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 - 261 through 280 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47124
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Where does scripture say Jesus is OUR GOD?
    Should inference be taken seriously?

    #47126

    t8

    I dont care about the three days and Im not saying that you have sinned.

    What bothers me is that you took the time and then went back to your proof text, totally ignoring his.

    Can you see how I would get upset?

    I dont want problems with you t8, but I feel sometimes as I am sure you do that questions do go unanswered as David said.

    :(

    #47127

    Quote (t8 @ April 02 2007,09:41)

    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”.


    t8

    Is 1:18 gave you an answer but you didnt give him one.

    Nor did you give me an answer on my questions.

    :(

    #47209
    942767
    Participant

    Quote (david @ April 02 2007,10:02)

    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


    Hi David:

    I totally agree with you on this one.  It is not about winning or losing but about getting understanding of God's Word so that we can teach the Word of God in truth so that the world may see that there is a God and want to be reconciled to him and be saved.  This is what it is all about.  And, if we find that we have misunderstood the scriptures, we must not let our pride keep us from letting us admit that we were in error and to accept our correction.  If we are in error, is it not better that we are corrected so that we can go on with the truth from here?

    I pray “my Father and my God please do not let me teach any thing that is not your Word.  Correct me quickly if what I am teaching is not the truth”.  I don't want to mislead any one, and I do not any one on this forum to mislead any one either because I want God's very best for you.

    God Bless

    #47213
    charity
    Participant

    Quote (942767 @ April 03 2007,01:10)

    Quote (david @ April 02 2007,10:02)

    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


    Hi David:

    I totally agree with you on this one.  It is not about winning or losing but about getting understanding of God's Word so that we can teach the Word of God in truth so that the world may see that there is a God and want to be reconciled to him and be saved.  This is what it is all about.  And, if we find that we have misunderstood the scriptures, we must not let our pride keep us from letting us admit that we were in error and to accept our correction.  If we are in error, is it not better that we are corrected so that we can go on with the truth from here?

    I pray “my Father and my God please do not let me teach any thing that is not your Word.  Correct me quickly if what I am teaching is not the truth”.  I don't want to mislead any one, and I do not any one on this forum to mislead any one either because I want God's very best for you.

    God Bless


    Me three 942767

    I do not desire to hand t8 over to the Law to be judge

    Jesus never said anything like I'll give you three days or your the loser;
    but IN THREE DAY'S HE CAN TEAR DOWN THE OLD TEMPLE and build it a new.

    Psa 39:8 Deliver me from all my transgressions: make me not the reproach of the foolish.
    Psa 39:9 I was dumb, I opened not my mouth; because thou didst [it].

    charity

    #47265
    david
    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: . . . . understand?
    –Is 1:18

    Yes, I understand what you are saying. But I don't think you understand how you came off when you jumped on T8 for not responding in three days. The last few posts you should reflect on.

    #47266
    david
    Participant

    (John 17:3) “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”

    1. Fred is Sam's pupil
    2. Fred is a debate champion.
    3. Sam has one more debates than anyone.

    All the three things above are very simple ideas, easily understood.

    Now, if I said:
    “Concerning this trinitarian debate, we should learn from Sam, the only true debater, and also from Fred whom he taught.”

    We notice several things:
    1. Fred cannot be Sam because Sam “taught” fred, just as the Father sent his Son. The two are clearly distinguished in this verse as being two separate people.

    2. Because Sam is a grand master debater and much better than everyone else, comparitively speaking, it can be said that he is the only true debater. No one else comes close and compared to him, others aren't really debating at all. (Similarly, no one is a “mighty one” [god] to Jehovah. Yet, they can be called gods compared to others)
    THIS DOESN'T MAKE Fred a false debator. He really is a champion debater. But he is nowhere in Sam's league, so the statement makes sense.

    Understanding all of this, this scripture (unless you are heavily slanted toward trinitarianism already) seems to greatly argue against it):
    “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”

    #47267
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Just wanted to clear a couple of things up….

    It's seems that there's a perception that i'm being a bit precious about the debate. It's standard practice to forfeit a debate if you breach the time limit, and for good reasons. It's important to understand that in the format of a formal debate (in contrast to the general chaotic disorder of the message board thread) all things, apart from the skill set of the participants and the apologetic material at their disposal, should be held equal. The rules are there to ensure an unfair advantage is not held by one participant over another. The time limitation is particularly important as it imposes pressure, and has a significant influence on the quality of the each participant's output. In this debate, to a certain extent, I had to rush my post to ensure I made the three day time limit and, of course, soon after submission thought of a few more points I could have made. Had I had longer I could have incorporated them and the post would have been more compelling. T8 had a full 8 days to respond and didn't, so the debate had to end. You could liken it to the time limit of an exam, students who are subjected to limitation of time will generally be outperformed by those that can finish at their own discretion. The rules are there to make it fair for both participants.

    With regard to me supposedly “winning” the debate. For the record I have never declared it, nor intimated it. No body “won”, the debate never really got off the ground and even if it did and went to completion the final result would still have been subjective. No matter how one-sided the exchanges might have been, inevitably those whose views are akin to t8's would propbably have sided with him and those who share my views would likely have sided with me. Such is human nature. The real value of debates (conducted properly) is that they provide a great platform to expose both the strengths and weaknesses in both arguments, and the information can be filtered through by the undecideds. That's why I like good debates. Too bad this one didn't work out.

    :)

    #47268
    charity
    Participant

    Hi IS;1;18

    I would stop for you anytime;  :) even no matter what you
    believed is true; I except that as Gods will for you;
    Least he brings us from wherever as to strengthen a army prepared

    I also think its the school Master that first rules our mind?
    Grace abounds always through this time for all of us; everything is a learning opportunity

    Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

    Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    charity

    #47271
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Those are kind words Charity…I think.

    :)

    You're a blessing to us at Heaven.net, the place would not be the same without you.

    #47274
    charity
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,09:58)
    Those are kind words Charity…I think.

    :)

    You're a blessing to us at Heaven.net, the place would not be the same without you.


    Thank you IS; 1 18 that’s exceeding more than I deserve;
    Also already having been blessed in finding the good that is within you
    Heaven Net is such a blessing
    With Gods love nothing is impossible to overcome
    Pity God's omnipotence was not extended naturally to His  children .
    Glad We have Grace and mercy;His patience is towards us always while we learn his ways

    :D Good Night IS 1;18

    #47294

    t8 Posted

    Quote
    Great you admit as such.

    Now combine that with the fact that this one true God sent his son.

    Can you see that? Can you at least throw away your pride and admit that?

    Of course we both know that there is one true God, but you also have to reconcile the fact that men and angels are referred to in scripture as elohim and theos and that Paul acknowledges that indeed there are many gods and many lords. In the context of angels, we know that is in not stating that they are false gods because they are told to “worship God all ye gods” and it is also unlikely that it is referring to false gods when talking of men because they were not claiming to be God.

    So if your philosophy cannot handle all scripture, then maybe you need to change something.

    What I believe caters for all scripture, not just some. I have made sure that scripture changes me, not me changing scripture.

    What about you? Are you willing to let scripture change you? After all it is revealed from God himself and accepting what he says is obedience and obedience is love.

    There are many gods, but there is one God of all and that God is even the God of Jesus Christ.

    There are many lords such as landlords, lords over regions, cities, nations, kingdoms, etc. But there is one Lord of all.

    God the Father is the true God over all. Jesus Christ is the true Lord over all. God also made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

    But if you want to continue to let the Trinity doctrine poison scripture for you, then that is your choice. But remember that false teaching will incur a harsher judgement.

    T8

    You say…

    Quote
    Great you admit as such.

    Now combine that with the fact that this one true God sent his son.

    Can you see that? Can you at least throw away your pride and admit that?

    Yes I do admit there is “ONE TRUE GOD”.

    But, apparently you don’t.

    You insist on calling other beings “angels and men” gods, and then go on to say that they can’t be “false gods” because they are referring to Angels of God or men.

    You also insist on calling Jesus a lesser god and of course you say he is not false either.

    Since we know that something is either true or false, and we obviously know that Jesus is true then we know he is “TRUE GOD”!

    Now combine that with the fact that “the Father” calls no other being “God” but Yeshua, then we have confirmation he is the “True God”!

    Can you see that? Can you at least throw away your pride and admit that?

    Obviously, your definition of “ONE true God” is false as long as you believe there are other gods that are not false.

    You say…

    Quote
    Of course we both know that there is one true God, but you also have to reconcile the fact that men and angels are referred to in scripture as elohim and theos and that Paul acknowledges that indeed there are many gods and many lords. In the context of angels, we know that is in not stating that they are false gods because they are told to “worship God all ye gods” and it is also unlikely that it is referring to false gods when talking of men because they were not claiming to be God.

    Here is what Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews a strict monotheistic Jew acknowledged…

    1 Cor 8:
    4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
    5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, (we know there is only “one Lord, the Father and Yeshua/YHWH).
    6 yet for us there is but “one God”, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
    7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat {food} as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

    Let’s break it down.

    Vrs 4.
    Paul a strict Monotheist, speaks of Idols as being “no such thing” in the world, and that “there is NO GOD but ONE”

    Vrs 5.
    Paul says they are “So called gods”, and many of them “gods and lords. We know there is only “ONE LORD” the Father and Yeshua”. Do you object to that?

    Vrs 6.
    Paul declares “Yet for us there is but *ONE GOD*”. If you say Jesus is “A” God and he is your “LORD”, then that means also he is your God.

    Do you see that? Can you take of your proud glasses to see that?

    Then in the same breath Paul goes on to say the “ONE GOD” is the Father, from whom are all things “and” the Lord Jesus Christ “by whom are all things” and we exist through Him.

    If we “by Jesus” exist through him and are Gods children and belong to Jesus or God then Jesus is also God. Can you see that?

    Vrs 7.
    Then Paul declares that not all men have this knowledge.
    Then he goes back to the Idols he was speaking of in Vrs 4.

    What knowledge do men lack?

    It’s the knowledge that there are “so called gods” and “idols” that men worship but “for us” there is only *ONE God*, and *ONE LORD*, The Father and Yeshua!

    The context plainly shows the contrast of other so called “gods and lords” with the Father and Yeshua. Can you see that?

    Tell me t8, why would Paul speaking to Corinth who was battling with Polytheism and Paganism mention in the same breath The Father and Lord Jesus sharing the same attributes?

    He couples them together between scriptures condemning Idol worship and Polytheism.

    You say…

    Quote
    So if your philosophy cannot handle all scripture, then maybe you need to change something.

    What I believe caters for all scripture, not just some. I have made sure that scripture changes me, not me changing scripture.

    What about you? Are you willing to let scripture change you? After all it is revealed from God himself and accepting what he says is obedience and obedience is love.

    There are many gods, but there is one God of all and that God is even the God of Jesus Christ.

    There are many lords such as landlords, lords over regions, cities, nations, kingdoms, etc. But there is one Lord of all.

    God the Father is the true God over all. Jesus Christ is the true Lord over all. God also made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

    But if you want to continue to let the Trinity doctrine poison scripture for you, then that is your choice. But remember that false teaching will incur a harsher judgment.

    My “Theology” can handle it. How about yours?

    Maybe you should consider letting the scriptures change you. I have, for by faith I accept his word “ALL of it “ no matter if I may have full knowledge or not.

    So since you say there are many lords and gods, which is Polytheism and that “It’s not wrong to call the Word, Yeshua ‘A’ god”, putting him in the class of the created, then how do you reconcile that with these scriptures.

    Deut 4:35
    Unto thee it was s
    hewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

    Deut 4:39
    Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

    1 Kings 8:60
    That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

    Isa 454:5
    I am the LORD, and there is none else, “there is no God beside me”: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

    Isa 45:21
    Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

    I am quiet sure the Word/YHWY was present when these words were spoken.

    Your proof text…

    Jn 10:34
    Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

    Jesus is quoting David who prophetically speaking of the Kings and rulers of the Most High.

    Ps 8:6
    I have said, Ye are gods ('elohiym’ Rulers and Judges); and all of you are children of the most High.

    Look at the context of the Psalm, David is talking about judging justly and defending the Fatherless and the poor.

    Look at the context of Jesus quote in Jn 10. Jesus is talking about the Fathers Works that he was doing, judging justly and defending the Fatherless and healing the sick and binding up the broken hearted.

    Jesus had just stated in vrs 30..

    Jn 10:30
    I and my Father are one.

    Tel me t8, do you believe when Jesus was quoting King David in Ps 8:6 that he was putting the Father and himself in the same class of being?

    Did not Jesus know the above scriptures that say there is only “ONE” God and none else?

    So then to you Jesus breaks the law if you believe he is saying there is other gods in the same class rather than rulers and judges.

    It looks like to me you need to change your philosophy.
    Remember t8, that teaching false doctrine will bring a harsher judgment and penalty.

    For to us there is but One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

    One day every knee shall bow and confess to God/Jesus that he is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.

    We should follow Thomas example and cry out “My Lord and and my God”, and we will hear the words of our Saviour God saying, “Blessed are you because you have believed and yet you have not seen.

    Selah

    #47309
    charity
    Participant

    WorshippingJesus I am looking to a full reward; and I am reminded in the scripture that I shall be in danger of losing this if I refuse to listen and place myself under he that hath not both the Father and the Son.

    2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
    2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

    charity

    #47311

    Quote (charity @ April 04 2007,00:50)
    WorshippingJesus I am looking to a full reward; and I am reminded in the scripture that I shall be in danger of losing this if I refuse to listen and place myself under he that hath not both the Father and the Son.

    2Jo 1:8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
    2Jo 1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

    charity


    Charity

    Are we supposed to put ourselves under anyone but the Father and the Son and the Spirit?

    ???

    #47312
    charity
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 04 2007,01:00)

    Quote (charity @ April 04 2007,00:50)
    WorshippingJesus I am looking to a full reward; and I am reminded in the scripture that I shall be in danger of losing this if I refuse to listen and place myself under he that hath not both the Father and the Son.

    2Jo 1:8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
    2Jo 1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

    charity


    Charity

    Are we supposed to put ourselves under anyone but the Father and the Son and the Spirit?

    ???


    I have full respect for the God head WorshippingJesus
    God has put at Mans feet a help meet.
    If you notice the Book I quoted is written for the female to be alerted towards the God head decerning it as her reward in full or part which concerns the choice she makes?

    She may well have the father and the son and filled the gaps with garments of praise towards God in patience
    But without the Man having the father and the son she has failed to place herself short of the desired leading God has created for us

    BLESSINGS

    #47573
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ writes:

    Are we supposed to put ourselves under anyone but the Father and the Son and the Spirit?

    *******************************

    1 Cor. 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    Who is under the Spirit? Who is the Spirit the “head of….” Just curious :)

    #47580

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 05 2007,06:45)
    WJ writes:

    Are we supposed to put ourselves under anyone but the Father and the Son and the Spirit?

    *******************************

    1 Cor. 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    Who is under the Spirit?  Who is the Spirit the “head of….”  Just curious :)


    Not3in1

    Glad you asked. :)

    Are you ever lead by the Spirit?

    Do you submit to the Spirit of God?

    Does the Spirit teach you?

    Does the Spirit of God convict you?

    Does the Spirit of God correct you?

    Since we know that the Lord is that Spirit, and we know that there is ONE Spirit.

    Then I would say since Christ is the Spirit then he is our head!

    Wouldnt you?

    Who is dwelling in you? Hopefully he is your head!

    2 Cor 3:17
    Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

    2 Cor 13:5
    Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

    Hope this helps!  :)

    #47586
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Then I would say since Christ is the Spirit then he is our head!

    Wouldnt you?
    *****************************
    I answered “yes” to the first 5 questions. Because the spirit of God IS God (to me, I understand that the spirit of God is WHO God is, not another person of the trinity).

    So, I'm confused then as to how Jesus can also be the Spirit. Is this “Spirit” a different spirit from that of the Trinity?

    I'm wondering about the verse in Corinthians. Why wasn't the “Spirit” (meaning the 3rd person in the trinity) mentioned as having a place of authority over anyone or thing? I'm seriously trying to follow this line of thought…..don't lose me!

    #47595
    charity
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 05 2007,06:45)
    WJ writes:

    Are we supposed to put ourselves under anyone but the Father and the Son and the Spirit?

    *******************************

    1 Cor. 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is God, and the head of the woman is woman, and the head of God is God.

    Who is under the Spirit?  Who is the Spirit the “head of….”  Just curious :)


    Hey Not3in1

    I hope you don’t mind I adjusted your post above to suite worshipingJesus

    charity

    #47598
    charity
    Participant

    and then I considered maybe

    this is better suites WJ

    1 Cor. 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is christ, and the head of God is christ.

    WorshipingJesus Is IT NOT less confussing now to just read a clear scripture that puts us all in to line and makes sence?

    1 Cor. 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    The head bone connected to the neck bone,
    The neck bone connected to the back bone,

    GOD BLESS YOU

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (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