Oneness Doctrine ver Trinity Doctrine

Rebuttals:Pro writes "There is no way you could have checked the term " Intransative verb, " and came up with it refering to the objective, but I leave you to that. "You were claiming that the usage of the phrase was figurative, while I claimed it was literal. Does it make much sense to say "we will come" to figuratively mean "I will come"? I leave that to the voters. Pro writes "In your belief, this is seen as three persons, but tell me, if God is omnipresent, where is he going to be sent from since he fills all space and time? One could only be sent to a place where he's not? "Bare assertion. If all things are possible for God (Matthew 19:26) he can be not omnipresent. Pro also seems to be claiming that the scripture is in error. Pro writes "And again, you fail to give me the proper names of the other two gods since one name has been reveal, and that name is Jesus! "I gave you the names, but you ignored me. Pro writes "Here you see as well, Jesus mentioned of the Holy Ghost coming in his name. Now tell me from your triniterian point of view, did the Holy Ghost borrowed the name from the Son in order for him to come? Why don't you open your brain and stop looking at all scripture from a literal perspective! "I'm not looking at all scriptures from a literal perspective, I'm just showing that it is unlikely that if you say you will send someone in your name after you leave that you mean yourself. Pro writes "ARE THEY TWO FATHERS WITHIN THE GODHEAD THEN AS YOU BELIEVE? "No. Jesus never called himself the Everlasting Father. Pro writes "Jesus said, " I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Note what it says in the second clause, " if another shall come in his own name, and not their father's name. What Jesus is simply stating here in indirect speech is, he is the Father, the God of the Old Testament. "That indirect speech is so indirect I can't even see how you drew that conclusion. In fact, it sounds more like Jesus is stating that he is not the Father, because he draws a distinction between someone who comes in his own name and he who comes in his Father's name. He would be coming in his own name if he was the Father now, wouldn't he be? Pro writes "I'm going to make one last statement before I finish here. In the book of Matthew 11:27 it reads, " All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Now looking at this scripture from your triniterian point of view, the Holy Ghost don't know neither of the other two since only the Father know the Son, and the Son know the Father. "And you accuse me of having an overly literal interpretation. .. Dropped Arguments:All my arguments from the Early Church Fathers were dropped, even though I specifically called attention to them to insure that my opponent would have all opportunity to address them. However, my opponent's only response was "Your qoutes from all your triniterian fathers, and Greek or Latin mythological sayings didn't move me one bit. ", which isn't much of a rebuttal. Conclusion:What it pretty much comes down to is whether or not there are distinctions drawn between three persons, the Oneness doctrine is not able to adequately explain that. I believe I have shown why the Trinity doctrine ought to be preferred when viewing the distinct separation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Also, I had sources ;)