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

Violates Logic? I thank Con for his response though its a weak one. This debate isn't about if the trinity is logical, but about if the Bible teaches it. There are many things that are not logical to many people, and yet the Bible does teach them. For example, many scientists think the account of Noah's flood is illogical because the ark couldn't reasonably hold all the species of animals, and if the flood did occur, how did the penguins survive the tropics when the Ark rested on Mount Ararat to make the long journey to the polar caps? In fact, how did the polar caps survive? A global flood would rationally provide enough buoyancy to break up the ice beds and melt them. It wouldn't quickly regrow. And how did 8 people many that zoo? Some animals require special diets, and many would have to be hand fed. And why isn't there any of the signs scientist expect to find in the earth if such an event occurred? The list goes on and on. http://www.google.com... Yet, who would deny that Scripture does teach Noah's flood in Genesis 6-7? There are many things in the Bible that don't seem logical to people, such as Jesus walking on water, or wise men following a star, or a virgin getting pregnant, but that doesn't prove the Bible doesn't teach these things. In fact, the Bible teaches God is a being that can occupy two radically different positions at the same time, so that the mighty God could also be a son (Isa 9:6), and the God whom no one has seen (John 1:18) could also be seen by Abraham in Genesis 18:1-2, 22) So I don't need to prove the trinity is logical to win this debate, I only need to show that the Bible teaches it. Furthermore, his illustration doesn't show a clear understanding of the trinity. If I have three scoops of flour, scoop a = flour, scoop b = flour, but scoop a is not scoop b. If c is flour, then we do have a logical case where a= c, b=c, but a does not = b, and yet logic is not broken; so I don't think Con has even shown this teaching to be illogical. In fact, it is even more logical to expect that if God exists at all, he would be capable of doing things beyond our comprehension, even violating our limited, imperfect understanding of the laws of nature or physics. Just imagine taking an fighter jet, a shot gun and a cell phone, 4000 years ago to primitive people. They would call the plane the chariot of the gods, and make up some religious idea for the cell phone. They have no comprehension of how electricity work, what a batter is, circuitry or microchips. They wouldn't be able to comprehend our technology. Just imagine what a literally omnipotent, all-knowing being could do! Who would we be, with our tiny minds to say something isn't possible just because we don't understand how it works? The fact is, what seems logical to one person, often seems illogical to another. For example, Loose Change conspiracy theorists think its logical that 9/11 was an inside job, but Popular Mechanics does not. As for John 14:28, this doesn't disprove the trinity. A boss may be greater in position than his employee, but that doesn't make him a superior being. He is still equal in nature to his employee, both of them being human. Similarly, the Father was greater in position than the Son, being in heaven while the Son had given up his authority in heaven to come down here as a man. Philippians 2:6-8 says he existed "in God's form" before he took on the form of a servant, which means he was not a servant of God before. So the trinity teaches quality in nature among members of the Godhead, but different roles. No Man Has Seen God God is, by nature, a Spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit is by nature invisible. (1 Tim 1:17) So we cannot see God in his natural form, which is what John 1:18 means - no man has seen what God looks like as he truly is by nature. But this doesn't mean God cannot clothe himself in human flesh in order to become visible, just as oxygen which we cannot see, can become frozen into a form that we can see. The Bible does teach that God has been seen in human form even before he came as the man Jesus. "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:20) "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank." (Exod 24:9-11) "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!" (Jug 13:22) So the Bible does teach that God has been seen in human form, it is nothing different if God the Word, who according to John 1:1-3 created the world, becomes flesh in John 1:14 to be seen of men. My God Con claims that if Jesus was God he would not refer to someone else as "my God," forgetting that Jesus was also a man, and as man setting the example for us he would refer to his father as his God because Philippians 2:9 teaches that he took on the role of a servant, a role he did not have before his human birth. Amazingly, Con accepts the term "my God" as proof that the Father is God in John 20:17, but refuses to accept this same exact term proves Jesus is God when applied to Jesus in John20:28. The Greek text literallys ho kyrious mou kai ho theos mou, the Lord of me and the God of me; so not only was Thomas saying Jesus was his Lord, but also his God. The term "my God" always without exception means the true God in ever single other verse it is used in outside of John 20:28, very strong evidence Thomas meant to ascribe deity to Jesus. Con laments that the disciples didn't worship Jesus on this occasion and somehow this proves he isn't God. But Hebrews 1:6 says all the angels are commanded to worship Jesus, and it uses the Greek word proskuneo, the same word for the worship usually ascribed to the Father as in Matthew 4:10. Also, Jesus is worshiped by the disciples in Matthew 28:17 and many other places, so Con's point here is moot. And they did bow down on this occasion, the very thing Con requests they would have to do in John 20, so this should satisfy him that Jesus was God to them. "Now Jesus did many other SIGNS in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but THESE (these what? these SIGNS) are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (ESV John 20:30-31). It was, not Thomas' confession "my Lord and my God" that was written to convince us that Jesus is the Son of God, but the signs, the miracles he performed. So not every single thing written in the book of John was trying to prove that Jesus is the Son, he wrote to show other things too. Whats more, since a father's son would naturally have the same nature as his father, Jesus, by claiming to be the Father's Son by nature, made himself equal with God. This is why the Jews who listened to him wanted to kill him for blasphemy, because he was claiming to be God's Son in a special way that made him equal to God the Father. (John 5:18; 10:3--33) We are not sons of God in that sense, we are only God's sons by adoption according to the Bible. Omniscient The Bible teaches Jesus was a man, thus, he had to fully experience human nature which include limited knowledge (Mark 13:32), but it also teaches he is God, as I've clearly shown, so he also must have divine nature which include being omniscient. His disciples ascribed omniscience to him, when they said: "ow we can see that YOU KNOW ALL THINGS and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions." (John 16:30) ""Lord, YOU KNOW ALL THINGS; you know that I love you." (John 21:17) Now I do not deny the Bible teaches that Jesus, as a man, didn't know everything, but it also teaches, that as God, he did know all things. Uncreated Con takes Colossians 1:15 out of context to show Jesus was created, but being called "firstborn of all creation" doesn't mean he was the first to be created. In fact, the context says the opposite, the context says he himself created everything. "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn OVER all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGH HIM and for him. He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, and in him all things hold together." (Col 1:15-17 NIV) This clearly shows Jesus is BEFORE all things, thus cannot be created. Everything the Father created, he created it THROUGH the Son, thus, he is a co-creator with the Father, thus is our Creator and God. John 1:3 says the Father didn't create as single thing without the help of the Word (Jesus), thus, Jesus cannot be a created being. Colossians 1:18 says Jesus has the supremacy in EVERYTHING, would could not be the case if he wasn't God. At Psalm 89:20, 27 David was also called "firstborn" even though he was the last son born to his father. Firsborn means "pre-eminence" in this context, as it does in Colossians 1. http://www.google.com... Con compares Jesus and God being the Savior to a President sending out a diplomat, but the diplomat is never called the President. Jesus is called both God and Savior, even though there is only ONE God and ONE Savior, Yahweh. (Isa 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:21) His illustration doesn't adequately reflect the situation. As I'm out of space, I'll give the other rebuttals next round.