus 3:1-22; 13:21-22 cf. 14:19-20; Numbers 22:34-35 cf. 22:38 & 23:12; Judges 2:1-4; 6:12-23; 13:3-23.

If Searchingone1033 wants to argue that Jesus wasn’t worshipped then on what grounds would he conclude that God the Father was? There are simply too many examples of Jesus being worshipped to write them off as people merely “bowing down” to Him. I’d also note that the “Lord” in Matthew 18:26 was clearly referring to the Father (vs. 35). Revelation 3:9 is the exception, not the rule.

Answers to Questions

1. Irrelevant (Creeds ain’t the issue)

2. John 17:3 places Jesus on the same level of “essentiality” as the Father.

3. Single passages do—Matthew 28:19.

4. It was taught by the apostles as seen in their benedictions and doxologies (1Corinthians 13:14; 2Thessalonians 3:5; 1Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21).

5. The necessity of the Trinity for salvation is the logical conclusion drawn from identifying God as Triune.

6. John refuted a Gnostic heresy (Docetism) that denied Jesus came in the flesh—they had no problem with His Deity.

7. The apostles did teach that Jesus was God (Acts 20:28) and they baptized in Jesus’ name [authority] (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 10:48, 19:5) using the Trinitarian formula He prescribed (Matthew 28:19).

8. The apostles say no such thing, but Jesus would have needed to be a man to atone for sin since blood was necessary (Leviticus 17:11).

9. I’ll answer the question with a question – What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for “he” cannot refer to One Being?

10. Jesus is greater (Colossians 1:15-18).

11. Bodies are the only thing that die, but the debate isn’t ‘soul sleep’ it is the Trinity.

12. God incarnate can and did.

13. Yes, God can be seen by men (Genesis 32: 30; Exodus 24:11; Judges 13:22)—No, the Father cannot be seen by men (John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12, 20.)

14. Irrelevant (Perhaps there was no argument against it)

15. Irrelevant (Who says the people needed convincing?)

16. I used 2 verses (Titus 2:13 & 2Peter 1:1) that are irrefutable grammatically via the Granville Sharp rule. I can list plenty stating that Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; 1Timothy 3:16 (TR); Hebrews 1:8; 1John 5:20)

Notes

[1] Letham, Robert, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004) p. 2.

[2] Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 17:22 (E-Sword Bible Software).

Searchingone1033 -- Point 3: Counter Rebuttal

POINT 3: The Person of the Son

Predictably, my opponent had no answer for the wealth of information I provided on what the apostles actually taught as essential doctrine. He claims to affirm Jesus is a man, but he actually affirms that Jesus is a 'God-man'. The real issue is that the apostles only taught that Jesus was a man, never that he was a 'God-man'.

My opponent believes that he does not have to prove the apostles 'explicitly taught the Trinity as defined by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan & Athanasian creeds', yet that is the exact definition he has undertaken to defend.

He falsely claims that his only task 'is proving the Trinity is indeed Biblical', but he has failed to define exactly what he means by 'Biblical', and this is not what the Creeds he profess actually say. It appears that my opponent believes that any doctrine is 'Biblical' if it is derived from a number of verses which someone has put together. This would make the doctrines of purgatory and praying to saints 'Biblical'.

My opponent's real task is not to prove that the doctrine is 'Biblical' in this loose and vague sense, but that it is essential to salvation, since this is what the creeds he professes explicitly state.

He has been unable to provide any evidence at all that it is impossible to preach 'the only Jesus that can save' without 'a belief in the Trinity'. As I have shown, the apostles preached repeatedly about the man whom God appointed (Jesus Christ), but never preached the Trinity, and baptized thousands of people who had no knowledge of this belief. This contradicts my opponent’s claims directly, which is why he failed to address it.

My opponent imagines I have never said Christ is our saviour, when in fact I have. The point I have made is that he does not save us of himself, but as the agent of God

The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves (Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5-6, Galatians 3:15, Hebrews 13:20-21), including by justification (Romans 3:24-26; 5:1-2), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), and glorification (2 Thessalonians 2:12).

It was claimed that God's application of the word 'saviour' to Himself means that none but God can be called 'saviour', but we find men used as God's agents to save are called 'saviour' (Judges 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15 'The Lord raised up a saviour', 31; 10:1; 13:5), just as Christ is.

My opponent's main arguments consisted of the following:

* In John 5:18 the Jews believed Christ was saying he was equal with God: Christ corrected them by saying ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’, and ‘I can do nothing of myself’ (John 5:18, 30). See also John 14:28 ('My Father is greater than I'), and the fact that the apostles taught that he is the servant of God (Acts 3:13, 26 ‘his servant Jesus’, ‘God raised up his servant’, Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your holy servant Jesus’).

* The use of 'THEOS' in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1: Aside from noting the fact that the grammar in both places is ambiguous (readers, check standard Trinitarian Bible translations and commentaries), I shall simply quote my opponent back to himself:

‘it is not enough that the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. The title in and of itself does not necessitate that each person being called God is the one true God, nor does it irrefutably prove the Trinity.

Christ said the same (John 10:33-36).

* 'I and my father are one': Christ proves this is no claim to deity, saying in John 17:20-23 that he is praying that his disciples 'may be one just as we are one'.

* Christ can forgive sins: That Christ gave authority to the apostles to forgive sins proves that you don't have to be God to forgive sins (my opponent claims that only God could give authority to men to forgive sins, but provided no evidence for this, nor did he prove that a man with such authority from God could not give it to others).

* 'I am': The loudest appeal was made to the Greek text of Exodus 3:14, which as my opponent helpfully told us does not say 'EGW EIMI' (Christ's words), but 'EGW EIMI HO WN' (which Christ did not say); numerous Bible translations and commentaries (all Trinitarian), qualify Christ's 'I am' statements with the relevant words implied in the Greek in each place, recognising that there is no use of a 'Divine title' here.

* The trial: Christ was asked if he was the son of God, and answered 'I am', proving that his only claim was to be the son of God, not to be God; that the high priest saw this as blasphemy is irrelevant, since it is not described as blasphemy under the Law - but if Christ had actually claimed to be God explicitly, so many times in his ministry, why was this accusation never raised at his trial by any of the witnesses?

* The glory: It was alleged that Christ must be God since God said that He would not share His glory with another, but Christ shares that same glory with his disciples in John 17:22 ('The glory you gave to me I have given to them')

* God's titles applied to Jesus: This only proves that Christ is God's representative (in Exodus 23:20-21 an angel is given the name of Yahweh when he acts as God's agent, and in Acts 7:30 Stephen says that when 'Yahweh' spoke to Moses in the burning bush, it was really an angel); the claim was made that Romans 10:13 applies Joel's words to Jesus, but Jesus isn't even referred to in Romans 10:13

* Jesus receives worship: the Greek word translated worship simply means to bow down, and does not necessarily refer to worship of someone as God; it is used when a man in Christ's parable bows to another man (Matthew 18:26), and used when Christ says he will make the enemies of his servants bow at their feet (Revelation 3:9)

I agree with my opponent that Christ never sinned (I have never said otherwise), but this doesn't change the fact that the apostles predicate Christ's work of salvation on his being a man identical to those he came to save, who really died, and needed salvation from death (Hebrews 5: 'Christ offered both requests and supplications... to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion').

It should be noted that Christ also had to be justified (1 Timothy 3:16), sanctified (John 10:36), and glorified (John 7:39; 12:16, Acts 3:13), meaning he had to be saved through the same process as those he came to save.

Questions I want answered:

* If such statements as these Creeds are binding on all Christians, then why not other doctrinal statements made by other church councils, which contain equally 'Biblical' statements?

* Why does the Bible say it is essential to know the Father is the only true God, not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

* Why does no single passage in the Bible describe God as three persons?

* Why would a doctrine which is allegedly essential for salvation not be taught by the apostles or declared explicitly in Scripture?

* Where does the Bible say that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation?

* Why does the Bible say it is essential to believe that Jesus is a man, not that Jesus is God?

* Why did the apostles baptize thousands of people without teaching them the Trinity, or even that Jesus is God?

* Why do the apostles repeatedly say that the saving work of the atonement was based on Jesus being a man, not on Jesus being God, or a 'God-man'?

* What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for 'he' can refer to more than one person?

* In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28, Christ says that of those who have been born of a woman, there was none greater than John the Baptist - Scripture says that Christ was born of a woman (Matthew 1:26, Galatians 4:4), so who is greater, John the Baptist or Christ?

* Did Jesus die, or did only Jesus' body die?

* Can God die?

* God cannot be seen by men (1 Timothy 6:16), so when men saw Jesus, who did they see?

* Why did the apostles use none of the arguments for the Trinity, nor any of the quotes, which my opponent does?

* What arguments and quotes did the apostles use to convince people of the Trinity?

* Why could my opponent only find two verses in the entire Bible which apparently call Jesus 'THEOS'?

Contrary to my opponent’s claims, of all the posts and links I have provided the moderators reviewing my posts as I made them objected to only one, which I edited immediately. Even if I had breached the rules ‘repeatedly’, it would not justify him doing the same.

Prophetnick77 -- Point 3: First Rebuttal

Point 3: The Person of the Son

We now move into the point of debate that I have anticipated more than any. Immediately I’d like to point out that my opponent has once again violated the rules of the debate with his link usage. His argument was continued in the links. But I will not fault him for this nor ask that it be changed in any way. As I see it the arguments are less than compelling on all counts. For the sake of space I will not be presenting a point by point refutation to the comments of Searchingone1033 because there wasn’t much substance to the points raised. Instead I will present an affirmative position on the Person of the Son and His Deity.

One quick note is that the Biblical writers did explicitly teach that Jesus was the Savior, to this there is no doubt (Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12, 5:31; Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2Peter 1:11; 1John 4:14; etc.). To say He is an “agent of salvation” seems nothing more than an admission that He is the Savior while trying to avoid actually saying it. Once again we must remember that Yahweh said in Isaiah 43:11; “I myself am Yahweh and besides me there is no savior” (WEB).

I must at this point mention the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. This rule states that when there are 2 nouns that are both singular which describe a person, and these nouns are connected by the word “and,” the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article then they refer to the SAME PERSON. (*Note that the nouns cannot be personal names*) There is absolutely no exception to this rule in all of the Greek New Testament. Having stated this rule I find it necessary to present two verses of scripture that unequivocally qualify Jesus as both God and Savior.

Titus 2:13 - while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

2Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

Notice in both verses the noun “God” (theou) has the article (tou) and is connected to the second noun “Savior” (sōtēros) which does not have an article, by the word “and” (kai). Thus “God and Savior” both refer to the Person of Jesus. Grammatically this is irrefutable. So not only is Jesus Savior, He is God! Funnily enough these two verses were called “ambiguous” in one of my opponent’s links, but such is not the case.

Searchingone1033 seems to think that I must show that the apostle’s explicitly taught the Trinity as defined by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan & Athanasian creeds for it to be an essential Christian doctrine but truthfully I don’t. My only task is proving that the Trinity is indeed Biblical which I have already done (see my first post of point 1). It then follows that if Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus is essential for salvation, then the doctrine of the Trinity is essential as well. In other words, it would have been impossible to preach about the only Jesus that can save, without a belief in the Trinity.

Already discussed in previous posts were the eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of the Son. Attempts at refutation have been made via arguments against these divine attributes by focusing on the Human Nature of the Son in his incarnation, and consequently, irrelevant conclusions have been drawn. This was seen from Searchingone1033’s summary of the book of Acts which wasn’t all that substantial. Concerning the belief that Jesus is a man, I affirm this. Jesus is a man. He is not a mere man, but He is a man nonetheless.

We must make the distinction between the Son who has been the Son from all eternity, and Jesus who is the Son incarnated. They are not two distinct persons or beings, but Jesus is the Son clothed in humanity. Jesus is the One Person with Two Natures. There was a time when the Son had but one nature of deity. When the nature of humanity was added, then the Son was incarnated as Jesus, the Word was made flesh (John 1:14).

Now to supplement the above information with additional proofs of Christ’s Deity:

· Jesus claimed he was God!

In John 5:18 the Jews understood precisely Jesus’ words when He said that God was His Father. They said that in claiming this he made himself “equal with God.”

In John 10:30 Jesus made the statement saying, “I and my Father are one” which the Jews understood as a claim of deity since they picked up stones to stone Him because He being a man “made himself God” (vs. 33).

Concerning the forgiving of sins, it was the scribes who saw Jesus as blaspheming by forgiving sins because only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7). His giving this authority to the apostles doesn’t negate his being God—in fact it stands to reason that only God could give such authority.

When Jesus stood trial and was adjured under oath to answer whether or not he was the Son of God his reply was, “I am” then He proceeded to tell high priest that he would see Him (the Son of Man) coming in the clouds of heaven sitting at the right hand of power. This was perceived as blasphemy by the high priest and he rent his priestly garment and condemned Jesus to death (Mark 14:60-64). No doubt the high priest saw this as a claim of deity.

Then of course there is Jesus’ famous claim in John 8:58 when he said “Before Abraham was I am.” Once again we see the Jews picking up stones to kill him. Immediately our attention shifts to Exodus 3:14 where Yahweh told Moses to tell the people “I am that I am” had sent him. The Hebrew phrase is “eheyeh asher eheyeh” and was translated in the Septuagint as “egō eimi ho ōn”— Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 was, “prin Abraam genethai egō eimi.”

· I AM Passages

John 8:58 is one of many I AM statements that Jesus made which can be compared to I AM statements which Yahweh made in the Old Testament, specifically the book of Isaiah. Aside from the above mentioned verse, the Septuagint renders another Hebrew phrase “ani hu” as “egō eimi.”

In John 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, “I that speak unto thee am he” (egō eimi, ho lalōn soi) while a parallel can be found from Yahweh’s statement in Isaiah 52:6 when He said, “I am he that does speak, behold it is I” (egō eimi autos ho lalōn pareimi).

Jesus’ words in John 13:19 where He says, “that you may believe that I am” (hina pisteusēte hotan genētai hoti egō eimi) are reminiscent of Yahweh’s words in Isaiah 43:10 where He said, “that you may know and believe and understand that I am” (hina gnōte kai pisteusēte kai sunēte hoti egō eimi).

Directly connected to the above Isaiah passage and perhaps the most telling I am statement is John 8:24 where Jesus said to the Jews, “If you believe not that I am you will die in your sins” (hoti egō eimi, apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humōn). This fits perfectly with Yahweh’s statements concerning believing and understanding that he is the “I AM” and beside him there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10-11).

Due to the limited space I will not be able to give a full account of all the parallels and usages of “egō eimi” in the LXX and NT, but I will give a reference of all significant passages (*some simply draw parallels without the use of egō eimi*). Besides the abovementioned there is also: Isaiah 41:4; 43:1-3, 5, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 51:12 & John 6:20; 8:28; 18:5-6, 8.

· OT Passages about Yahweh Applied to Jesus

The apostle John quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 which was about Yahweh and applied the passage directly to Jesus in John 12:38-41. After quoting Isaiah John offers us his God-Breathed interpretation of the passage and says, “These things said Isaiah when he saw HIS glory and spoke of HIM.” The context of the chapter shows the HIM to be none other than Jesus! Thus John tells us in the simplest of terms that Jesus is Yahweh!

Likewise, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all apply Isaiah 40:3 where it is said to "prepare the way for Yahweh" and "make straight a highway for God", to the ministry of John the Baptist who came before Jesus to prepare the way for Jesus (Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27).

And what I feel is probably the most compelling passage is Romans 10:13 which applies Joel’s words that “whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved,” directly to Jesus.

· Titles of Yahweh Applied to Jesus

There are also the titles of Yahweh in the OT that are applied to Jesus in the New Testament that must be considered. Those titles are: “Lord of Lords” and “First and Last.” In Deuteronomy 10:17 & Psalm 136:3 Yahweh is called the “Lord of lords”—likewise in 1Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, & 19:16 Jesus is called the “Lord of lords.” Also, in Isaiah 44:6 & 48:12 Yahweh is called “the First and the Last—Jesus as well is called “the First and the Last” in Revelation 1:11, 17; 2:8; 22:13.

· Jesus receives Worship

The Bible shows us Jesus being worshipped again and again without correction or apology. From childhood (Matthew 2:2, 11) to adulthood, Jesus is worshipped. He received worship from a leper in Matthew 8:2 and from Jairus in Matthew 9:18. He was worshipped by the disciples in Matthew 14:33; 28:17; Luke 24:52, the mother of Zebedee’s children in Matthew 20:20, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew 28:9. Jesus was worshipped by the man possessed with the legion of demons in Mark 5:6 as well as the man who was born blind in John 9:38. We even see the angels worshipping Jesus in Hebrews 1:6.

Now contrast this with Peter being worshipped in Acts 10:25-26 where he immediately corrects the man by saying, “Stand up, I myself am also a man,” or Paul and Barnabas renting their garments and not allowing the Greek to sacrifice to them in Acts 14:11-15 claiming that they were “men of like passions.” The apostle John fell down to worship an angel/messenger in Revelation 19:10 and this angel said to him, “see thou do it not!” It is clear then that Jesus must be God in order to receive the same worship afforded to God alone. And to solidify this fact we see the Lamb and God receiving the exact same worship in Revelation 5:13-14. We know that Jesus is the Lamb (John 1:29) so if he were not God then God would have shared worship with a lowly creature.

· Jesus Shares Glory with the Father

Yahweh said in Isaiah 42:8 that he would not give His glory to another or his praise to graven images. Again in Isaiah 48:11 he explicitly states that He will not give His glory to another. We have already seen that Jesus is worshipped and to add to this Jesus Himself said in his famous prayer to the Father in John 17:5, “Father, glorify me with the GLORY I HAD WITH YOU before the world existed.”

This verse speaks volumes… For one it tells us that Jesus possessed the SAME GLORY as the Father. Secondly, it tells us that the Son existed before the world existed. Thirdly, it tells us via the imperfect tense of Jesus’ possession of this glory, that He had it as far back as can possibly be conceived. In other words, the action of Jesus’ “having” this glory was a continuous action in the past, thus there was never a time when he came into possession of this glory. It was ALWAYS HIS!!!

Space won’t allow any more than I have already presented, but I have barely scratched the surface in regard to what Scripture says concerning the Person of Jesus or his Hypostatic Union.

******************Jesus did not need to be saved!******************

Searchingone1033 claimed that Jesus needed to be saved like any other man. Well the scriptures testify unanimously that Jesus came to save people from their sin (Matthew 1:21). Jesus had no sin to be saved from as 2Corinthians 5:21 (who knew no sin); Hebrews 4:15 (without sin); and 1Peter 2:22 (who did no sin) so plainly tell us. Hebrews 9:14 tells us that Jesus offered himself without spot to God.

[*Note: I purposely exceeded the 1500 word limit so as to keep things somewhat fair. Searchingone1033 has violated the parameters of the debate format many times up to this point and I have allowed this without asking that he be disqualified. For this reason I feel that I am entitled to a few extra words in my presentation of the Son.*]