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 - 361 through 380 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48257
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Amen.

    #48258
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Those with spiritual eyes, prophets, even demons, recognised his previous estate as the monogenes Son.
    As a spirit being like to God he was soul\spirit so to become man he had to be integrated in flesh too.
    God made him just like us to forge for us the possibility of eternal life with Him.
    *******************************

    The demons said Jesus was the Son of God, and that is all. They did not allude to any pre-existence that I am aware of.

    So now Jesus was just 'integrated' into mankind…..oh my goodness. Nick, where do you get these ideas?

    God made him just like us so that he could be the first of many brothers.

    Tell me, if Jesus was integrated from a spirit being who was already formed, and he is the first of many brothers (you and me), how are we to relate to this Jesus? I was not integrated from anything before I was born, and neither were you!

    Jesus said that we have the same Father, indeed, we have the same God. We are even co-heirs with Jesus. Jesus has put himself on par with us….calling us his brothers. If he pre-existed, and already was a person before his birth, he is not on par with us. I don't care if he just “took on” flesh. This Jesus you preach would be an imposter to me. I'm sorry. But that is how I feel. I do not believe the scriptures teach that Jesus was a person before he was born. Not clearly. Not plainly. Not like you are asking Tim2 for those clear verses of the Trinity – you will not find clear verses like that to say that Jesus was a person before he existed. Those scriptures do not exist. If they do, please teach me, and help me see the error in my thinking.

    #48259
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Not3in1, your speculation means nothing if it contradicts scriptures that clearly say that he existed before partaking the flesh.

    Here is a list of scriptures that you have to edit or delete in order to teach that he didn't exist and have glory before he came to earth as a man.

    https://heavennet.net/answers/answer31.htm

    As you will see there are quite a number of scriptures that teach that he existed before coming to us. You might be able to explain some of them away and make it look credible, but I would like to see you explain them all away.

    However such an explanation should be posted to a discussion that is based on that subject. It doesn't belong here because this discussion is about John 17:3 specifically.

    #48266
    Not3in1
    Participant

    t8, I will take a look at all these verses, thank you.

    I see that the topci has wondered many times off the subject intended…. sorry for contributing to that!

    #48267
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Thanks.

    :)

    #48268
    Not3in1
    Participant

    t8, while I have you here…….I just printed off all the verses regarding pre-existence that you lead me to. Did you write this? Will I be reading your conclusions regarding these verses?

    I'll look for a board that deals with this topic of pre-existence, and post after I investigate all these scriptures given. Thanks for this opportunity.

    #48271
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Yes I wrote it.

    I look forward to your comments.

    :)

    #48285
    Not3in1
    Participant

    t8, actually I just went to the pre-existence board and read for quite a while. A lot of my understanding of scripture has already been presented there. And more eloquently, I might add. So, I doubt that anything I have to say will make any difference. But thanks for the scriptures – I'll study them :)

    #48293
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8

    Quote

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 11 2007,09:50)
    Nick and t8 – I do not agree with you brothers, I'm sorry.  In your view, Mary was just the body that produced something that was already existing.  This does not follow the conception and birth story.  This is not what is written.  Furthermore, it makes a mockery out of family, and how we produce after our own kind.  Why would God do that?


    God did that so the Word could become flesh.

    T8. Who was the Word that became flesh?

    Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

    Yes! Jesus is the Word that became flesh.

        ” and the Word was God”  John 1:1   :O

    #48295
    david
    Participant

    “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3)

    NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.

    1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!”

    Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ.

    At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”

    #48300
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi Cult Buster.

    Quote (Cult Buster @ April 11 2007,14:16)
    t8

    Quote

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 11 2007,09:50)
    Nick and t8 – I do not agree with you brothers, I'm sorry. In your view, Mary was just the body that produced something that was already existing. This does not follow the conception and birth story. This is not what is written. Furthermore, it makes a mockery out of family, and how we produce after our own kind. Why would God do that?


    God did that so the Word could become flesh.

    T8. Who was the Word that became flesh?

    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

    Yes! Jesus is the Word that became flesh.

    ” and the Word was God” John 1:1 :O


    Is John 1:1 the main scripture that teaches the Trinity to you?

    If so, then maybe if Isaiah doesn't use that scripture in the debate section, I could debate it with you if you are interested.

    #48302
    Adam Pastor
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 10 2007,09:42)
    Hi Tim2,

    I believe Jesus is the literal Son of God.  To my knowledge, I am the only one who believes this way on this board?  … He is my literal brother (I'm adopted – he is a genuine Son).  Hope this helps.


    Heh sis! :)
    I believe that Jesus is GOD's literal son too!

    When the Bible calls Mary, the mother of Jesus …

    I believe that … literally!!

    #48303
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    There has on this forum been much confusion between Christ’s mission or “office” as Messiah and that of His substance which is The Eternal God. Some myopically focus on Christ's incarnation as a man, yet they ignore the overwhelming evidence of His deity. When confronted with these truths they then try to “dance around” them.

    When Christ was to leave heaven and was to take the form of a man He did not cease to be God. He simply put aside His own divine power and was dependent on God for power. This makes Him our example to follow because we too are to depend totally on God.

    Some on this forum just want to look at Bible verses that are in the context of Christ mission as Messiah but don't like when shown the multitude of scripture identifying Him as the divine Jehovah God. They wish that He will stay eternally incarnate. For some, this is willful blindness which is sin.

    Jesus Christ is the creator, not a creature and will always be equal to the Father in this sense. Jn 1:1 says, “and the word was God”.

    However, before the incarnation, Jesus made a choice to submit to the Father as His head. He had to live in His humanity as a man depending on God for power. Jesus did not give up being God, He was subject to and obeying  the Father while living as a man or within the context of He being Messiah and High Priest which is still continuing

    Heb 2:14  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

    He had to overcome Satan while living as a man. Christ did not come to earth to show what a God can do, but what  man can do when he depends on God for power. He succeeded where Adam failed.

    Heb 2:16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
    Heb 2:17  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
    Heb 2:18  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

    Heb 2:9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    A human body was fashioned for Christ. A body which had sinful propensities just like ours. A body less than what Adam had,  weakened by the curse of sin.

    Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

    Christ condemned sin in the flesh. He resisted sin. Don’t forget that He laid aside His divine power and did not use it for His own benefit, overcoming temptation relying on God for power. We too can resist temptation if we rely on God for power. Christ was our example.

    Heb 2:17  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
    Heb 2:18  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

    Luk 4:2  (Jesus)  Being forty days tempted of the devil.
    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Who was being tempted here? Jesus;    The Lord thy God

    1Ti 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Isa 9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

    There are some instances in the scripture where Jesus calls the Father..His God and says the Father is greater than I.

    In these instances Jesus was encumbered with humanity or within the context of Him being the  Messiah.  Don’t forget that Christ is still ministering for us right now as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.  So His mission as Messiah and High Priest is not yet over.

    Even within the Godhead each Divine Person recognise and have reverence for the other as God.

    Heb 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    The phrase “O God” is a worshipful phrase indicating the reverence each Person of the Godhead have one for another. Each recognises the other as their God. Each are willing to submit one to the other.

    Within the Godhead a plan was made for the salvation of man. It is evident that each divine  Person within the Godhead takes on a different office or role. It is a pity that we too cannot learn the character and humility of God.

    Jesus said.

    Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.
    Joh 10:31  Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

    Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God

    The Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming deity and equality with God, that is why they tried to stone Him.

    Jesus could have told them that they misunderstood Him, but He didn't. Jesus knew that the Pharisees understood His assertion of deity and did not correct them.

    Jesus could have said “Listen fellas, you misunderstood me. I was not blaspheming by claiming to be God.” But Jesus did not correct them, thus confirming His deity to them.

    It seems that the Pharisees had better understanding of Jesus' words than many on this forum.

    Jn 1:1 says, “and the word was God”, referring to Jesus.

    However, before the incarnation, Jesus made a choice to submit to the Father as His head. He had to live in His humanity as a man depending on God for power. Jesus did not give up being God, He was subject to and obeying  the Father while living as a man.

    The Father would maintain the head position and He would become the central One to pray to. He does not minister to us in the direct way of the Son and Holy Spirit. He would not have the central focus to save mankind and to eventually be as highly exalted as the Saviour. He is self effacing in this respect.

    Each member of the Godhead took on a position that was selfless to the extreme and thus revealing the character of God.

    Jesus said

    Luk 22:69  Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

    The right hand of power is metaphor meaning that all authority belongs to Christ. That is all authority. Can you imagine the Godhead relinquishing all their authority to a created being? Of course not! Jesus is Jehovah God.

    We can see how self effacing each Person of the Godhead is to be willing to submit one to the other.

    We can now understand better Christ’s statement

    Mat 23:11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

    We can stand in awe of the great love, humility and even servanthood of the Godhead.

    The apostle Paul understood just who Jesus was when he wrote the following

    1Co 10:4  And did all
    drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    Paul had studied the scriptures that testified of Christ.

    Deu 32:3  Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
    Deu 32:4  He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
    1Sa 2:2  There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
    1Sa 2:2  There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
    Psa 78:35  And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

    That is why Paul said

    1Co 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    We sometimes see statements like

    1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!”

    John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,

    This is also in the context of Christ mission as Messiah.
    In these instances Jesus was either encumbered with humanity or within the context of Him being the  Messiah.  Don’t forget that Christ is still ministering for us right now as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.  So His mission as Messiah and High Priest is still continuing.

    Thus, Jesus' office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be “all in all” just as His Father is.(Colossians 3:11)

    MICAH 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, {though} thou be little among the thousands of Judah, {yet} out of thee shall he come forth unto me {that is} to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth {have been} from of old, from everlasting.

    JOHN 5:23 That all {men} should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.

    JOHN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

    *TITUS 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
    +ACTS 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

    *ISAIAH 43:11 I, {even} I, {am} the Lord(Jehovah); and beside me {there is} no saviour.
    Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

    PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

    Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    #48308
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Adam Pastor – thank you! I was beginning to think I was out in left field. It's good to know there is someone else out in left field to chat with now and then :) I am studying t8's pre-existence scriptures this morning. I'll be posting on that board sooner or later with some comments (not that those comments haven't been voiced before), but we all have a tiny bit of a different perspective, and sometimes that helps. Good to hear from you!

    #48309
    Tim2
    Participant

    Amen!

    #48313
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 10 2007,15:45)
    Those with spiritual eyes, prophets, even demons, recognised his previous estate as the monogenes Son.
    As a spirit being like to God he was soul\spirit so to become man he had to be integrated in flesh too.
    God made him just like us to forge for us the possibility of eternal life with Him.
    *******************************

    The demons said Jesus was the Son of God, and that is all.  They did not allude to any pre-existence that I am aware of.

    So now Jesus was just 'integrated' into mankind…..oh my goodness.  Nick, where do you get these ideas?

    God made him just like us so that he could be the first of many brothers.

    Tell me, if Jesus was integrated from a spirit being who was already formed, and he is the first of many brothers (you and me), how are we to relate to this Jesus?  I was not integrated from anything before I was born, and neither were you!

    Jesus said that we have the same Father, indeed, we have the same God.  We are even co-heirs with Jesus.  Jesus has put himself on par with us….calling us his brothers.  If he pre-existed, and already was a person before his birth, he is not on par with us.  I don't care if he just “took on” flesh.  This Jesus you preach would be an imposter to me.  I'm sorry.  But that is how I feel.  I do not believe the scriptures teach that Jesus was a person before he was born.  Not clearly.  Not plainly.  Not like you are asking Tim2 for those clear verses of the Trinity – you will not find clear verses like that to say that Jesus was a person before he existed.  Those scriptures do not exist.  If they do, please teach me, and help me see the error in my thinking.


    Hi not3,
    Man is an integrated being.
    Body soul spirit.
    Remove any one and the being is not man.
    Yet God refers to man as dust from which flesh alone derives.[Gen2,3]
    So that since Christ partook of flesh, by God's definition he is man, no matter his divine origins.

    #48457
    Not3in1
    Participant

    The Lord “formed” Adam out of dust and breathed life into him.
    Women was “made” from the rib of Adam (not dust).

    Jesus was begotten.

    Anyway, I don't want to get in trouble for not staying on topic, which is John 17:3. :)

    #48575
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    OK, back on topic then.

    “Jesus was sent by the ONLY TRUE GOD.”

    You either believe that he was sent by the true God, or he is the true God. You can't have it both ways.

    Trinitarians are very good at saying one thing and believing another.

    E.g.,

  • There is one God, he just happens to triune.
  • He was a man, and did I mention that on the side he was also God Almighty.
  • He created everything and God also created everything through him.

    Yeah right!

    Man you need to read the small print sometimes.

    Trintarians listen up. The time has come to put away your nonsense. We can see right through it and we are going to tell the Church the truth. You can't stop the truth just as much as you cannot overcome light with darkness.

#48586
Tim2
Participant

Hi t8,

Maybe you've already told me, I can't remember because of all the posting that's been going on, but what is your statement of faith? The church is going to want to know.

Thanks,
Tim

#48639
Proclaimer
Participant

Hi Tim2.

Not sure what you mean by statement of faith. I do not have a creed prewritten if that is what you mean. I am also not interested in promoting myself, but the truths that God put in my heart.

So it doesn't really matter if I am a donkey, God put something inside me that I need to speak.

I am fighting for the truth that Jesus Christ is the messiah and the son of God. This includes exposing any stumbling block to this truth which includes the false doctrine of the Trinity which says one thing and contradicts it by another.

It is the truth that is important, not me, another man, or any denomination.

Viewing 20 posts - 361 through 380 (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