Home Debates Trinity Debate – John 17:3 Page 12

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaters: t8  & Is 1: 18

t8

We are all familiar with the Trinity doctrine and many here do not believe in it but think it is a false doctrine and even perhaps part of the great falling away prophesied in scripture.

As part of a challenge from Is 1:18 (a member here, not the scripture) I will be posting 12 scriptures over the coming weeks (perhaps months) to show how the Trinity doctrine contradicts scripture and therefore proving it to be a false doctrine.

The first scripture I would like to bring out into the light is John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This scripture clearly talks about the only true God and in addition to that, Jesus Christ who (that true God) has sent.

Trying to fit this scripture into a Trinity template seems impossible in that Jesus Christ is NOT being referred to as the True God in this scripture. So if Jesus is also God (as Trinitarians say) then that leaves us with John 17:3 saying that Jesus is a false God, (if we also say that there are no other gods except false ones), as the ONLY TRUE GOD is reserved for the one who sent him.

Now a possible rebuttal from a Trinitarian could be that Jesus is not the only True God here because it is referring to him as a man as Trinitarians say that Jesus is both God and Man. But if this argument is made by Is 1:18, then he is admitting that Jesus is not always the only True God and therefore the Trinity is not always a Trinity as would be concluded when reading John 17:3. Such a rebuttal is ridiculous if we consider that God changes not and that God is not a man that he should lie.

Secondly, the Trinity doctrine breaks this scripture if we think of God as a Trinity in that it would read as “the only true ‘Trinity’ and Jesus Christ whom the ‘Trinity’ has sent.

We know that such a notion makes no sense so the word ‘God’ must of course be referring to the Father as hundreds of other similar verses do and to further support this, we know that the Father sent his son into this world.

If a Trinitarian argued that the only true God i.e., that The Father, Son, Spirit decided among themselves that the Jesus part of the Trinity would come to earth, then that would be reading way too much into what the scripture actually says and you would end up connecting dots that cannot justifiably be connected. It would be unreasonable to teach this angle because it actually doesn’t say such a thing. Such a rebuttal is pure assumption and quite ridiculous because the text itself is quite simple and clear. i.e., that the ONLY TRUE GOD (one true God) sent another (his son) into the world. It truly is no more complicated than that.

Such a rebuttal also requires that one start with the Trinity doctrine first and then force the scripture to fit it, rather than the scripture teaching us what it is saying. In other words it is similar to the way you get vinegar from a sponge. In order to do that, you must first soak the sponge in vinegar.

I conclude with an important point regarding John 17:3 that is often overlooked. The fact that we can know the one true God and the one he sent is of paramount importance because we are told that this is “eternal life” and therefore it would be reckless to try and change its simple and straight forward meaning.

My final note is to watch that Is 1:18’s rebuttal is focussed around John 17:3. I wouldn’t put it past him to create a diversion and start talking about the possibility or non-possibility of other gods. But the point in hand here is that John 17:3 says that the only true God sent Jesus, so let us see how he opposes this.



Is 1:18

Nice opening post t8. You have raised some interesting points. Thank you, by the way, for agreeing to debate me, I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it can be as amicable as is possible and conducted in good faith. With that in mind let me start by complimenting you. One of the things I do respect about you is that your theology, as much as I disagree with it, is your own, and I know that the material I will be reading over the next few weeks will be of your own making. Okay, enough of this sycophancy…..

:D

My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3
2. Some contextual issues
3. My interpretation of John 17:3

I’m going to try to keep my posts short and succinct, as I know people rarely read long posts through and sometimes the key messages can get lost in extraneous detail.

Section 1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3

Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:

He doesn’t say:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, a god, whom You have sent.

or this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ a lower class of being, whom You have sent.

and He definitely didn’t say this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ , an untrue God.

So, on the face of it, this verse, in and of itself, is NOT a true refutation of the trinity doctrine. Why? Because clearly a contra-distinction in ontology between the Father and Himself was not being drawn by Yeshua. There is not mention of “what” Yeshua is in the verse. He simply describes Himself with his Earthly name, followed by the mention of His being sent. So because there is no mention of a contrast in ontology in the verse, I dispute that it’s an exclusionist statement at all….and let’s not lose sight of this – “eternal” life is “knowing” The Father and the Son. If Yeshua was contrasting His very being with the Father, highlighting the disparity and His own inferiority, wouldn’t His equating of the importance of relationship of believers with the Fatherand Himself in the context of salvation be more than a little presumptuous, audacious, even blasphemous? If His implication was that eternal life is predicated on having a relationship with the One true God and a lesser being, then wasn’t Yeshua, in effect, endorsing a breach of the first commandment?

But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that that is indeed what Yeshua meant to affirm – that the Father is the true God, to the preclusion of Himself. Does this precept fit harmoniously within the framework of scripture? Or even within the framework of your personal Christology t8?

I say no. There is a dilemma invoked by this precept that should not be ignored.

There is no doubt that the word “God” (Gr. theos) is applied to Yeshua in the NT (notably: John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8…). Although obfuscatory tactics are often employed to diminish the impact of these statements.  You yourself might have in the past argued that the writer, in using “theos”, intended to denote something other than “divinity” in many of them, like an allusion to His “authority” for instance. I, of course, disagree with this as the context of the passages make it plain that ontological statements were being made, but for the sake of argument and brevity I’ll take just one example – John 1:1:-

This following quotation comes from your own writings (emphasis mine):

 

Quote
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word ‘god’ which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

From here

So here we have an unequivocal statement by you, t8, asserting that the word “theos” in John 1:1c is in fact a reference to His very nature. The word choices in your statement (“divine” and “nature”) were emphatically ontological ones, in that they spoke of the very essence of His being. What you actually expressed was – the reason He was called “God” by John was a function of His divine nature! But there is only one divine being t8, YHWH. There is no other God, and none even like YHWH….. 

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me“? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.

BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity?  How implausible.

Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

On one hand you hold up John 17:3 as a proof text, emphatically affirming that it shows that the Father of Yeshua is “the only true God” (The Greek word for “true” (Gr. alethinos) carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.”) – to the exclusion of the Son. But on the other you concede that Yeshua is called “God” in scriptureand acknowledge that the word “theos” was used by John in reference to His very nature. Can you see the dilemma? If not, here it is. You can’t have it both ways t8. If the Son is called “God” in an ontological sense (which is exactly what you expressed in you writing “who is Jesus” and subsequently in MB posts), but there isonly One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

To say otherwise is to acknowledge that John 1:1 teaches that two Gods inhabited the timeless environ of “the beginning” (i.e. before the advent of time itself), co-existing eternally (The Logos “was”[Gr. En – imperfect of eimi – denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past] in the beginning) in relationship (The Logos was “with” [pros] God), and that 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches a True and false god in fact created “all things”. Which aside from being overt polytheism is also clearly ludicrous. Did a false god lay the foundation of the Earth? Were the Heavens the work of false god’s hands? (Hebrews 1:10). How about the prospect of honouring a false god “even as” (i.e. in exactly the same way as) we honour the True one (John 5:23) at the judgement? It’s untenable for a monotheistic Christian, who interprets John 17:3 the way you do, to even contemplate these things, and yet these are the tangible implications and outworkings of such a position.

I would also say, in finishing this section, that if we apply the same inductive logic you used with John 17:3 to prove that the Father alone is the One true God, YHWH, to the exclusion of Yeshua, then to be consistent, should we also accept that Yeshua is excluded from being considered a “Saviour” by Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4 and Jude 25?  And does Zechariah 14:9 exclude Yeshua from being considered a King? And on the flip side of the coin, since Yeshua is ascribed the titles “Only Master” (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1) and “Only Lord” (Jude 4, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4,6), is the Father excluded from being these things to us?

You can’t maintain that the principal exists in this verse, but not others where the word “only” is used in reference to an individual person. That’s inconsistent. If you read unipersonality into the John 17:3 text and apply the same principle of exclusion to other biblical passages, then what results is a whole complex of problematic biblical dilemmas…….

Section 2. Some contextual issues.

Here is the first 10 verses of the Chapter in John, please note the emphasised parts of the text:

John 17:1-10
1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 
2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 
3″This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 
4″I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 
5″Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6″I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 
7″Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 
8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 
9″I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 
10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

I assert that some of the highlighted statements above are utterly incompatible with the notion of a monarchial monotheism statement of exclusion in vs 3, while at least one would be genuinely absurd. 

 

  • In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?
  • In verse 5 we read that Yeshua, alluding to His pre-existent past, again appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him – but adds “with the “glory” (Gr. Doxa – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship) which I had with You before the world was”. However, in Isaiah 42:8 YHWH said He would not give his glory to another. Now that is an exclusionist statement. What is a lesser being doing sharing “doxa” with the One true God? This puts you in an interesting paradox t8.
    Quote
    With thine own self (para seautw). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. John 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eixon, imperfect active of exw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doch), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” – Robertson’s Word Pictures (NT)
  • In verse 10 we  truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have?  I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

 

Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

I think we both should endeavor to always provide our interpretation of the verses that are submitted to us. Just explaining why the other’s view is wrong isn’t really going to aid in progressing the discussion very far.

My interpretation is this: The overarching context of the seventeenth chapter of John is Yeshua submissively praying as a man to His Father. Yeshua was born a man under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and in that respect, was subject to all of it. His Father was also His God, and had He not been the Law would have been violated by Him, and Yeshua would not have been “without blemish”. So the statement He made in John 17:3 reflected this, and of course He was right – the Father is the only true God. But “eternal” life was predicated on “knowing” the Father and Son.

1 John 1:2-3
2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

So in summary, what we are dealing with here is good evidence for the Father’s divinity and the Son’s humanity. But what we don’t have in John 17:3 is good evidence for the non-deity of the Son. If you argue that it is then would Yeshua calling someone “a true man” disprove His own humanity? No. Yet this is the essence of the argument you are using t8. The verse does not make an ontological contra-distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, as the Son’s “being” is not even mentioned. Furthermore, given that you have previously acknowledged that the reason John ascribed the title “God” to the logos (in John 1:1) was due to His divine nature (in other words He was “God” in an ontological sense) the default position for your Yeshua is false God – if Yeshua made a statement of exclusion in John 17:3. If the Father is the only true God, all others are, by default, false ones. Then all kinds of problematic contradictions arise in scripture:

  • Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?
  • Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?
  • Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
  • Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?
  • Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?
  • Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?The list goes on….

 

If there is a verse that teaches YHWH’s unipersonity, John 17:3 is not that verse. The false god implication bears no resemblance to the Yeshua described in the  New Testament scriptures. In the NT the Logos existed (Gr. huparcho – continuous state of existence) in the form (Gr. morphe –nature, essential attributes as shown in the form) of God (Phil 2:6) and “was God” (John 1:1c), “He” then became flesh and dwelt among us  (John 1:14), yet in Him the fullness of deity (Gr. theotes – the state of being God) dwelt bodily form…..Yeshua is the exact representation of His Father’s “hypostasis” (essence/substance) – Hebrews 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4)….not a false God t8, a genuine One.

Thus ends my first rebuttal, I’ll post my first proof text in three days.

Blessings

Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 945 total)
123…111213…464748
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 1, 2007 at 7:44 am#46985
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    T8,
    It's been 72hrs+ since the three extra days were given to you to submit your rebuttal, so the deadline is up and the debate is officially forfeited. It's disappointing but maybe there will be another time.

    Blessings
    :)

    April 1, 2007 at 7:48 am#46987
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    # Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?

    # Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?

    # Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?

    # Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?

    # Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?

    # Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?

    These are of course all based on a false assumption.

    April 1, 2007 at 7:49 am#46988
    david
    Participant

    And it is this:

    Quote
    but there is only One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

    April 1, 2007 at 7:52 am#46989
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    David, the assumptions were predicated on t8's understanding of the word 'theos' in John 1:1c, as outlined in his writing “Who is Jesus”. If you read the rebuttal carefully you will see this.

    :)

    April 1, 2007 at 7:57 am#46990
    david
    Participant

    Based on the Bible and the meaning of “god,” you are wrong Is 1:18.

    Because if what you say is true, then the angels are false gods (mighty ones). The judges of Israel who were called gods (mighty ones) weren't really mighty ones.
    And Satan who is called a god (mighty one) isn't really mighty or powerful at all. (Of course, compared to Jehovah, he isn't powerful. But compared to us, he is the ruler of the world, who has blinded the world. He has power and is mighty. Hence, the word fits.)

    Thos idols who were gods who had ears but couldn't hear, and eyes, but couldn't see, of course had no power. They were powerless. They weren't gods at all. Hence, false gods.

    Compared to Jehovah, the only true God, the only one who is every specifically described as Almighty, everyone else is below him in mightiness.
    So to Jesus, the Father was God. To the Father, Jesus is not God. But to us, he certainly could be described with that word, and is.

    The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn't take into account what the actual word means and doesn't take into account the other biblical uses of that word.

    Your conclusions are wrong because your assumptions are wrong.

    One concordance gives the meaning of elohim this way: “Elohim, G-d (plural of majesty; plural in form but singular in meaning, with a focus on great power); g-ds (true grammatical plural); and person characterized by greatness of power, mighty one, great one, judge” (Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance).

    The word God applies to Jehovah, thousands of times. About 1000 times his is specifically called God. We know he is God. The word “God” essentially means: “Mighty one.” We know Jehovah, as our creator, is mighty, in fact, he is called ALMIGHTY. His son, is mighty as well, obviously. And therefore the title God can be applied to him, even as it is applied to human judges of isreal, and to angels and to Satan himself and to other false “mighty ones.” A piece of wood can be worshipped as an idol, a god, but really, it is not mighty at all, not really a god, it's false.

    Just because Jehovah and Jesus both have the titles God, along with others, does not mean that Jesus is God almighty, that they are the same.

    IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.

    ARE THE ANGELS A PART OF THE GODHEAD OR ARE THEY FALSE GODS?
    (OR, PERHAP'S ARE THEY ACTUALLY POWERFUL BEINGS, GODS, IN RELATION TO HUMANS?–NOT FALSE GODS, NOT PART OF A GODHEAD.)

    People associate the word “true” with “false” meaning that one is “correct” and one is “incorrect.” Jehovah is the correct God and everyone else is false therefore. But those words (TRUE AND FALSE) have other meanings.

    Jehovah is the only true God, in comparison to all others. Yet, that doesn't make the judges of Israel false gods. They truly were mighty ones, with great power (compared to others)

    (Psalm 115:3-7) “But our God is in the heavens; Everything that he delighted [to do] he has done. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of the hands of earthling man. 5 A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes they have, but they cannot see; 6 Ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. 7 Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; They utter no sound with their throat.”

    So, these things are worshipped as God, yet they are not “god” in any sense. They have absolutely no power, no might, nothing.

    (Deuteronomy 4:28) “And there YOU will have to serve gods, the product of the hands of man, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.”

    False gods seem to be things that are worshiped, yet really have no power, really aren't “gods” at all.

    I googled “true.”

    I found true poker, true love, true wealth, true color, etc.

    Does that mean that other poker is false?
    That other love is false?
    That other wealth is false?

    Much of this has to do with the erroneous idea that if something is called the “only true” whatever, everything else of that bunch is false.

    If I said: “Is 1:18, now there's a true man. He is forceful in his convictions, etc. He's the only true man on here.”
    People would understand what I'm saying. They wouldn't think that everyone else is a “false man.” They wouldn't think that I, the one saying it is implying that I, myself am a false man.

    A group of guys are hanging out. Out of all of them, Ted is the only true man there. Does this mean the rest are girls? Or what? Could it be that the rest are quite young? Yes, it could. But, for some reason, when we hear the expression, the “only true God” we take it to mean that anyone else that is called “god” is a false god, meaning, not really a god at all.
    When I say that Ted is the only true man, it doesn’t mean that everyone else there are “false” men, does it? We wouldn’t go around calling those boys “false” men. They are simply not truly men! Why is this difficult to understand?
    Someone could call them men. But they are not truly men, in the ultimate sense of the word. Ted is the only true man, comparatively speaking.

    Yet, the false conclusion is made and presented as fact that if Jehovah is called the only true God, Jesus must either:
    1. be a false god
    2. be Jehovah

    The error in this is twofold: it would mean that the Israelite Judges, the angels, anyone called a god is a false god or Jehovah and secondly, it misses the meaning of the word “god.”

    YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE FALSE IDEA THAT IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD THEN EVERYTHING ELSE (SUCH AS THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL AND THE ANGELS) ARE FALSE GODS. This is ridiculous.
    They were certainly mighty ones compared with others. The gods of wood and stone which had ears but no power to hear, these were certainly false gods.
    Jehovah is the only one specifically ever called 'Almighy' in the Bible and hence, he is the only one who has unlimited power or mightiness. He is the God of Jesus. He is the God or mighty one of everyone.

    April 1, 2007 at 7:58 am#46991
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    David, the assumptions were predicated on t8's understanding of the word 'theos' in John 1:1c, as outlined in his writing “Who is Jesus”. If you read the rebuttal carefully you will see this.

    :)

    I'll go back and read it, but regardless of what T8 said, your use of the word “god” isn't Biblical and your use of the word “true” in contrast with “false” isn't logical based on what the Bible says.

    Regardless of what t8 said, you are still wrong.

    April 1, 2007 at 9:49 am#46998
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 22 2007,05:58)
    Nice opening post t8. You have raised some interesting points. Thank you, by the way, for agreeing to debate me, I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it can be as amicable as is possible and conducted in good faith. With that in mind let me start by complimenting you. One of the things I do respect about you is that your theology, as much as I disagree with it, is your own, and I know that the material I will be reading over the next few weeks will be of your own making. Okay, enough of this sycophancy…..

    :D

    My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

    1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3
    2. Some contextual issues
    3. My interpretation of John 17:3

    I’m going to try to keep my posts short and succinct, as I know people rarely read long posts through and sometimes the key messages can get lost in extraneous detail.

    Section 1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3

    Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:

    He doesn’t say:

    This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, a god, whom You have sent.

    or this:

    This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ a lower class of being, whom You have sent.

    and He definitely didn’t say this:

    This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ , an untrue God.

    So, on the face of it, this verse, in and of itself, is NOT a true refutation of the trinity doctrine. Why? Because clearly a contra-distinction in ontology between the Father and Himself was not being drawn by Yeshua. There is not mention of “what” Yeshua is in the verse. He simply describes Himself with his Earthly name, followed by the mention of His being sent. So because there is no mention of a contrast in ontology in the verse, I dispute that it’s an exclusionist statement at all….and let’s not lose sight of this – “eternal” life is “knowing” The Father and the Son. If Yeshua was contrasting His very being with the Father, highlighting the disparity and His own inferiority, wouldn’t His equating of the importance of relationship of believers with the Father and Himself in the context of salvation be more than a little presumptuous, audacious, even blasphemous? If His implication was that eternal life is predicated on having a relationship with the One true God and a lesser being, then wasn’t Yeshua, in effect, endorsing a breach of the first commandment?

    But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that that is indeed what Yeshua meant to affirm – that the Father is the true God, to the preclusion of Himself. Does this precept fit harmoniously within the framework of scripture? Or even within the framework of your personal Christology t8?

    I say no. There is a dilemma invoked by this precept that should not be ignored.

    There is no doubt that the word “God” (Gr. theos) is applied to Yeshua in the NT (notably: John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8…). Although obfuscatory tactics are often employed to diminish the impact of these statements. You yourself might have in the past argued that the writer, in using “theos”, intended to denote something other than “divinity” in many of them, like an allusion to His “authority” for instance. I, of course, disagree with this as the context of the passages make it plain that ontological statements were being made, but for the sake of argument and brevity I’ll take just one example – John 1:1:-

    This following quotation comes from your own writings (emphasis mine):

    Quote
    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.

    This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word 'god' which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

    From here

    So here we have an unequivocal statement by you, t8, asserting that the word “theos” in John 1:1c is in fact a reference to His very nature. The word choices in your statement (“divine” and “nature”) were emphatically ontological ones, in that they spoke of the very essence of His being. What you actually expressed was – the reason He was called “God” by John was a function of His divine nature! But there is only one divine being t8, YHWH. There is no other God, and none even like YHWH…..

    Isaiah 46:9
    Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

    So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me“? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.

    BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity? How implausible.

    Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

    On one hand you hold up John 17:3 as a proof text, emphatically affirming that it shows that the Father of Yeshua is “the only true God” (The Greek word for “true” (Gr. alethinos) carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.”) – to the exclusion of the Son. But on the other you concede that Yeshua is called “God” in scripture and acknowledge that the word “theos” was used by John in reference to His very nature. Can you see the dilemma? If not, here it is. You can’t have it both ways t8. If the Son is called “God” in an ontological sense (which is exactly what you expressed in you writing “who is Jesus” and subsequently in MB posts), but there is only One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

    To say otherwise is to acknowledge that John 1:1 teaches that two Gods inhabited the timeless environ of “the beginning” (i.e. before the advent of time itself), co-existing eternally (The Logos “was”[Gr. En – imperfect of eimi – denotes
    continuous action of the Logos existing in the past] in the beginning) in relationship (The Logos was “with” [pros] God), and that 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches a True and false god in fact created “all things”. Which aside from being overt polytheism is also clearly ludicrous. Did a false god lay the foundation of the Earth? Were the Heavens the work of false god’s hands? (Hebrews 1:10). How about the prospect of honouring a false god “even as” (i.e. in exactly the same way as) we honour the True one (John 5:23) at the judgement? It’s untenable for a monotheistic Christian, who interprets John 17:3 the way you do, to even contemplate these things, and yet these are the tangible implications and outworkings of such a position.

    I would also say, in finishing this section, that if we apply the same inductive logic you used with John 17:3 to prove that the Father alone is the One true God, YHWH, to the exclusion of Yeshua, then to be consistent, should we also accept that Yeshua is excluded from being considered a “Saviour” by Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4 and Jude 25? And does Zechariah 14:9 exclude Yeshua from being considered a King? And on the flip side of the coin, since Yeshua is ascribed the titles “Only Master” (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1) and “Only Lord” (Jude 4, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4,6), is the Father excluded from being these things to us?

    You can't maintain that the principal exists in this verse, but not others where the word “only” is used in reference to an individual person. That's inconsistent. If you read unipersonality into the John 17:3 text and apply the same principle of exclusion to other biblical passages, then what results is a whole complex of problematic biblical dilemmas…….

    Section 2. Some contextual issues.

    Here is the first 10 verses of the Chapter in John, please note the emphasised parts of the text:

    John 17:1-10
    1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
    2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
    3″This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
    4″I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
    5″Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
    6″I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
    7″Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
    8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
    9″I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
    10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

    I assert that some of the highlighted statements above are utterly incompatible with the notion of a monarchial monotheism statement of exclusion in vs 3, while at least one would be genuinely absurd.

  • In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?
  • In verse 5 we read that Yeshua, alluding to His pre-existent past, again appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him – but adds “with the “glory” (Gr. Doxa – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship) which I had with You before the world was”. However, in Isaiah 42:8 YHWH said He would not give his glory to another. Now that is an exclusionist statement. What is a lesser being doing sharing “doxa” with the One true God? This puts you in an interesting paradox t8.

    Quote
    With thine own self (para seautw). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. John 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eixon, imperfect active of exw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doch), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” – Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

  • In verse 10 we truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have? I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.

    So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

    Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

    I think we both should endeavor to always provide our interpretation of the verses that are submitted to us. Just explaining why the other’s view is wrong isn’t really going to aid in progressing the discussion very far.

    My interpretation is this: The overarching context of the seventeenth chapter of John is Yeshua submissively praying as a man to His Father. Yeshua was born a man under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and in that respect, was subject to all of it. His Father was also His God, and had He not been the Law would have been violated by Him, and Yeshua would not have been “without blemish”. So the statement He made in John 17:3 reflected this, and of course He was right – the Father is the only true God. But “eternal” life was predicated on “knowing” the Father and Son.

    1 John 1:2-3
    2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
    3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

    So in summary, what we are dealing with here is good evidence for the Father’s divinity and the Son’s humanity. But what we don’t have in John 17:3 is good evidence for the non-deity of the Son. If you argue that it is then would Yeshua calling someone “a true man” disprove His own humanity? No. Yet this is the essence of the argument you are using t8. The verse does not make an ontological contra-distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, as the Son’s “being” is not even mentioned
    . Furthermore, given that you have previously acknowledged that the reason John ascribed the title “God” to the logos (in John 1:1) was due to His divine nature (in other words He was “God” in an ontological sense) the default position for your Yeshua is false God – if Yeshua made a statement of exclusion in John 17:3. If the Father is the only true God, all others are, by default, false ones. Then all kinds of problematic contradictions arise in scripture:

  • Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?
  • Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?
  • Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
  • Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?
  • Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?
  • Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?

    • The list goes on….

    If there is a verse that teaches YHWH’s unipersonity, John 17:3 is not that verse. The false god implication bears no resemblance to the Yeshua described in the New Testament scriptures. In the NT the Logos existed (Gr. huparcho – continuous state of existence) in the form (Gr. morphe –nature, essential attributes as shown in the form) of God (Phil 2:6) and “was God” (John 1:1c), “He” then became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), yet in Him the fullness of deity (Gr. theotes – the state of being God) dwelt bodily form…..Yeshua is the exact representation of His Father’s “hypostasis” (essence/substance) – Hebrews 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4)….not a false God t8, a genuine One.

    Thus ends my first rebuttal, I’ll post my first proof text in three days.

    Blessings
    :)


    OK, so after that long post you are saying that the verse is not saying “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”. But I say it is saying that.

    It doesn't matter how much you say in defense of this scripture, you are in reality denying this scripture plain and simple.

    The verse actually says that The only true God SENT Jesus, NOT that Jesus is the only true God. No amount of ontological speak will change that fact. And if Jesus were the only true God as you argue, then what about the Father?

    April 1, 2007 at 10:05 am#46999
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 22 2007,05:58)
    Isaiah 46:9
    Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

    So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me”? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.


    James 3:9
    With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.

    You obviously need to adjust your theology as these 2 scriptures obviously contradict according to your thinking.

    I don't see a contradiction and even though we are like God (or should have been like him), I know that we are not God.

    Of course there is no one like God, we all know that, but then God makes things in his own image because all that God creates is good. Now it is said of the son that he is the “image of God”.

    So he is like God in that an image is like the source, but no one else is the source. No one else is the Most High God. Christ is not the Most High and he is not the source. He is the image. So even Christ who is the image of God is not like God in that respect is he?

    When you see the big picture, you understand the smaller pieces. But if you don't see the big picture or you see the wrong picture, then pulling out one piece of a jigsaw and saying it is this or that, is only guess work at best and at worse it is not true.

    You showed me Isaiah 46:9 and I showed you James 3:9. If you see the correct picture, both scriptures work. But from what you have said quoted above, James 3:9 doesn't work with your theology.

    April 1, 2007 at 10:20 am#47000
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 22 2007,05:58)
    BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity? How implausible.


    Not true.

    Woman came from man. Eve has human nature and she came from Adam the original man.

    Adam and Eve are both man, but they are different identities.

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

    So if the man is the head of woman and God is the head of Christ, then is it not possible that Christ is not God in identity just as Even isn't Adam, even though she is man.

    But is it really smoke and mirrors Isaiah?

    Is it no true that we will partake of the divine nature, and that we will be like him and see him as he is? Are you then suggesting that we will be God the Divine, or could you persuaded that we will partake of his nature, not his identity. The way I see it, you can answer with the following:

  • We won't partake in divine nature
  • We will partake in divine nature.

    So you if you agree with the second option, and I take your theology, then it appears that you would have to believe that we will actually become God because you say that it is our nature that defines our being and identity.

    I will repeat what you said:

    Quote
    It is our nature that defines our being and identity.

    Now sync that with the following 2 scriptures:

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    2 Peter 1:4
    Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

    So according to your defense, I can only conclude that you believe that we will be God one day, that is if you deny there is a or any contradiction in your theology, which I assume you are.

April 1, 2007 at 10:55 am#47002
Proclaimer
Participant

Isaiah, I posted 3 earlier posts rebutting your rebuttal. They are the last posts on the previous page.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 22 2007,05:58)
In verse 10 we truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have? I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.


First off I am not saying he is a finite being.

Second, I agree that there is a ridiculous statement but I am talking not of the scripture nor what I wrote, but your quoted statement above.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

If I told you that this proves that we are Christ because he gave us the keys of the kingdom you would think I was being very foolish. But your statement is based on the same thinking.

Trinitarians are fond of taking things where God shares things like his nature or attributes and saying that this proves that Jesus is God. This type of thinking is quite silly especially when we consider that Jesus is the image of God and being the image would naturally mean that he is like God and is not meant to be taken that he is also the source or the God that he is the image of.

Anyway, what I am saying is that if you see John 17:10 as proving that Jesus is God, then you are way off track.

and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.

Because the truth is, God created all things through Christ and for him. If you understand that, then you will understand that if God creates all things for Christ, then he generously gives it to his son, who in return gives it back to his Father.

That is the nature of love, it is not meant as a doctrine to prove that Jesus is God.

April 1, 2007 at 11:03 am#47003
Proclaimer
Participant

Isaiah 1:18, I may reply to some of your other points, but so far your answer to nullify John 17:3 is very weak indeed. In fact I am surprised by how weak.

This is not a dig at your intelligence or lack of intelligence, I truly understand why it is a weak response, because it is hard to argue against the truth or any truth (ask someone who has lied in court and is being cross examined). Such a person has to build another theory which is quite difficult and each thing that is added has to agree with the evidence and the added things too. Inconsistencies will show up unless the person is a highly skilled liar. But even then, if you probe deep enough you will eventually see the inconsistencies.

But if we stick with the truth that the ONLY TRUE GOD sent Yeshua the Messiah, then we can be consistent with all scripture when we teach. If we deny it, then our best defense may be to turn to philosophies outside of scripture in order to draw people away from the incriminating evidence of scripture.

Personally speaking and I give you this advice in love, I would be extremely careful to not change the meaning of that scripture because to know the ONLY TRUE GOD (the Father) and the one whom HE sent (Yeshua the Messiah) is eternal life.

To not have eternal life is another way to say that “you will die in your sins”. That is why I would be very careful in teaching against that scripture because you will only encourage yourself and others who may believe your words to become confused over who the one true God is and the one whom he sent is.

Surely that is the last thing you would want to do?

April 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm#47004
WhatIsTrue
Participant

T8,

Just to be clear, this thread is now more of a discussion thread than a debate thread to me, as it is now 20+ pages, has a random cast of participants, and has gone off topic many times already.  Personally, I would put this thread back in the discussion area.

Unfortunately, the other thread in this new section appears to have been forfeited, so I hope that someone, (or rather “some two”), will post a good example of how this new  section should be used soon.

So far, not so good, in my opinion.

April 1, 2007 at 7:17 pm#47012
Is 1:18
Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 01 2007,13:44)
I hope that someone, (or rather “some two”), will post a good example of how this new  section should be used soon.


I hope so too WIT. Unless the mutually-agreed-to rules are followed by both participants debates quickly decend into a farce. I hope t8 has taken some lessons out of this one.

April 1, 2007 at 7:25 pm#47014
david
Participant

Quote
T8,

Just to be clear, this thread is now more of a discussion thread than a debate thread to me, as it is now 20+ pages, has a random cast of participants, and has gone off topic many times already. Personally, I would put this thread back in the discussion area.

I agree. I was uncertain whether I was allowed to post or not, but it seemed it had turned into a discussion. I feel for this to work, there can be only two people discussing something. One thing that bothers me so much is that when having a discussion, you ask some questions, they go unanswered, other people raise a completely different issue and the orgininal questions go unasnwered forever. With only two people, it would be much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and other ways to distract or kidnap the discussion.


Also, Is 1:18, I know you'd rather just respond to T8 on this discussion, but seeing that your whole argument is based on a false assumption as I have shown, (back a page) I'm wondering if you would like to give up now? I have raised this point numerous times only to hear silence.

April 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm#47019
Proclaimer
Participant

Before the discussion proceeded I said that I would post, Isaiah would reply, then it was free for all. This is exactly what has happened. So no surprises here. But in fact it was Isaiah who was against the same 2 members rebutting rebuttals for time purposes. So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.

I also do not see what the problem with letting others comment given the circumstances. The discussion starts with a proof text and then a rebuttal and I don't think it is bad to get feedback on those posts from others. It is a good thing for accountability is it not?

I also think listening to others is good for the truth which should be the real winner and if you don't like it, then I am sure that there are other boards on the Internet that have a format that you guys prefer. In that case it is perfectly OK to shop around for something that is more suitable for your taste. I don't mind, honest.

As for going off the topic, well I agree that this shouldn't happen.

So far I have given rebuttals to Isaiah's original post (rebuttal), so in that sense I haven't diverged and I encourage others to comment only on what was written originally as that is the focus here.

:)

April 1, 2007 at 9:58 pm#47020
Proclaimer
Participant

Also, future debates should post the rules in the first post, so others are not confused as to what they can and can't do. If the rules stipulate that only 2 members can participate, then I am not against that per se, even though it will take more effort to police due to the nature of openness in posting.

I also agree with david regarding questions that go unanswered, when other people raise completely different issues and the original questions are lost or never attended to. He says that restricting debates between two people would make it much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and make it harder to distract or kidnap the discussion.

So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback.

I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.

:)

April 2, 2007 at 4:44 am#47023
Worshipping Jesus
Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 01 2007,22:58)
Also, future debates should post the rules in the first post, so others are not confused as to what they can and can't do. If the rules stipulate that only 2 members can participate, then I am not against that per se, even though it will take more effort to police due to the nature of openness in posting.

I also agree with david regarding questions that go unanswered, when other people raise completely different issues and the original questions are lost or never attended to. He says that restricting debates between two people would make it much harder to hide behind straw men arguments and make it harder to distract or kidnap the discussion.

So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback.

I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.

:)


t8

What kind of crap is this?

You agree to certain rules and then change in the middle of the game.

You say…

Quote
Before the discussion proceeded I said that I would post, Isaiah would reply, then it was free for all. This is exactly what has happened. So no surprises here. But in fact it was Isaiah who was against the same 2 members rebutting rebuttals for time purposes. So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.


You agreed to a three day time period.

You posted and Is 1:18 replied.

Then he posted and about 5 days later you say…

Quote
Looks like you won on account of me not turning up.

I cannot reply in one day and have just noticed the discussion as you have just PMed me about it now.

But if you win by default it doesn't do any favours for the truth of course, but your pride might be interested in a point.

Do you want to take the point, or will you give a reasonable amount of time for me to reply?


Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time to reply and then you come back to your proof text rebutting the the rebuttal totally ignoring his proof text and diverting attention back to yours.

Then you go on to say…

Quote
So I agreed that other members could have their say as a way to get feedback on the 2 original posts without a commitment to rebutting rebuttals which I was in favour of.


I was under the impression as well as others I think, that you were to rebutt Isaiahs proof text. That was what the extended time was about!

Was'nt it?

You also say…

Quote
So I am in favour of his idea and if 2 people want a debate with participation from 2 members only, then I can't see why not. But if a person only wants one post, and one rebuttal followed by closing the discussion off, then in that case I would prefer that members gave some feedback.

I am looking at this from an accountability view. It's easy to do a drive by post, but when you are accountable for every shot fired, people would most likely post with greater care, knowing that they might have to explain their words.

Of course you would like to clutter the debate with lots of discussion, being that this is an Anti-Trinitarian forum and the Numbers are probably 5 to 1 in favour of Anti-Trinitarians.

There is safety in numbers right?

In my opinion its Ok to be out numbered in the grandstands, but when they get involved in the game then there will only be confusion and a one sided view getting through in the debate, and that would be yours and all of the apposers.

What kind of debate is that?

I think there should be a seperate thread for discussion on the debates. That way the flow of the debate is not interupted, and it will be clear as to the beliefs each shares.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Is 1:18 just got snowed?

:O  ???  ???  ???

April 2, 2007 at 5:53 am#47030
Phoenix
Participant

Hi Is

I dont know if you did see it but T8 said he replied his rebuttal in the previous page of this thread or maybe the one before it. But he did reply. However I thought he would have replied on your thread.

Which happens to be still locked T8 lol. T8 you only need to copy and paste the rebuttal over to Is 1:18's thread after you unlock it of course.

Quote
What kind of crap is this?

Oh so this is the passionate guy you were talking about Is 1:18? I remember reading your reply to me in regards to what i said to this man in another thread

Hugs
Phoenix

April 2, 2007 at 7:52 am#47081
Is 1:18
Participant

T8,
In the vitriolic PM you sent me you said you have basically finished the rebuttal and only needed to put the finishing touches on it before you could submit it. Unfortunately, the debate is dead in the water, but I for one would be interested to see the post that you have written and in particular the answers to my questions I posed. Others, I'm sure, would be likewise curious to read it. So would you please submit it in the locked thread and lets us read and dissect in contents?

Phoenix,
I'm not sure what you mean. Do I think WJ is passionate? Yes! Especially with regard to Yeshua, as all christians should be. WJ is a great guy, I like and respect him a lot.

David,
I have clearly explained to you the context of the comments and that their underlying assumptions were predicated on elements of t8's christology. Obviously they did not encompass all antitrinitarian sentiment on the relationship between the word “theos” and the person of Yeshua. but that's the nature of debates David, the focus is intrinsically narrow at times. You'll just have to deal with this. Or you always have the avenue of challenging me to a debate on nature and identity of Yeshua, so your views (and mine) are given good exposure and can be tested. We could get down to the nitty gritty David….

April 2, 2007 at 7:54 am#47082
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44)
You agreed to a three day time period.


Honestly WorshippingJesus this may be a sin to you and Isaiah, but as I said to Isaiah God doesn't work to man-made timetables and the 3 days should be a guide, not the law. When you book a plane, you don't always leave on time given many variables and life is just like that. Get over it guys.

We live in the grace of God, but from both of you all I see is Law and judgement. I feel sorry for both of you, for the Spirit doesn't fit into your timetables, rather he is the one that leads and we should be the ones fitting in.

If you must know why I haven't posted it is because I have the made the post within 3 days but I wish to proof it first until I am sure that what I write is good. I am not a believer in being hasty in fact when I look back at the mistakes I have made in life, many have been because I was hurrying or trying to meet a deadline. In addition to that I tended to family first rather than posting a reply to a Trinitarian. My family comes first and I had an unexpected event over the weekend which is not worth going into.

Anyway I personally do not work to timetables like you guys seem to be advocating and nor does the Spirit.

Honestly all I can see is a bunch of frustrated Trinitarians trying to judge and condemn those who do not follow their Babylonian doctrine. We are free and all you want to do is put shackles on us.

If you are even half decent you would show grace. Life isn't always 1234 sometimes you have to go back to 2 and then you get thrown an 8.

Remember why Jesus condemned the Pharisees, he said that they obey the law but neglected the weighter things, like the spirit of the law and mercy and grace.

Where is your mercy and grace, I know God gives me such, but unlike God you do not. But then what are we to expect from Pharisees?

They even condemned Christ for helping people on the Sabbath.

If you show no mercy and grace, then guess what, it won't be given to you either. That is why I feel sorry for you.

  • Author
    Posts
    • Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 945 total)
    123…111213…464748
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

     

    CREATE NEW TOPIC
    POPULAR TOPICS
    ACTIVE TOPICS
    SITE SEARCH
    SUPPORT US
    REGISTER

    Recent Replies

    ALL REPLIES →

    © 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

    Navigation

    © 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
     Log in with Facebook
    or

    Log in with your credentials

    or    

    Forgot your details?

     Log in with Facebook
    or

    Create Account