Trinity Debate – John 17:3

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

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…..

My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

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

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

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

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

He doesn’t say:

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

or this:

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

and He definitely didn’t say this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

From here

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

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

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

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

Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

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

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

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

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

Section 2. Some contextual issues.

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

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

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

In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?

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

Quote

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

In verse 10 we truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have? I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings

Discussion

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 281 through 300 (of 945 total)

←1 2 3…141516…46 47 48 →

Author
Posts

April 5, 2007 at 10:30 pm#47688

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (charity @ April 05 2007,08:35)

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

Charity

Yes Jesus the Word/God took on the likness of sinfull flesh and was born a man also!

Remember, he has *ALL* authority and power at this time.

April 5, 2007 at 11:44 pm#47698

charity

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2007,23:30)

Quote (charity @ April 05 2007,08:35)

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

Charity

Yes Jesus the Word/God took on the likness of sinfull flesh and was born a man also!

Remember, he has *ALL* authority and power at this time.

Hi worshipingJesus

Confusion here for Christ said he was the father and the father was in him;

Have not Christ root in him self; for when a tree is cut down to the roots it grows again looks different in its new glory from how it used to look; but it still remains the same seed or even soul new prepared body even vine?

Jesus is sending an his Angel to you to you to tell you that his root is not God but in fact God has done created him from his father David
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

In a few words He said now you have me, and I take you to my father
In whom He came from into the world again. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

That you to will be born of a good seed not bad; and any without root within him turns away offended from I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star. And makes his root God.
Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. Being offended that his root is his father David and he is the offspring of David yet when it is seen that God did away with the first to make way for the second 1Cr 15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. Hbr 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Which David said of himself in the psalms that he should appear Psa 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, And when he came in volume of Book he said sacrifice and offering you did not require but a body hast thou prepared for me.

David has many children made of flesh makings; but he has only one Son bearing his roots as his offspring that is Christ
Of whom you sucsessfully peirce David as the roots as he proclaimed in his soul in the psalms before the time; having not returned to the Son roots finding the Son of God that was first received the vow that we shall make men in the our Image.
The banquet begins
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

And having seen how Christ appeared a second time for us all from his roots he was done away with the curse to all men; again we have the second man from the heavens the first of the New creation born of God who said he was a King made lowly and poor; for they new not his roots that he had grown again from; He said I am the resurrection of Life; Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet He has risen from the grave of the womb of woman shall we let him live as the sure mercy of David
I take you to my father; but the Nations refused his father and cast his crown to the ground in this they deny the second man coming and set another coming seeing the scripture needs to be accounted for the Christ to appear twice; God without seeing the work that God has done; and forsaking search for themselves to even have root and seed within ones self that even a whole kingdom may appear from the roots of where created from.

April 6, 2007 at 10:52 am#47796

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,10:58)

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.

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

100 verses not enough then?

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.

Read them again or at least a selection of them.

E.g.,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love.
But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
Now replace the word “God” with the word “Trinity”.
It doesn't work does it?
God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

April 6, 2007 at 11:05 am#47797

Proclaimer

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,10:45)

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!

Condemnation is when you condemn someone for what they have done. You are obviously doing that. Don't pretend you are not, it is obvious. If you are not, then you won't mind admitting that you understand my reasons or at least respect them.

But I truly do not believe that I have sinned in this regard. In fact I put my family first which is required of a righteous man. Jesus saved a man on the Sabbath because it was the right thing to do. David ate the bread from the altar, I didn't post within 3 days due to family commitments.

You can say that I am a bad person for not posting within 3 days, but I had good reasons for not doing that. In fact I would hate to think what you would think if I told you that I had an overdue Library book once. Would that cost me the death penalty in your view?

You have to accept people have good reasons why they can't make appointments sometimes. I am sure that you have been late to a dinner, or late to work for traffic reasons or whatever? Yet you probably said at the dinner date that I will be there at … and you may have signed a contract with your employer that said I will start work at…, yet we know that there are always times when we can't make it. Could be you needed to help someone, witness to someone, you could have a family issue to deal with, could have been a crash on the motorway that led you to be 15 minutes late at work. I am sure that you understand what I am saying and can think of many occasions in your own life where there were good reasons for not making something.

But maybe it is possible that you attack me or condemn me for not posting within 3 days because you cannot attack the words and scripture I have spoken regarding your Babylonian doctrine and the truth that the Father is the one true God. So like the Pharisees you sought opportunity to attack my character. But let's face it, you go on as if I have done wrong. Wrong is what sin is, therefore you are saying that I am sinning. That is how I see it.

But if you aren't condemning me, then am I to assume that you are understanding as to my reasons or at least respectful of them? In other words you agree that the quality of the answer is more important than the timing, or you realise that sometimes more important things pop up and must be given priority. But somehow I think that you are taking this as an opportunity to put the boot in so to speak.

But that is OK, you show your true colours and what manor of man you are. The truth is what these forums are for and if that purpose was served to show us what manor of man you are, then so be it.

I personally do not think that the Spirit of Grace leads people to persecute others over such things and I personally would rather you attend to your family or other important matters rather than try and reach a deadline for posting here. In fact such a deadline isn't really that important anyway. It's not like the world is going to end if you post a few days late. I know that I wouldn't speak bad or talk to you in a condemning way if you were late to an appointment.

In fact not only do I understand that things like this happen often, but I wouldn't even talk about it with you if it was between you and someone else because it wouldn't be my business. So why have you stuck you nose in when this was between me and Isaiah?

At least Isaiah has extended his courtesy regarding this matter. If anything, I give him a point for that.

April 6, 2007 at 11:38 am#47798

Proclaimer

Participant

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

What kind of crap is this?

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

You say…

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…

……………………..

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

This is what I am talking about WorshippingJesus.

Look at your attitude. It is condemning.

BTW, crap means shit and if that isn't condemning then what is it? An insult?

April 6, 2007 at 2:22 pm#47814

Not3in1

Participant

WJ writes:
Remember, he has *ALL* authority and power at this time.
***********************

BUT, remember that Jesus has a sign of “authority” on his head. And the head of Christ is…..God.

If Christ is “fully God” in ANY WAY, he cannot have a sign of authority over his head. Plain and simple. This cannot be refuted with SCRIPTURE.

Jesus will eventually turn everything over to the Father so that he can be all in all. We all know this. However, for NOW, not only does he have all power as you have pointed out…………but he has a sign of authority OVER HIM. His judgements are just because why? Because he listens to his Father!

If Jesus was “fully” God considering all that Charity has pointed out, and what I have pointed out here – then I am only left to assume that the kind of God that Jesus could be, would not be the God of the scriptures, but a God who is MAN-MADE. An idol.

April 6, 2007 at 2:25 pm#47815

Not3in1

Participant

We're off to the ocean this weekend, so I will be away from this board…..I look forward to reading responses when I return, and answering (if any) when I return. :cool:

April 6, 2007 at 4:42 pm#47822

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

[/quote]

Quote (t8 @ April 06 2007,22:52)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,10:58)

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.

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

100 verses not enough then?

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.

Read them again or at least a selection of them.

E.g.,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love.

But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

Now replace the word “God” with the word “Trinity”.

It doesn't work does it?

God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again these scriptures do not prove Jesus is not God.

They simply show that the Father is God and Jesus is the Son.

Paul almost always couples the Father and Jesus this way in his salutations and validictions.

I believe the reason he did this is so that men would not think there is more than one God.

Example…

Tts 1:4 reads
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Now if Paul would have said…

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and “God” the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Then it could be taken as Polytheism.

But also notice how this could be read.

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, “from God”,(who is)

the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

See how one comma can change the meaning.

The problem that you have is these scriptures do not say Jesus is not God.

But there are scriptures that do, that are not ambiguous.

Now if you say he is “A” God then the scriptures are broken.

So, again your scriptures do not disprove the Deity of Yashua.

You say…

Quote

Now replace the word “God” with the word “Trinity”.

This is a straw. First of all you are placing a plural noun on a singular noun.

Secondly you are leaving Christ in the sentence when he is part of the trinity.

Tell you what to be fair lets look at it another way.

Since God Is Spirit, lets use a Singular Noun” in place of God and see if it makes sence.

Grace and peace to you from (Spirit) our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

We always thank (Spirit), the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and (Spirit) our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,

Grace, mercy and peace from (Spirit) the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love.

But thanks be to (Spirit)! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(Spirit), who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in (Spirit); trust also in me.

May the (Spirit) of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

You see t8, you play these little “Logical” word games with people to coerce the week and simple to follow your game.

All it is to me is weak tactical methods to promote your Henotheistic veiw which is unscriptural.

April 6, 2007 at 5:00 pm#47823

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 06 2007,23:05)

To WorshippingJesus.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2007,10:45)

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!

But that is OK, you show your true colours and what manor of man you are. The truth is what these forums are for and if that purpose was served to show us what manor of man you are, then so be it.

At least Isaiah has extended his courtesy regarding this matter. If anything, I give him a point for that.

So pointing out error is condemning?

If you want to take it that way fine.

But I have done nothing but point out your error as you do mine all the time.

T8, no one even cares about the 3 days. Isaiah was willing to give you all the time you needed.

Now you can stick to your pride if you want and accuse us of condemning and sin, thats your perogative.

But I have no guilty conscience, and if you want to attack that then go ahead.

And as far as me sticking my nose in yours and Is 1:18s buisness, I thought this was an open forum.

Also your attending to your family is an honourable thing, but as Is 1:18 said, your yea should be yea and your nay should be nay, even if that means the loss of a little sleep.

April 6, 2007 at 5:10 pm#47824

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 06 2007,23:38)

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

What kind of crap is this?

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

You say…

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…

……………………..

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

This is what I am talking about WorshippingJesus.

Look at your attitude. It is condemning.

BTW, crap means shit and if that isn't condemning then what is it? An insult?

I think the condemnation is in your own conscience.

There is no condemnation here just pointing out the facts.

BTW Since when does the word “Crap” only mean “S–T”?

Crap – usually vulgar

Synonym – “defecate”, which means;

1 : to free from impurity or corruption
2 : to discharge from the anus

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/defecate

Funny, I have to explain “S–T” to you.

April 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm#47841

TimothyVI

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 07 2007,05:10)

quote]
Funny, I have to explain “S–T” to you.

Now that actually was a funny play on a colloquial statement
WorshippingJesus.
I didn't think that you had a sense of humor.

Tim

April 6, 2007 at 7:45 pm#47875

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 07 2007,06:56)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 07 2007,05:10)

quote]
Funny, I have to explain “S–T” to you.

Now that actually was a funny play on a colloquial statement
WorshippingJesus.
I didn't think that you had a sense of humor.

Tim

Some times all you can do is laugh!

April 7, 2007 at 12:12 am#47915

charity

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2007,10:59)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 21 2007,23:04)

Hi W,
You say
“Compare this with Jn 17:3 and you have good hermeneutics!”

Perhaps so.
You may feel intellectually satisfied.
But have you found truth?

I have!

You see like Thomas I bow down at Jesus feet and say “My Lord and My God”.

And in giving this honour to the Son I give the same honour to the Father.

How about you, have you bowed down to Jesus and accepted him as your Lord and God?

Do you give the same honour to the Son as to the Father?

O worshipingJesus

The Lord of hosts sayeth Grab hold of him that is a Jew; go with him; God is with him; and yet only ten shall go with him as he lives his life?

Zec 8:22 Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.
Zec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.

The Lord of hosts is set before him, even his roots of a tree in its glory that God is with.

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

charity

April 7, 2007 at 12:12 am#47916

Proclaimer

Participant

To WorshippingJesus.

As Christians we should be doing what 2 Corinthians 10:5 says:
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

It is not good to try and demolish people themselves, insult them, or say that what they do or did is crap. We are not suppose to judge in such a manner.

Let me remind you of what scripture teaches us:

Matthew 7:1
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

Luke 6:37
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

So therefore it seems to me that for every appointment that you have been late to, God has the right to say it was crap. That is the measure you have set for yourself. As you can see, you are only making things harder for yourself and you are actually blessing me for the following reason:

Matthew 5:11

“Blessed are you when people insult you,

persecute you

and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

So every time you insult me and tell me that what I do or did was crap, you judge yourself and you bless me. And I also take comfort in the fact that this man who opposes me is a man who displays this kind of character. If you were a holy man, I would take your words more seriously, but we know them by their fruit don't we.

April 7, 2007 at 12:16 am#47918

Proclaimer

Participant

Anyway can we now go back to the topic.

April 7, 2007 at 12:26 am#47919

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 07 2007,23:42)