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 - 381 through 400 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48641
    Tim2
    Participant

    Hi t8,

    Just tell me as many statements about who and what Jesus is as you can, please.

    Tim

    #48642
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    I will be brief as we know that there are not enough books in the world to describe Yeshua.

  • He is the son of God.
  • He is the Messiah of God.
  • He is the way, the truth, the life.
  • He is called the Word of God.
  • He is the image of the invisible God.
  • He is the firstborn over all creation.
  • He is the head of the Body, the Church.
  • He became a man and walked amongst us.
  • He died for mens sins and rose from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God.
  • He interceeds for us now.
  • He is lord over all creation and has all authority given to him by God.
  • He is not above his God and he willingly submits to his God.
  • His God is our God.
  • He was sent by the True God.
  • Knowing him and his God is eternal life.
#48656
Tim2
Participant

t8,

Will you add the following statements to your doctrine:

1. Jesus is God. John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28.
2. Jesus is the first and the last. Revelation 1:17, 1:13.
3. Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24.
4. Jesus is equal to God. John 5:18, Philippians 2:6
5. Jesus and the Father are one. John 10:30.
6. Jesus does whatever the Father does. John 5:19.
7. Jesus is to be honored as the Father is honored. John 5:23.
8. Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father. Revelation 22:1, 22:3.
9. Jesus shares the same glory as the Father. John 17:5.
10. All things are through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6.
11. All things are for Jesus. Colossians 1:16.
12. Jesus is before all things. Colossians 1:17.

Tim

#48658
Proclaimer
Participant

Yes I am happy to add those too.

Except the second point (I don't know anything about that yet) and your John 1:1 interpretation.

I believe that Jesus is divine not 'the' Divine. It is talking about the Logos in a qualitive sense and not his identity.

John 1:1 shows that there are two beings (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods.

Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique.

This Logos is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God.

John 1:1 can be read as the Logos was divine. Just the same way that Jesus said of Judas “one of you is a devil” as opposed to one of you is the Devil. In other words as a quality and not an identifier. Interpreting John 1:1 as talking about the Logos as 'theos' in quality is grammatically and theologically sound and agrees with 100s of other scriptures that say that the Father is the true God and his son is his image.

If you wish to talk about John 1:1 in greater detail, I encourage you to join a discussion dedicated to this subject. If we discuss this to any great detail here, then we can be accused of wandering away from John 17:3 which is the focus of this discussion.

BTW: Did you accept my points?

#48663
Tim2
Participant

t8,

So you do accept all of my points? This means you believe Jesus is God? I'm about to start singing praises:)

With regard to your points, I would start by capitalizing all references to Jesus. He is God, so He should be called He. I'd also make these changes:

4. He is the Word of God. (If He's called the Word of God, He is the Word of God.)

I would also add, after “He intercedes for us now,” that Jesus is eternally equal to the Father, but in His ministry on earth, He voluntarily chose not to assert His equality, but chose to become subordinate, as is fitting a man. Therefore, it is appropriate for Him to call the Father His God.” Philippians 2:6

I would then qualify the next two statements by this. “Jesus in His ministry as Lord and Christ receives this authority from God.”

And, “Jesus is not above the Father but is equal to Him. He has voluntarily subordinated Himself as part of His ministry and willingly submits to the Father now. However, He is eternally equal to and of one will with the Father and the Spirit.”

And, “He was sent by the Father in the ministry of reconciliation, after He voluntarily subordinated Himself to the Father, which subordination is not eternal but temporary.”

And, “Knowing Jesus and God the Father is true life.”

Tim

#48675

Quote (t8 @ April 12 2007,15:51)
Yes I am happy to add those too.

Except the second point (I don't know anything about that yet) and your John 1:1 interpretation.

I believe that Jesus is divine not 'the' Divine. It is talking about the Logos in a qualitive sense and not his identity.

John 1:1 shows that there are two beings (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods.

Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique.

This Logos is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God.

John 1:1 can be read as the Logos was divine. Just the same way that Jesus said of Judas “one of you is a devil” as opposed to one of you is the Devil. In other words as a quality and not an identifier. Interpreting John 1:1 as talking about the Logos as 'theos' in quality is grammatically and theologically sound and agrees with 100s of other scriptures that say that the Father is the true God and his son is his image.

If you wish to talk about John 1:1 in greater detail, I encourage you to join a discussion dedicated to this subject. If we discuss this to any great detail here, then we can be accused of wandering away from John 17:3 which is the focus of this discussion.

BTW: Did you accept my points?


t8

Not true!

You are going totally against every credible Greek and Hebrew scholar and inventing your own interpretation based on your inability to see by the Spirit that God is more than one person.

I will respond further with a previous post.

t8

You say…

Quote
I am saying that you need to be consistent in your rendering of the words 'theos' and 'elohim'. You cannot just pick and choose the word theos and elohim as meaning different things to different people. If you believe they are applied to the Almighty only, then you need to include men and angels in your Almighty.

Why are you picking and choosing here t8?

Of course if we didnt pick and choose who and what the words 'Theos' and 'Elohim' are applied to based on the context then how can you even claim the words apply to the 'True God' with certainty?

So then we dont know who Paul was speaking of when he said “the God, (Theos), of this world hath blinded the minds…”.

So he could have been speaking of a man or a ruler or an angel of God, right? Wrong!

I believe that the writters were very careful in how they used the words!

For Example…

1336 times the word “Theos” is found in the New Testament scriptures.

All were translated “God” referring to the Father and Yeshua, except 13 times for “False gods” including satan and the man of sin and man, and eight times Godly.

I checked them all. *Not once* out of all 1336 times is there a mention of any Angel of God with the word “Theos”.

Neither is there any example of the word “Theos” ascribed to a living man or king or lord of the most high *in that day* other than Yeshua.

And this is where you need to listen!

Not once is the word translated anywhere in the New Testament as *divine*!

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is one of the scriptures that you have a problem with. Because you say that you shouldnt pick and choose and yet that is exactly what you do. You say he is “A” god or he is divine.

John knew exactly what the word “Theos” meant to him, because in every other place the word is used for Yeshua, he used this word when he could have used another?

Do you think he would create this kind of confusion by using “Theos” in John 1:1 as well as John 20:28?

Why didnt he use “chrematizo, Acts 10:22, Heb 11:7”

or

“theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power, which you try to force this word to mean that we are equal to Yeshua or the Father in being. Yeshua *is* divine, “Theos”,  not “Theios” which is what we share”, This word is found only 3 times in scripture. Which describes his nature and not his being.

or

“theotes, Col 2:9”

or

“theiotes” Rom 1:20″

Why didnt John use one of these words instead of “Theos” in John 1:1?

Why didn't Paul or Peter or Timothy or Titus use one of the other words?

You talk about being consistant with the word “Theos”.

It seems to me that being consistant with “Theos” is exactly what over 500 Greek and Hebrew scholars did when they translated  John 1:1.

So do you believe the Scriptures and the Apostles or not?

???

#48714
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ April 13 2007,11:22)
t8,

So you do accept all of my points? This means you believe Jesus is God? I'm about to start singing praises:)

With regard to your points, I would start by capitalizing all references to Jesus. He is God, so He should be called He. I'd also make these changes:

4. He is the Word of God. (If He's called the Word of God, He is the Word of God.)

I would also add, after “He intercedes for us now,” that Jesus is eternally equal to the Father, but in His ministry on earth, He voluntarily chose not to assert His equality, but chose to become subordinate, as is fitting a man. Therefore, it is appropriate for Him to call the Father His God.” Philippians 2:6

I would then qualify the next two statements by this. “Jesus in His ministry as Lord and Christ receives this authority from God.”

And, “Jesus is not above the Father but is equal to Him. He has voluntarily subordinated Himself as part of His ministry and willingly submits to the Father now. However, He is eternally equal to and of one will with the Father and the Spirit.”

And, “He was sent by the Father in the ministry of reconciliation, after He voluntarily subordinated Himself to the Father, which subordination is not eternal but temporary.”

And, “Knowing Jesus and God the Father is true life.”

Tim


Well let look at those points properly:

3. Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24.

He is of God. Being of something is different to being the source.

4. Jesus is equal to God. John 5:18, Philippians 2:6

I will look at this one in the future. I don't have time to comment on it now, except to say that being equal is another way to say that you are different. 2 NZ dollars equals 1 US dollar is not meant to be taken that a NZ 2 dollar coin is exactly the same object as a US dollar note. Or 3 + 2= 4 + 1 doesn't mean that 3 and 2 are the same 2 numbers as 4 and 1. It just means that they are equal in value. Equal in it's English definition is taken as meaning something with a different identity that has the same value or quality. If Jesus is equal to God as you think, then he is a different identity to God as I think.

5. Jesus and the Father are one. John 10:30.

We too can be one with both of them. It is written. Yet who says that we are also God. I don't and you don't, so why does your bias choose in this case Jesus is God because he is one with him, when we can be one with them too?

6. Jesus does whatever the Father does. John 5:19.

Because he submits his will to the Father and so should we.

7. Jesus is to be honored as the Father is honored. John 5:23.

Yes honour isn't a bad thing and even men can be honoured.
The Father is honoured as God and Jesus is honoured as the Lamb and the son of God. “And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, AND to the Lamb.” & “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

8. Jesus sits on the same throne as the Father. Revelation 22:1, 22:3.

Yes he sits with his Father and guess what? We sit with Christ. So does that mean we are Christ and Christ is God? Of course not.

9. Jesus shares the same glory as the Father. John 17:5.

Not sure about the same glory. It says “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Yes he had glory before he came to earth as a man. He is now back in that glory. Amen.

10. All things are through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Yes God made all things through Christ and for him. How that makes Christ, the Almighty God is beyond me. I guess you need a wandering imagination. It is clear that God made things THROUGH him.

11. All things are for Jesus. Colossians 1:16.

Yes God made all things for him. Are you your son if you give him all things because you love him? Therefore is Jesus God if God GIVES him all things?

12. Jesus is before all things. Colossians 1:17.

Correct. He is before all things (creation) and all things were made by God through Christ. i.e., God > Christ > creation. So how you confuse Christ with God from this is again beyond scripture.

None of the above points were meant to be taken that Jesus is the Almighty God. None of them. But if you start with the Trinity then you finish with the Trinity. It's like getting vinegar from a sponge. Of course you cannot do it, unless you first soak the sponge in vinegar.

Your mind is soaked with the Babylonian doctrine of the Trinity. So that is all you see.

You need to empty yourself and let Christ live in you. Then the truth will set you free.

#48730
Tim2
Participant

t8,

A few responses and then a big point:

1. If Jesus is equal to God (meaning God the Father), but He's not the same God, then you have polytheism. This isn't possible.
2. “The glory I had with you.” That's one glory. They both had it. How is that not sharing?
3. Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb. If the Lamb isn't also YHWH, this isn't possible according to Isaiah 43:11.

More generally, it seems that you believe Jesus is uncreated, which I applaud you for. But you don't think He is the one God. So you are saying that there are two uncreated beings, the Father and the son, who are not one God. This is polytheism.

Tim

#48733
NickHassan
Participant

Hi Tim2,
If Jesus is a deity and your God then you are involved in polytheism.
If you are with US there is only ONE GOD for US.

#48826
Cult Buster
Participant

t8

Quote
He is called the Word of God.

T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God?

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,

and the Word was God.  John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus.

This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought.

and the Word was God.  John 1:1

Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God.

                     Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God

Rev 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God .
Rev 19:16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17  And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because

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,

Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God

The following  verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Rev 17:14  These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15.

Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron?

Rev 12:5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron

It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God!  :O

All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Look at all of His titles.

the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God,  KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings,  Almighty God, and the great God,

Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God. :O

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

#48987

Quote (Cult Buster @ April 13 2007,16:23)
t8

Quote
He is called the Word of God.

T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God?

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,

and the Word was God.  John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus.

This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought.

and the Word was God.  John 1:1

Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God.

                     Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God

Rev 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God .
Rev 19:16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17  And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because

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,

Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God

The following  verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Rev 17:14  These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15.

Rev 19:15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron?

Rev 12:5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron

It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God!  :O

All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Look at all of His titles.

the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God,  KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings,  Almighty God, and the great God,

Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God. :O

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


CB

Good points!

:)

#49006
Not3in1
Participant

Food for thought: Jesus was not the Word “OF” God until after he was born [of Mary]…….

#49012
Is 1:18
Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25)
Just wanted to clear a couple of things up….

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

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

:)


Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?

:)

#49017
Cult Buster
Participant

Noun forfeit

Something that is lost or surrendered as a penalty;A penalty for a fault or mistake that involves losing or giving up something

A penalty for a fault or mistake that involves losing or giving up something

“the contract specified forfeits if the work was not completed on time”

The act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc.

Verb forfeit

Lose or lose the right to by some error, or offence.

Adjective forfeit

Surrendered as a penalty

#49028
Is 1:18
Participant

Thanks Cult Buster.

:)

#49031
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ April 14 2007,01:35)
t8,

A few responses and then a big point:

1. If Jesus is equal to God (meaning God the Father), but He's not the same God, then you have polytheism. This isn't possible.
2. “The glory I had with you.” That's one glory. They both had it. How is that not sharing?
3. Salvation belongs to God and to the Lamb. If the Lamb isn't also YHWH, this isn't possible according to Isaiah 43:11.

More generally, it seems that you believe Jesus is uncreated, which I applaud you for. But you don't think He is the one God. So you are saying that there are two uncreated beings, the Father and the son, who are not one God. This is polytheism.

Tim


Tim.

Thanks for your post.

Yes there are 2 who were not created. God is not created and the son is not created rather he was begotten.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 1:18 (English-KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

God then created all things through Christ. Created things are that which God made through Christ. Obviously Christ is not created, but even then he partook of created flesh later on. But he himself is not a creation.

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I am saying that there is one eternal God and his son who was begotten from God. Neither are created in the sense that created is described in the above verses.

As the Word, he was with God in the beginning, before creation.

God created all things through him and for him.

God is the Father, the son of God is the son and his Father is his God and our God. So God became a Father when he begat a son.

John 20:17
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
`I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

These scriptures I quoted is what I believe and is what I teach.

#49034
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ April 14 2007,11:23)
t8

Quote
He is called the Word of God.

T8. Didn't you read in the Bible that the Word of God is God?

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,

and the Word was God. John 1:1. This of course refers to Jesus.

This one Bible text renders all your arguments to nought.

and the Word was God. John 1:1

Lets see in some more detail that Jesus is the Word of God.

Jesus, The Word of God is Jehovah God

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God .
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

The Word of God described in verse 13 is Jesus because

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,

Jesus is described here as KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS ,The Word of God, Almighty God, and the great God

The following verse confirms that Jesus (the Lamb of God) is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Let us now look more closely at Rev 19:15.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Who is this Almighty God who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron?

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron

It’s JESUS!……the Almighty God! :O

All these verses are obviously speaking of the same Person our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
Look at all of His titles.

the Lamb, the Word, The Word of God, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, Lord of lords, and King of kings, Almighty God, and the great God,

Jesus Christ, The Word of God is our Almighty Jehovah God. :O

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


To CultB.

I can see that this is turning into a John 1:1 discussion. I am happy to carry on with this discussion in an appropriate thread. If you wish to do that, then feel free to copy and paste this post to an appropriate discussion.

This thread is focussed around 1 John 17:3 and we shouldn't go off the subject unless it is to give a context for the subject.

I feel that this discussion will deviate from the proof text if I reply to you here.

Thanks CultB.

#49040
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 16 2007,06:07)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25)
Just wanted to clear a couple of things up….

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

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

:)


Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?

:)


Hi Isaiah and everyone else.

A good debate for the purposes of the truth is one where each person or group can state their case without hindrance. I feel after some squabbling that this was accomplished. I gave a good answer although I could have posted a better one (with more research time), but I feel that we both put our best foot forward. In truth I actually only dedicated about 1 hour possibly a bit more, so you probably ended up with more time than I did anyway.

Worldly debates can be useful but they are also designed to let the one with skill win or at least give him an edge and the competition can resort to low standards in order to win too.

I feel that such a design is unbecoming of a Christian and a person who places the truth higher than himself.

If two Christians disagree on something, I feel that they should be allowed to state their case unhindered and when each feels he has given the best answer he can, then others are in a better situation to judge which if any speaks the truth. Is this not better if the real mission is to test things to see if they are written?

You are allowed to forfeit/give up if you want Isaiah, I will not hold you to the other debates because I respect your free will to choose otherwise. But if I wanted to be harsh I could say that you are forfeiting the other 11 proof texts and I win by default if that is what you are proposing to do? But of course I win absolutely nothing as you are aware.

If you feel that you have the right to forfeit it would be with 1 debate only given the times were not strictly adhered to. There is still another 11 to go as originally agreed. If you want more time for the other 11, take as much as you want. I am patient. Also remember that you can add more than one post after the each makes their first post.

So if you feel that more time could have provided you with a more compelling answer then feel free to post the compelling information now.

Will you continue or are you giving up on the other 11? If yes, why?

#49056
Is 1:18
Participant

t8,
You forfeited when you couldn't honour the rules you agreed to before the debate started. Remember?

#49084

Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,16:40)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 16 2007,06:07)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 03 2007,19:25)
Just wanted to clear a couple of things up….

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

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

:)


Can someone please explain to t8 what “forfeit” means?

:)


Hi Isaiah and everyone else.

A good debate for the purposes of the truth is one where each person or group can state their case without hindrance. I feel after some squabbling that this was accomplished. I gave a good answer although I could have posted a better one (with more research time), but I feel that we both put our best foot forward. In truth I actually only dedicated about 1 hour possibly a bit more, so you probably ended up with more time than I did anyway.

Worldly debates can be useful but they are also designed to let the one with skill win or at least give him an edge and the competition can resort to low standards in order to win too.

I feel that such a design is unbecoming of a Christian and a person who places the truth higher than himself.

If two Christians disagree on something, I feel that they should be allowed to state their case unhindered and when each feels he has given the best answer he can, then others are in a better situation to judge which if any speaks the truth. Is this not better if the real mission is to test things to see if they are written?

You are allowed to forfeit/give up if you want Isaiah, I will not hold you to the other debates because I respect your free will to choose otherwise.  But if I wanted to be harsh I could say that you are forfeiting the other 11 proof texts and I win by default if that is what you are proposing to do? But of course I win absolutely nothing as you are aware.

If you feel that you have the right to forfeit it would be with 1 debate only given the times were not strictly adhered to. There is still another 11 to go as originally agreed. If you want more time for the other 11, take as much as you want. I am patient. Also remember that you can add more than one post after the each makes their first post.

So if you feel that more time could have provided you with a more compelling answer then feel free to post the compelling information now.

Will you continue or are you giving up on the other 11? If yes, why?


t8

This is seriosly sad.

For you to turn it back on Is 1:18 as if he is the one who forfeited.

You forfeit by breaking the rules of the debate and changing them in the middle and then come back and wanting to play again with rules that havnt even been agreed on.

This is sad.

I dont blame Is 1:18 for not continuing the debate seeing its only going to be on your terms.

:O

Viewing 20 posts - 381 through 400 (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