The Bible Teaches the Trinity, namely, God is three Persons

Prayers to Jesus Con doesn"t provide a single Bible verse to support his idea that prayer is given to the saints. Nowhere does the Bible say this. In fact, Jesus said we can"t come to God through anyone but him, because he is the ONLY mediator between God and men. (John 14:6; 1 Tim 2:5) So this fails as a rebuttal against the evidence I presented from 1 John 5, Acts 7 and John 14 that prayer is given to Jesus. What Catholic tradition teaches today about praying to saints has no bearing at all on whether the Bible teaches the Trinity. God AND Jesus "The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English: 1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word. Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said, Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers. There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed." https://www.google.com... Now if Con can give us actual examples which parallel Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where the two terms don"t apply to the same subject, he would have a case. Until he does so he is simply ignoring proper grammar. The Trinity violates logic Con simply assumes the Bible has to be rational and logical to him. I would challenge him to show me the verse where it says this. This debate is not about if the Trinity is logical, but about if the Bible teaches it. So if it were found that the Bible teaches an illogical doctrine, this still doesn"t win him the debate. Furthermore, he claims he is using formal logic, and my question to him would still be the same " whose formal logic? Aristotle? Because it seems to me that people today debate and disagree contentiously over issues while BOTH using formal logic. Yet they don"t accept that the premises naturally lead to the conclusions given on either side. Con said: Premise 1: The Father = God [1]. Premise 2: The Son = God [1]. Conclusion: The Father = The Son This is the same as saying: Premise 1: Daley = human Premise 2: Daley"s opponent = human Conclusion: Daley = Daley"s opponent The premises don"t lead to the conclusion because they ignore background information, namely, "human" is describing the nature of the individual and not their identity as a person. So since there can be more than one person with human nature, it need not be that Daley be his opponent. Similarly, given that more than one person is by nature God, or Divine, we need not conclude they are the same person so that the Father = the Son. Con simply assumes beforehand that a single being cannot have three minds, or centres of consciousness interacting with each other, and thus his whole argument is based on a lack of imagination. By even if this were impossible, why can"t the Bible teach it? Many holy books teach many strange things, they need not even be true. This debate is about what the Bible teaches, not what seems logical to man. I also showed that what we call impossible today is simply based on limited knowledge. Quantum Physics has made many things we thought impossible before into reality today. How much more so can a God who is infinite in power and wisdom do things beyond the limits of our logic. Philippians 2:4-6 Again, Con provides no Scripture to show us that angels are divine. He simply gives his own definition of what divine means, but the Bible only applies this term to God, and God alone. Philippians 2:4-6 says that Jesus was in the morphe of God. Man was never in the Bible said to be in the morphe of God. He was made in God"s image and likeness, but never in his form. I suggest Con read what Greek Scholars say on what morphe means. Man does not have the innate characteristics, the nature, of God. But this is what morphe refers to according to W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words. Illustration, if I am equal to God, but I don"t think about holding onto that equality. Instead, I become a man, I humble myself, and become a servant, now that is an example of humility to imitate. But if I begin as an inferior being, my not trying to get equal to God doesn"t show humility at all! Humility is about lowering yourself less than you really are. Further, the text actually says Jesus BECAME a servant, which means he was not a servant before, but an equal. No Man Has Seen God I gave multiple instances where the Bible says that God, not angels, but God, was seen in the flesh, therefore, men seeing Jesus would not prove that he is not God because God has been seen already. Again, it just shows the Bible disagrees with his ideas about formal logic, for in his logic, God can"t be both seen, and not seen, at the same time, and yet this is exactly what the Bible says about God in Exodus 33:18-33 where Moses saw God"s back and John 1:18 where no man has seen God. God was also seen In Exodus 24:9-11; Genesis 18:1-5, 20-33; 32:30. My God Con says that "God" is not the name of God. To that, the Bible says: "his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." (Isa 9:6, KJV) The Bible says "God" is a name, that settles it for me. In fact, Lord is also the NT translation of Yahweh in the OT when quotations are being made, as evidence in all the manuscripts of the NT we have today. The name Yahweh doesn"t appear in any of them, only as Kurious, Lord. So both Lord and God are names of the Most High. Matthew 28:17 actually says "And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted." They wouldn"t worship him if he wasn"t God. Previously, Con argued that when Thomas said "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28, if he thought Jesus was God he would have worshipped him on that occasion. Well they worship him here, does Con accept this proof? He sees no giving of any authority here because that comes in verse 18, "ALL authority has been given me in heaven and on earth." I"ve already established from Hebrews 1:6 that since ALL the angels worship Jesus, he can"t be an angel. So he can"t be Michael the archangel. So what if he has an archangel"s voice? That voice also sounds like a trumper (Rev 1:10), does it make him a trumpet? This trumpet-like voice is also internal. Omniscient Con said, humans don't perform miracles only supernatural beings can. Well, Jesus performed miracles, like raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11, turning water into wine in John 2:1-11, and raising himself from the dead. (John 2:19-22) So Jesus was more than a man by Con"s own argument, he was divine. John 16:30 distinguishes between Jesus and God the Father, that doesn"t show he doesn"t share his Father"s nature, for example omniscience. This same verses says Jesus KNOWS ALL THINGS. Con ignored this part. Thus, its saying Jesus is by nature, God, and since there is only one being who is God, that being must be more than one person. Uncreated Con admits "It is true that nothing anyone can see was made without Jesus." But the Bible includes even the things "invisible" (Col 1:16). John 1:3 says "ALL THINGS," not just the visible things. My apologies if I said Isaiah 44:26, I mean Isaiah 44:24: "Thus saith the Lord, they redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretched forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF." Yes, God had no help, so when the Bible says God created everything THROUGH his Son Jesus, it"s either saying Jesus is included as part of that God who did it alone, or else we have a contradiction. (Heb 1:1-2) John 3:16, begotton in this verse comes from the Greek word monogenes, from mono " only, and genes. The latter part, genes, does not from from gennao (to beget), but from genos (kind); thus, the word means "only one of a kind," and that"s why the NIV translates it as "only Son" instead of "only begotten Son." This is confirmed by Liddel & Scott"s Greek-English Lexicon, W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and NT Words, and A.T. Robertson"s Word Pictures in the NT. Who is the Savior? Jesus is the rightful king of Israel. Psalm 45:6 was about him. Quesitons: 1, Which Bible verse says that God cannot violate formal logic? 2, Can God appear in the form of 3 men having a conversation? 3, If not, what prevents God from being able to do so? 4, If yes, how is that different from the Trinity? I look forward to Con's answers to these questions.