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 - 321 through 340 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47996
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    Do you have other masters and lords than Christ?

    #47997
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 09 2007,10:42)
    The Only True God

    Since the one true God exists as a Godhead this means that the three Persons can be addressed as the only true God both individually and collectively. Putting it another way:

    . The Godhead is the only true God.
    · Each specific member of the Godhead is the only true God.
    · Therefore, the members of the Godhead are the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

    This is why Jesus can speak of one member of the Godhead as the only true God without this implying that the other members are not God. To make this point more clear, notice what the inspired book of Hebrews says:

    “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’ He also says, ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:8-12

    The Father praises his Son by calling him God, Lord, eternal King and for being the Creator and Sustainer of all creation!
    Scriptures also teaches that Jesus is the only sovereign Master and Lord:

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
    Jude 1:4

    Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

    Now does this mean that the Father is not God, sovereign Master, Lord, and the Creator of the heavens and the earth? The answer is obvious.

    The Father, according to the Holy Bible, is just as much God, Master, Lord, and just as responsible for creating and sustaining the universe as the Son is.

    In a similar way, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the only true God.


    Hi CB.

    It doesn't say that the only true God sent the only true God as can be derived from your interpretation. The truth is that the only true God sent his son it's that simple. The text is plain and I would take care in how it is interpreted because it is eternal life to know the true God and his son.

    We also know that for is believers there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Not one God the Father, Son, and Spirit as what you are promoting.

    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    John 17:3
    Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

    The only conclusion is that there is one God and he has a son who is the son of God. But how our adversary subtly changes that.

    Also did you not know that the title 'theos' and 'elohim' are used in reference to the Father, son, angels, men. So that certainly blows your assumptions out of the water. For angels are not the one true God and neither are they false gods. So when we see the word 'theos' or 'elohim' we should check the context as it is not exclusively applied to the Almighty.

    If the Trinity doctrine were correct as you say, there would be no contradiction with scripture. However it seems to work with some verses (although that doesn't make it the correct interpretation), but the bigger problem for a Trinitarian trying to harmise scripture is that there are many where that doctrine actually breaks scripture.

    In the field of Science at least that would make the theory less credible to not true.

    #47998
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 09 2007,11:55)
    Hi CB,
    Do you have other masters and lords than Christ?


    Hi Nick.

    Yet I would imagine that he also says that the Father is his master. If that was the case he would go against his own interpretation.

    Of course there is one God over all. That includes over all masters, lords, angels, men, and the universe.

    Below him is the Lord, lords, Archangels, angels, apostles, prophets, judges, world leaders etc.

    A play on words can make Jesus to be anything that a man desires, i.e., a man, divine, even a demon or mad man, for scripture says that Christ was all these. But context is everything. When he was called a demon it was from the mouth of Pharisees. See how context is important.

    Scripture says that he is both lord and Christ because God made this possible. Of course he didn't make him lord over himself (God).

    Same with the Pharaoh and Joseph. He made Joseph lord over the Pharaoh's kingdom. It stands to reason that he was lord over all except the pharaoh himself.

    Likewise Jesus is Lord over God's kingdom, but not lord over God himself.

    Acts 2:36
    “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

    I cannot see how a Trinitarian believes this and hundreds of other scriptures.

    #47999
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi T8,
    It appears that their mission is not a sincere effort to find truth
    but an attempt to muddy the waters in favour of their deception
    to please their real lord and master.

    #48000
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    They certainly muddy the waters that is for sure.

    But hopefully most readers here can discern between a pure spring and a stagnant pool.

    #48001
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 09 2007,10:49)
    t8. Do you believe what the following scripture is saying?

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4


    Yes CB, he is the Lord and he is our master. God appointed him as our Lord after all.

    But I don't believe that he is also the God that made him Lord.

    Acts 2:36
    “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

    #48002
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 08 2007,12:31)

    Quote (t8 @ April 07 2007,12:12)
    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.


  • t8

    Thats hillarious.

    Yes we do know them by their fruit.

    Especially when they call another brother a Pig!

    Put down the holier than thouugh attitude t8. You are no persecuted saint here.

    It only shows your pride for not admitting you were wrong.

    Typical is it not? When you know you are wrong you try the old blame shift game and rather than apologise you say well you are bad too. Sort of like what happened with Adam and Eve. “the woman gave me the fruit and I ate”, “the serpent tricked me”. You know blame it on the other guy.

    Anyway, I repeat that I have never called you a pig and to say I did is false witness isn't it. But you did say that my late post was crap and you did paint me in a bad light because of this and I have correctly pointed out that this means that you have set this measurement for yourself on judgement day. Of course you can always apologise and admit you were harsh in your judgement and I am sure that God would respect this and it would be better for you.

    So, what I quoted was a scripture. It is a fact that scripture says that swine trample pearls underfoot. I didn't say it, I repeated it. It is scripture. Here is the proof.

    Matthew 7:6
    “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

    Your argument is with Matthew and the one who inspired him, not me.

    Now I don't think my post is actually hilarious, but I do think it is a little funny in a certain way regarding how you attack me personally and do not give an answer to scripture and what I have written.

    Again you say I called you a pig, when all I did was quote the scripture for good reason, and yet look at the way you are acting toward me. It looks like you are trying to tear me to pieces. Isn't that ironic.

    What you should be doing is quoting scripture to show that what I say is not true if indeed that is the case. But your actions toward me and lack of scriptures in defense of what I have written speaks volumes.

    Yes your actions may be suspicious, but I do not pass judgement on you and call you a pig or a dog. If you are, then that is for you to find out and to fix or let the Lord fix. I certainly know little about you apart from the fact that I think you do trample truths under your foot. But I do not know you well enough to consider you a pig or a dog.

    Personally speaking I would prefer you to be a noble man or at least a man who seeks to be noble, and I certainly encourage you to produce the fruits of God's Spirit.

    #48131
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    David

    Quote

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 09 2007,10:49)
    t8. Do you believe what the following scripture is saying?

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”    Jude 1:4


    Yes CB, he is the Lord and he is our master. God appointed him as our Lord after all.

    But I don't believe that he is also the God that made him Lord.

    Acts 2:36
    “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

    David you have sidestepped my question. Now answer this.

    Do you believe Jude 1:4 where it describes Jesus as our only Master and Lord?

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”    Jude 1:4

    #48134
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    The One true God is the Master and Lord of Jesus
    but Jesus is the level of authority immediately above us.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    #48135
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 10 2007,13:25)
    David

    Quote

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 09 2007,10:49)
    t8. Do you believe what the following scripture is saying?

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4


    Yes CB, he is the Lord and he is our master. God appointed him as our Lord after all.

    But I don't believe that he is also the God that made him Lord.

    Acts 2:36
    “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

    David you have sidestepped my question. Now answer this.

    Do you believe Jude 1:4 where it describes Jesus as our only Master and Lord?

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4


    If you are talking to me, then I say that I have no choice but to believe it. After all it is scripture.

    God made him Lord of all. That is also scripture. Not a contradiction, but both work together in harmony as the truth should.

    #48143

    Quote (t8 @ April 08 2007,16:58)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 09 2007,10:42)
    The Only True God

    Since the one true God exists as a Godhead this means that the three Persons can be addressed as the only true God both individually and collectively. Putting it another way:

    . The Godhead is the only true God.
    · Each specific member of the Godhead is the only true God.
    · Therefore, the members of the Godhead are the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

    This is why Jesus can speak of one member of the Godhead as the only true God without this implying that the other members are not God. To make this point more clear, notice what the inspired book of Hebrews says:

    “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’ He also says, ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:8-12

    The Father praises his Son by calling him God, Lord, eternal King and for being the Creator and Sustainer of all creation!
    Scriptures also teaches that Jesus is the only sovereign Master and Lord:

    “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
    Jude 1:4

    Act 15:11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
     

    Now does this mean that the Father is not God, sovereign Master, Lord, and the Creator of the heavens and the earth? The answer is obvious.

    The Father, according to the Holy Bible, is just as much God, Master, Lord, and just as responsible for creating and sustaining the universe as the Son is.

    In a similar way, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the only true God.


    Hi CB.

    It doesn't say that the only true God sent the only true God as can be derived from your interpretation. The truth is that the only true God sent his son it's that simple. The text is plain and I would take care in how it is interpreted because it is eternal life to know the true God and his son.

    We also know that for is believers there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Not one God the Father, Son, and Spirit as what you are promoting.

    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    John 17:3
    Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

    The only conclusion is that there is one God and he has a son who is the son of God. But how our adversary subtly changes that.

    Also did you not know that the title 'theos' and 'elohim' are used in reference to the Father, son, angels, men. So that certainly blows your assumptions out of the water. For angels are not the one true God and neither are they false gods. So when we see the word 'theos' or 'elohim' we should check the context as it is not exclusively applied to the Almighty.

    If the Trinity doctrine were correct as you say, there would be no contradiction with scripture. However it seems to work with some verses (although that doesn't make it the correct interpretation), but the bigger problem for a Trinitarian trying to harmise scripture is that there are many where that doctrine actually breaks scripture.

    In the field of Science at least that would make the theory less credible to not true.


    t8

    You say…

    Quote
    It doesn't say that the only true God sent the only true God as can be derived from your interpretation. The truth is that the only true God sent his son it's that simple. The text is plain and I would take care in how it is interpreted because it is eternal life to know the true God and his son.


    Of course when the Trinitarian view makes sense then rather belive it lets just resort back to missrepresentation of it by calling it “Modalism”.

    “God could not send God” as if to imply the two persons the Father and the Son are the same person.

    If I were you I would take care in how you interpret it in light of John 1:1 which says the Word was God and John 1:14 and Phil 2 which says the Word became flesh.

    God did send the Word who was and is the Lord from heaven, God in the flesh.

    Your interpretation of John 17:3 in light of these scriptures is ambiguous,

    Jesus is the “Only Lord and Master”, because the Father,Son and Holy Spirit are One God!

    If you want to apply your One God and One Lord rule to the Father and the Son.

    Then be consistant. This scripture plainly shows that yeshua is our *One* master and Lord.

    Jn 12:14
    If I then, your *Lord and Master*, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

    Jude 1:4
    For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our *only Master* and Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Matt 6:24
    No man can serve *two masters*: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

    This leaves you with one option t8, that John 1:1 based on the above scriptures means what it says or you choose not to believe it.

    Which is it t8?

    :) ???

    #48150
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Neither should you serve two masters.
    Christ is your master and you should serve him as a branch serves the vine.

    Christ is your head
    God is his head of course.

    1Cor 11
    3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    And of course the vine serves the Gardener.

    You seem to be a slow learner on this matter.

    #48151

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 10 2007,07:02)
    Hi W,
    Neither should you serve two masters.
    Christ is your master and you should serve him as a branch serves the vine.

    Christ is your head
    God is his head of course.

    1Cor 11
    3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    And of course the vine serves the Gardener.

    You seem to be a slow learner on this matter.


    NH

    You see I believe they are One God, however you dont so you serve two the Father and the Son.

    :)

    #48154
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ,
    How can “they” be “one” God when clearly one of these members has a sing of authority on his head? I've asked this before with no answer given? Thanks.

    #48156
    NickHassan
    Participant

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

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 10 2007,07:02)
    Hi W,
    Neither should you serve two masters.
    Christ is your master and you should serve him as a branch serves the vine.

    Christ is your head
    God is his head of course.

    1Cor 11
    3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    And of course the vine serves the Gardener.

    You seem to be a slow learner on this matter.


    NH

    You see I believe they are One God, however you dont so you serve two the Father and the Son.

    :)


    Hi W,
    If you are obedient to the Son of God you are obedient to his Master.
    The Son has been given all authority and you should listen to him.
    That is why God sent the son to save us so as to achieve unity.
    To bring men into unity with Himself in Christ.

    #48159
    Tim2
    Participant

    Not 3in1,

    Jesus says they are one in John 10:30. If they're not one God, then what one are they? Everyone who heard Him, by the way, understood Him to mean one God, including when He said it again in John 10:38.

    That Jesus has a sign of authority on His head, I don't see in 1 Corinthians 11. That God is the head of Christ means that the Son has subordinated Himself by becoming man, which is inferior to God.

    Tim

    #48161
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Tim2 @ April 10 2007,07:25)
    Not 3in1,

    Jesus says they are one in John 10:30.  If they're not one God, then what one are they?  Everyone who heard Him, by the way, understood Him to mean one God, including when He said it again in John 10:38.

    That Jesus has a sign of authority on His head, I don't see in 1 Corinthians 11.  That God is the head of Christ means that the Son has subordinated Himself by becoming man, which is inferior to God.

    Tim


    Hi Tim2,
    It does not say”one and the same” which many are disappointed about.

    In many ways I am one with my spouse.
    In some ways I am one with my children.
    In a few ways I am one with all men.
    In other ways I am one with all creation.

    But you think this must mean that the two, the Father and the Son, are ONE BEING?

    #48164
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Tim2,
    Jesus prayed that we would be “one” with the Father. IN THE SAME WAY that Jesus was one with the Father. Does that mean that we are God, too, then?

    #48166
    Not3in1
    Participant

    That God is the head of Christ means that the Son has subordinated Himself by becoming man, which is inferior to God.
    *****************

    Do you have a scripture that says this is what Jesus was thinking? And please don't quote Philippians 2 – any others? You cannot look to one passage of scripture to explain a theory such as this. It must be a thread throughout scripture. Most important topics are – salvation, baptism, forgiveness of sins, resurrection and so on. They are not just listed in Philippians 2:6 through whatever. Thanks.

    Also, who are you to say that Christ' head only applies to when he became a man. It doesn't say that in that scripture, does it? Read and accept what is written. Keep it simple, keep on track.

    Another note here – if you want to take the passage of scripture that tells us that man has a head, and women has a head, and Christ has a head…….and make it mean something totally different for Christ then for the man, and for the women…..can I change what I want my head to mean, please? How about this: I think that the man is the head over the women, only when the man is being masculine, not when they decide

    #48168
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Sorry, my last paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense – I was distracted, and my attention away from the computer for a minute. My point is that Christ has a sign of authority over his head – just like man does – just like the women does. This is/was the whole point of this passage. God is above Christ. It doesn't say: “….and God is the head of Christ only when he became a man…” I know you want it to. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

Viewing 20 posts - 321 through 340 (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