The Judeo/Christian God is Truine

Ok, throughout my opponents rebuttals.. He has kept to 2 basic contentions:1). The Trinity is illogical 2). Disproving the credibility of the Christian interpretations imposed on the OT verses. I want to begin by showing how his assertians do not hold:1). The Trinity is Illogical"the notion that the creator who according to the bible said let us create man in our likeness/image would also be deduction be unitary"Let me ask my opponent a question based on his statement: are humans omnicient? omnipotent? Soveriegn? It becomes clear that humans do not share all the attributes that God possesses.. Although we are made in the image of God... It does not follow that we would share every charactaristic.. Including his Triune nature.. I also want to point to the biblical depiction of marraige in Genesis 2:24: a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.So we see that God designed marragie in the respect that 2 peaople will become 1... Does this not parallel Gods own nature? interesting... It was a nice try by my opponent but does not stand biblically. "It is a logical impossibility for three distinct parts to be one , why, because when Jesus is on earth then God is incomplete"Umm.. No, the bible clearly depicts God as omnipresent.. What does that mean? "(of God) present everywhere at the same time." so tell me.. How is God "incomplete" when Jesus is on earth if God is everywhere? Yet another unsupported statement"Jesus prayed to God and as such the existence of a hierarchy shows the presence of different wills ,abilities and power and by that analogy the trinity can not be logical."We see in the NT that the triune nature of God form an economic subordination rather than an ontilogical one... Rather, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are all God and equal in nature/power.. but they limit themselves to their specific role in the Godhead.. Unlike my opponent.. I will back up my statement here.. The Father sent the Son.The Son did not send the Father (John 6:44, 8:18, 10:36,1 John 4:14).Jesus came down from Heaven not to do his own will but to do the will of the Father. (John 6:38)The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not send the Father and the Son (John 14:26) Let me make it simple:God the Father plays the "father role"God the Son is obedient to the FatherGod the Holy Spirit is the helper These differing roles do not make them lesser are somehow contridict basic logic.. we see this parallel in Matt. 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."Agian, my opponent has not shown the logical fallaciy in the Triune depiction of God. "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God." This does not mean the word is a separate entity, and my opponent clearly edited the verses to add that part"This statement baffles me.. My opponent thinks i edited this verse because he knows how clear it is.. My friend, i ask you to google john 1:1 see what it says for yourself.. It shows the word as seperate from God when it states "the Word was with God" and it shows the word as God.. I didint add a single dot to this phrase.. He continues: it does not mean Jesus is the word. My opponent is simply making analogies from other verses in an attempt to impose his will on God"s nature. Lets continue reading John shall we? "14and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. and we have seen his glory. Glory as of the only Son from the Father."Guys.. My opponent is going to try and force his own interpreation on these verse's.. Read them yourselves. The Word is Jesus according to the continued verse i've just shown.. since we know its Jesus.. Lets add in his name in order to see this idea more clearly..."In the beginning was Jesus , and Jesus was with God , and the Jesus was God.".. How much more clear can you get? Lets move on.. isn"t it proof enough in itself that he can not point out ot and nt verses besides in John that categorically support the notion of God existing as father, son, holy spirit?Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19)In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Mark 1:9-11 While he (Jesus) was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. While he was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them,and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, This is my beloved Son; listen to him"Need I go on? "Jesus did not exist prior to that point. So we know Jesus started to exist at birth, how then was he God again?"It seems that my opponents view of God is quite small.. Is it impossible for God to become a man? He take the form of a burning bush in Exodus 3.. Besides we see in John that "the word became flesh".. God became human through Mary.. He always exited and was not created at that point. the Bible says that both Solomon (Proverbs 8:22) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) existed before their human births. So Jesus, Solomon and Jeremiah are also part of God?This is completly misguided.. Solomon is talking about Widoms existence and Jermiah is talking about the will of God before him ever being created.. I dont understand how you come to that conclusion from reading these passages. so far.. my opponents attempt to provide a logical fallacy for the Triune nature of God has not been successful.. My first contention still stands.. 2). OT Trinity verse's:*since my opponent was so willing to copy and paste Rabbi Singers statements at OutreachJudasim in regards to {Psalm 110).. I will post a response from Tony Garland: , Rabbi Singer is just plain wrong on several points. The Rabbi accuses the translators of the KJV of trying to make the two words for “Lord” in Psalm 110 look identical—as if some subterfuge was involved. In his explanation, he even incorrectly renders the first appearance of the word in mixed-case (“Lord") when, in fact, it is specifically uppercase ("LORD”). Who is really being transparent and careful here? In point of fact, the KJV and other word-for-word translations of the Old Testament are extremely careful and consistent with their representation of the underlying Hebrew. The covenant name of God, יְהוָה [Yahweh], is consistently rendered by uppercase “LORD.” Conversely, mixed-case “Lord,” represents the Hebrew word אָד@331;ן [F2;ādQ7;ôn]. This is neither accidental or deceptive, but careful and precise! A similar approach is taken by the NKJV, NASB, and other modern translations. For instance, the NASB contains an introductory section titled, “PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION” which states: “The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. . . . the four letters YHWH . . . has been translated LORD.” The translators make plain that they will be rendering YHWH by “LORD” (all uppercase) and Adonai by “Lord” (mixed-case). Is this deceptive? So much for the Rabbi’s claim that “the two English words . . . are carefully made to appear identical.” On the contrary: the translators have been very careful to consistently handle the various Hebrew words referring to God. The Rabbi says “the Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the bible.” Really? One wonders which Bible the Rabbi has in mind? A small sampling from the Hebrew Old Testament shows otherwise: “Lord of Lords (adoney ha adoniym)” (Deu. 10:17); “Behold the ark of the covenant of the Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Jos. 3:11); “The Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Jos. 3:13); “For this day is holy to our Lord (adonai)” (Ne. 8:10); “and do all the commandments of the Lord (adonai)” (Ne. 10:29); “Oh LORD (YHWH), our Lord (adonai), how excellent is thy name in all the earth” (Ps. 8:1); “The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD (YHWH), at the presence of the Lord (adonai) of all the earth” (Ps. 97.5); “Tremble thou earth at the presence of the Lord (adonai), at the presence of the God (elohay) of Jacob” (Ps. 114:7); “... our Lord (adonai) is above all Gods (elohim)” (Ps. 135.5). If the Rabbi can be so wrong about this basic fact, one wonders how we can trust what else he has to say? So we see that the word Adonai is used many times in regards to God (Yahweh) himself and Rabbis assertion is completly false. We also know that David was not talking about himself because it says: my lord.. According to Psalm 89:19.. David was the highest ruler on earth appointed by God! Who else would be (Adonai) other than God> The Jewish interpretation is completly baised. "And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?’ And the great throng heard him gladly." Mark 12:35-36 "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:33-36 Due to a lack of space.. I will respond further to the plurality of God objections that my opponent put forth.Back to Con http://www.spiritandtruth.org...