Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaterst8  & 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 lifewhich 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 - 241 through 260 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47084
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44)

    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 ??? ??? ???


    Typical isn't it. Condemnation all the way and not even one response from the posts I made.

    If you can't beat them, then attack their reputation and character.

    But honestly thanks. When I suffer because of Christ I am blessed because he suffered in the same way. He was attacked in the same manner. “You save people on the Sabbath”, “you have a devil”. But “you didn't post in 3 days”? Well that is a new one.

    :)

    #47085
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44)
    Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time


    To WorshippingJesus.

    Isaiah gave me no extra time. I wasn't aware that he posted and when he PMed me, he gave me exactly 3 days from then. You go on as if he was graceful with me. But there is no grace is there?

    How can the Spirit of grace be with you or Isaiah? If the Spirit was leading you, you would be graceful and merciful and well as loving those that belong to God.

    By your fruits you have demonstrated aptly what manor of men you both are and I hope that those who read here notice your condemning spirit.

    Romans 8:1
    Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

    Therefore how can you be in Christ if you condemn those in Christ? I have never condemned either one of you. I have only ever condemned doctrines of demons and men.

    #47086
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote
    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.


    T8,
    Yeshua said this:

    “And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:36-37)

    You agreed to the conditions of the debate in the PM you sent me, but then blatantly and repeatedly broke your word. Your yes was evidently not a “yes” at all. Don't blame WJ or anyone else for calling you to account about this.

    #47087
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,03:52)
    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?


    Great I will take you up on that.

    And what do you mean “dead in the water”. Is this how you decide truth?

    #47088
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    The debate became dead in the water when you couldn't abide by the simple and immently fair rules. Rules that we both agreed to before it started. If you break the conditions of a debate, t8, it's an automatic forfeit, that's the way these things work.

    Looking forward to reading your post. When do you think you will submit it?

    #47089
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:11)

    Quote
    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.


    T8,
    Yeshua said this:

    “And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:36-37)

    You agreed to the conditions of the debate in the PM you sent me, but then blatantly and repeatedly broke your word. Your yes was evidently not a “yes” at all. Don't blame WJ or anyone else for calling you to account about this.


    I agreed to your conditions, but I don't treat the time scale as the law as you do. I have more important priorities sometimes and if you guys were graceful you would show grace.

    Posting in 3 days or not doesn't decide truth and is not a good reason to attack someone either.

    If I post in 5 days then there may be good reason for that.

    I think you guys really do not care one bit about the truth. You are only here to condemn. But condemn away, you bless me by hurling insults at me.

    Anyway if you want a yes or no, then I will say no.

    I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.

    This is my answer.

    Anyway if you have a problem with this, then get your lawyer to ring my lawyer and they can talk about it over lunch.

    :)

    #47090
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote
    I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.


    Then you should not have agreed to the stipulation. Is your word your bond? or not?

    #47091
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:18)
    The debate became dead in the water when you couldn't abide by the simple and immently fair rules. Rules that we both agreed to before it started. If you break the conditions of a debate, t8, it's an automatic forfeit, that's the way these things work.

    Looking forward to reading your post. When do you think you will submit it?


    If I have sinned against you Isaiah then I am sorry and I ask for forgiveness.

    Do you forgive me for not posting within the 3 day time limit?

    Just so we can avoid this in future, I want to stress that I cannot always post within a 3 day time limit. Please accept that it may take longer sometimes.

    Can you accept this?

    #47092
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:24)

    Quote
    I cannot guarantee that I will post exactly within a 3 day period. It could be a bit more or could even be less, even a matter of hours.


    Then you should not have agreed to the stipulation. Is your word your bond? or not?


    To be honest with you, I didn't understand it that way. I didn't think that it was going to be 3 days or game over. I took it as posting about every three days. I should have known better.

    The devil was in the details, so to speak.

    I cannot promise that I will post exactly within a 3 day period, but I can promise to post about that time more or less, unless due to unforeseen circumstances which could include a trip to hospital, natural disaster, family commitments and the like.

    I have to many commitments to say that I can without a doubt post within 3 days every time.

    Can you accept that?

    #47093
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2007,01:32)

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2007,06:23)
    I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the Trinity.
    When the facts are known, that argument doesn't stack up.

    I use to believe that doctrine but after a time I knew deep down in my heart something wasn't right with it.

    From that time God has shown me scripture after scripture that pulls that doctrine apart.

    Even the scriptures that Trinitarians use are often used incorrectly and if the scripture can be interpreted their way, you can bet your bottom dollar it can also be interpreted other ways.

    After years of looking into this, my personal conclusion is this.

  • If we believe as Paul instructed that there is one God the Father, then there is no contradiction in scripture.
  • If we believe in the Trinity, then you can make 10 to 20 scriptures work, but you break hundreds of others.

    Try these links for in depth studies on what I am saying.

    Scriptures that are used to support the Trinity doctrine

    100 verses that show God and Jesus to be different.


  • t8

    Words with no scriptural proof to refute the scriptural truths set before you.

    :O


    100 verses not enough then?

    :)

    #47094
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Look t8, I don't feel like you have committed a grievous sin against me. I was just pointing out the pragmatic reality of debates in their truest form (and godly standards of committment keeping). If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality. Maybe you were nieve about it from the get go, and that's why you used a loose time keeping policy. That's understandable. I can't change the rules of the debate after it's commencement though, so it had to end. Rules are rules, so to speak. I hope we do it again and next time we'll impose a more flexible time table to accomodate you.

    Blessings
    :)

    #47095
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (david @ April 02 2007,15:25)
    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.


    david, I have been here since 1999 and I have seen many scriptures and good arguments being avoided from that time.

    When that happens time and time again, it is usually because they don't have an answer. It's their way of saying, “I am stumped”.

    #47096
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,04:41)
    Look t8, I don't feel like you have committed a grievous sin against me. I was just pointing out the pragmatic reality of debates in their truest form (and godly standards of committment keeping). If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality. Maybe you were nieve about it from the get go, and that's why you used a loose time keeping policy. That's understandable. I can't change the rules of the debate after it's commencement though, so it had to end. Rules are rules, so to speak. I hope we do it again and next time we'll impose a more flexible time table to accomodate you.

    Blessings
    :)


    OK so you win. Congratulations on a fine effort.

    So if there is a next time please understand that I cannot always make it exactly within 3 days. I say it now because it will be true in the future.

    So I take it that you forgive me for not posting within 3 days as stipulated by you?

    If so, can I make a rebuttal to your post soon? I want to keep away from exact times and deadlines for reasons I have already pointed out. I also cannot expect the Spirit to work within a timetable that I agree to.

    #47098
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Sure, for what it's worth I forgive you….I never really saw it as you sinning against me though. It just meant the debate ended prematurely, and that was disappointing from my perspective. T8 feel free to take all the time you need to post you rebuttal. I'll be watching out for it.

    #47099
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Great.

    Thanks for your kindness.

    I appreciate it.

    :)

    #47100
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    If you breach the rules, you lose. That's the reality.

    –Is 1:18

    I don't really understand this. T8 loses what exactly? Does this mean that you think that you have “proven” anything?
    Question, isn't the truth more important than the actual debate, or the rules of the debate. This all seems sort of childish. I know there were rules. But isn't coming to the actual truth of the matter far more important than breaking the rules you've established? I would think that someone who has the truth would want to discuss this and wouldn't want a forfeit.

    david

    #47109
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    David,
    I didn't want a forfeit, as I've pointed out numerous times. However, it's important that these debates have integrity for anything useful to come out of them. Rules help provide the framework for a meaningful dialogue in a debate. To this end, read what Whatistrue wrote In this thread, he put it very well:

    Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Mar. 26 2007,23:51)
    In light of the debate between T8 and Is 1:18, I wonder if there would be a benefit to adding a “Biblical Debates” category in the “Scripture and Doctrine” section of the site.  It would be an area limited to formal debates about various doctrines, and there would be strict rules as to how that debate should be conducted.  The debates could either be open to a number of people, or between only two people, but that would be declared up front.

    I suggest this possibility because I find that there are many people who come to this forum who practice what I like to call “drive by” theology.  They rapidly fire off all of their favorite doctrines, with the requisite proof texts, but they never really answer any serious questions about the views that they espouse.  Additionally, many of the discussions go wildly off topic, or get spammed by someone who continues to repeat the same two or three points over and over again.  

    For example, if I wanted to get a serious assessment of the case for and against the trinity doctrine, I would have to read, (as of this date), 600+ pages of an extremely unfocused discussion, making it nearly impossible for me to get a handle on the various strengths and weaknesses of the different sides of the debate.  However, if there were a couple of focused Trinity debates that I could reference, like the one that has started between T8 and Is 1:18, I could quickly figure out the merits of each point of view.

    For this to work, however, there would have to be an agreed upon set of rules for the “Biblical Debates” section of the forum.  I would propose the following:

    1.  The parties involved in the debate, and the question being debated, will need to be defined up front in the very first post, and all posts that do not adhere to this restriction will be subject to deletion.
    2.  Each participant in the debate will respond within a certain amount of time – mutually agreed upon and spelled out in the first post of the debate – and will only be allowed one post at a time.
    3.  If you have editing rights, any edits that you make to a post must be annotated.
    4.  Questions in each post will be limited to a mutually agreed upon number, (defined in the first post), but all questions asked must be answered by the opponent(s) in the debate.  If a question is not answered, it must be noted, and an explicit reason given for not answering a question.  (e.g.  The question has a false premise.  The question is unrelated to the debate.  etc.)
    5.  A clear method for bringing the debate to a conclusion must be spelled out in the first post.  (e.g. top five reasons, top ten scriptures, etc.)
    6.  In cases of dispute between the parties in the debate about adherence to the agreed upon rules, a third party should be named to resolve the issue.  Whatever that person decides will be the final answer on the dispute.
    7.  The debate will be locked after it is formally concluded.  Any discussions that are generated from the debate will be handled in the discussion areas of the forum.

    Certainly, not everyone would want to participate in a debate, as not everyone is comfortable with that kind of direct doctrinal confrontation, but for those who believe strongly enough that they understand a doctrinal truth well enough to put that doctrine under scrutiny, it will provide a fair and reasonable way to convey that to others, not just the opponent in the debate.

    Understand?

    #47120

    Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,08:54)

    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.


    t8

    Condemnation? LOL!

    I simply point out the truth about the debate and now you cry “Condemnation” and suddenly become the righteous persecuted saint.

    You miss lead and thien accuse me and Is 1:18 of sin.

    Thats condemnation!

    :(

    #47122

    Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,09:00)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,00:44)

    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  ???  ???


    Typical isn't it. Condemnation all the way and not even one response from the posts I made.

    If you can't beat them, then attack their reputation and character.

    But honestly thanks. When I suffer because of Christ I am blessed because he suffered in the same way. He was attacked in the same manner. “You save people on the Sabbath”, “you have a devil”. But “you didn't post in 3 days”? Well that is a new one.

    :)


    t8

    The debate was between you and Is 1:18.

    I would respond and debate with you, but I see how you play.

    Just like when I asked you some questions recently and you pressed me that if I answered your quetions then you would answer mine.

    So I answered you, and what did you do.

    Nothing, except say when you get time you will answer.

    How do you sleep at night?

    I hope and pray people can see through this mess.

    :(

    #47123

    Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,09:32)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2007,01:32)

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2007,06:23)
    I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the Trinity.
    When the facts are known, that argument doesn't stack up.

    I use to believe that doctrine but after a time I knew deep down in my heart something wasn't right with it.

    From that time God has shown me scripture after scripture that pulls that doctrine apart.

    Even the scriptures that Trinitarians use are often used incorrectly and if the scripture can be interpreted their way, you can bet your bottom dollar it can also be interpreted other ways.

    After years of looking into this, my personal conclusion is this.

  • If we believe as Paul instructed that there is one God the Father, then there is no contradiction in scripture.
  • If we believe in the Trinity, then you can make 10 to 20 scriptures work, but you break hundreds of others.

    Try these links for in depth studies on what I am saying.

    Scriptures that are used to support the Trinity doctrine

    100 verses that show God and Jesus to be different.


  • t8

    Words with no scriptural proof to refute the scriptural truths set before you.

     :O


    100 verses not enough then?

    :)


    t8

    Your 100 verses prove nothing except that Jesus is the Son of God.

    Trinitarians believe he is the Son of God. We believe all those verses.

    How about the many verses that say Jesus is God, or the 100s that implys he is God?

    Do you believe those verses?

    No. Yet you wont even give a clear statement as to what you do believe concerning those versus.

    ???

Viewing 20 posts - 241 through 260 (of 945 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account