The BIBLE Does not support the "TRINITY THEORY"

Hello Timeworn: Welcome back. The way a debate works is that there is a two-way discussion on a subject. Each party to the debate is supposed to address the arguments of the other, or make a rebuttal, as they pertain to the topic. From this standpoint, there are a number of serious problems with your presentation, which make it very difficult for us to actually have a debate. So for this round (Round 4), I wish to respond in point form: 1 Most of what you have written has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not the Bible supports the doctrine of the trinity. 2 You have failed to make a rebuttal of any of the evidence that I have given, preferring to go off topic to discussions of many other passages of scripture and unrelated topics. 3 Having spent time teaching English, I am very aware when someone is not writing in their own words, and there are times in your most recent submission for round 4 when you have clearly been copying something written by someone else. The first paragraph, the 5-line fifth paragraph, and the last three sentences would appear to be written by you. But almost everything else is either a quotation of scripture or seems to have been written by someone else. The writing style is totally different, such as your use of the word "transliteration". And unfortunately, even these things, likewise neither attempt to address the topic nor respond to or refute any of my arguments. So there is actually no debate happening here. You simply are expounding on a lot of different topics. 4 I am surprised that you chose to forfeit round 4 simply because you were travelling, because internet is so widely available. But if you needed to delay because you were seeking help from someone else to supply you with content, I understand why this may have been necessary. Your assistant, however, should at least have supplied content that connects with your chosen topic. 5 You have mentioned in paragraph 2 what I have already mentioned at the beginning of round one, namely, that the word trinity does not occur in the Bible. This, however, as I already pointed out, is not an argument in favour of your position because the concept of the trinity exists throughout the Bible in spite of the fact that the word itself is not mentioned. And repeating what I've already said as if it is your argument is hardly convincing. 6 You have taken 1st Corinthians chapter 8 verse 6 out of its context by stating only the opening of the verse. And I'm sure you realize that "any text without its context is a pretext". In this case, you cut off the verse after the first phrase. The verse in its entirety actually says: "Yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" The wording of this verse is quite striking because the description of God and the description of Jesus which immediately follows are virtually identical in both word and meaning. This is a powerfully striking unity which is in keeping with the concept of the trinity. The only difference, really, is the use of the prepositions "from" and "for" in the first case, and "through" in the latter case. These clearly relate to the role that each has. Jesus took on flesh to become the servant, to make the sacrifice for our sins. Jesus is described as the heir and the creator. Jesus is the one through or "by whom also he made the worlds" (Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2). Yet Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 says that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth. While the Holy Spirit is not the topic of writing in these passages, there is a striking unity in these passages when it comes to mention of God (the Father), and God (the Son) which is unmistakable. And if Hebrews records that Jesus is the one by whom the heavens and the earth were created, and Genesis 1 verse 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, once again there is a seeming unity between God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son). Yet in some mysterious way, God is expressed in two persons, even though there is only one God. I'm not saying that this concept is easy to understand, but if we must understand everything completely before we can believe it, that is certainly a very arrogant position to take, not to mention even unscientific. 7 As I mentioned in Round 1, the word for God used in Genesis 1: 1 (Elohim) is neither singular nor dual, but plural. You have given only the vaguest of explanations as to why this mysterious plurality described here exists in the one God. 8 I have quoted passages such as Isaiah, where Jesus is described as "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". You have chosen to ignore these altogether. 9 You have mentioned the following however: the death of the soul, teaching on hellfire, the relationship between men and animals, the release of man's spirit when he dies, man's state of consciousness after death, and Jesus' comments on the death of Lazarus. None of these have anything at all to do with the subject of the existence of God in three persons, which most of us refer to as the doctrine of the trinity. And, even more perplexing, is that at the end of this you state that this is proof that man doesn't have an eternal soul. Not only is there no apparent connection between your conclusion and the previous passages, but all of these points are also entirely off topic. 10 Even though it is entirely off topic, for the sake of having some small semblance of a debate here, I will respond to one of you comments. You said, basically, (and I paraphrase) that a loving God would not send someone to eternal damnation (torture in hellfire). And to support your point that God is loving, you quoted the famous verses in the Epistle of John which talks about one of the attributes of God's character - which is love (1 John 4: 8). You are absolutely right that one of God's attributes is love. It was love that led Jesus to take on human form in order to die for our sins. But as I'm sure you know, another of the attributes of God is that He is a righteous God. And God cannot condone sin. Romans chapter 6, verse 23 says that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Wages are earnings. A gift is an expression of love. These two attributes of God's righteousness and love appear together in this single verse. The death referred to here is not the death of the believer, but the death of the unbeliever, who chooses to remain in the condemned state that the Bible says afflicts all people..."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3: 23). It is our sinful condition that condemns all of us. And if we do not accept God's plan for salvation and die in our sins, then the penalty is total separation from God (spiritual death). So, it is not God who condemns us. We condemn ourselves if we do not believe God's Word and accept the gift of salvation through trust in Jesus who died to redeem us from our sins. The Bible says that those who accept Jesus as their Saviour pass from death unto life. We are dead in the first place. Only through salvation, can we be made alive. And so we see that the fact that the unbeliever is "condemned already" does not in any way violate God's character. He is at the same time a righteous God who must cast away all sin, and a God of love who does not wish for anyone to perish. (See the following link: http://www.brandonweb.com...) It would be encouraging for me to know that you actually have listened and thought about what I have written, and that this will be reflected in your next response. I have responded to what you have written. You should likewise do the same. This way we can actually connect and have a meaningful exchange of thoughts and opinions. Regards. Maestrostar