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 - 401 through 420 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49086
    Kyle
    Participant

    Give him a break, Isaiah. Nobody's perfect. He obviously must have been quite busy with other things in his life, and didn't spend hour upon unfair hour researching his response. He did the best he could. I could see saying it's over if he ends up days late for every thread, but this is only the first strike. Lets give him another chance, because I've been looking forward to your response, and I would hate to see things end here. If the rules need to be changed a bit or re-clarified, that's cool. But lets not make this into a bigger deal than it actually is.

    #49092
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Thanks Kyle.

    The truth is best served when each person can give his best answer.

    #49093
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49)
    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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.

    If he forfeits then that is up to him though.

    I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

    But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?

    If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.

    Are you interested?

    #49096
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    I knew I wouldn't come out of this looking good…..*sigh*

    I have three main problems with this debate continuing:-

    1. With my work cycle and family life I can't commit myself to a debate of indefinite length.

    2. I just can't be bothered being involved in a debate where the rules are obscure, loosely applied and liable to change at the whim of one of the participants – because that would not be a proper debate at all, but something that more or less resembles the disorderly threads here.

    3. T8 has already demonstrated that he doesn't intend to directly answer the difficult questions (refer Q2 & 3 in Is 1:18's Proof Text #1). Answering the questions as they are asked is integral to a productive dialogue.

    Kyle, since you're interested I'll answer t8's latest proof text, but I'll leave it there for the meantime. I hope you can understand why.

    Blessings
    :)

    #49097
    Kyle
    Participant

    Sounds fair. Twelve is quite a large amount for something like this. I was thinking it would take way too long when things first changed from three (six total) to twelve (24 total). I definitely look forward to your post.

    Would you be against someone else continuing in your place, Isaiah? Perhaps WJ would be a good candidate if he's got the time. If this continues, let's agree that things should always be as timely as possible for the obvious reasons. But if someone needs more time hear or there, lets be flexible. Three days should just be the general rule of thumb whenever possible. How does that sound?

    #49099
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    If t8 would agree to limit the number of proof texts to say 5 or 6, abide by deadline restriction and at least attempt to answer the questions as asked I would be happy to continue….if not WJ or anyone else (maybe Tim2) is welcome to replace me.

    We'll see what t8 thinks….

    :)

    #49110
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi Isaiah.

    First thing I want to say is 12 posts isn't much considering that I have made a few thousand posts and you have around 1500 and also considering that I have been here since the beginning (BTW, I am not saying I am God) and you have been here for a number of years.

    Secondly and I repeat that we should both have enough time to give our best possible post and I can assure you that I don't intend spending more than 2 hours on a post anyway, (I rarely do), although it may be possible that I could, especially if I do not know the answer.

    Finally, 12 posts each are not indefinite it requires exactly 12 posts which is not only finite, but quite small compared to what we have already posted in other discussions. I think this is a fair comment.

    However, if you wish to lessen the amount of proof text posts to 6 then I am happy to be swayed this way, even though I would have preferred a more comprehensive look at both sides of the Trinity debate. I feel that 12 posts each in this fashion could accomplish more than 100 posts loosely placed in other big discussions.

    The only thing I ask is that you be reasonable given the time to post. My habit of posting here sometimes limits me to not posting for roughly 2 weeks and other times I can post everyday for a week. My number one concern which I believe is justified is not eating into family time because I have to post here. My commitment to my family is they are first. I also do travel from time to time and go to wild places where Internet connections do not exist.

    So I am happy to continue with less proof texts if you wish, but I just ask that you respect my wish to not provide a money back guarantee that I will post within 3 days, even though it is very possible that some replies or posts will be within that time.

    In the end is it not more important that the quality of our posts be the best they can. Surely that is not only better for both of us, but is better for the readers who are making their minds up regarding this issue. This way we get quality and no one gets an advantage over the other because we both have enough time to proof our proof texts. Lack of time can only result in an incomplete answer anyway, so what is the point?

    So, what do you say to no strict time limit, which would also ensure that all questions that are asked could be answered adequately, which seems to be another concern of yours? Let's face it, we are both most likely to posting here regardless for some time to come anyway, and I know that I am patient in making my case and do not feel that it needs to be made ASAP.

    What is important to me is not being hasty, but patient in order to get a better quality result for both of us. And as I have said before, telling God that he has 3 days to inspire a reply or post seems more than a tad cheeky, unless you think it is a good idea to reply using your own wisdom?

    My reasons are not bad Isaiah they are fair and good and they do equally apply to both of us, so neither has an advantage, so our posts will be better too.

    So the plan is:
    Proof text > Reply > Open discussion.

    What do you say?

    #49119

    Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49)
    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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.

    If he forfeits then that is up to him though.

    I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

    But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?

    If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.

    Are you interested?


    t8

    The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.

    So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.

    And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.

    :)

    #49120

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,11:54)

    Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49)
    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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.

    If he forfeits then that is up to him though.

    I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

    But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?

    If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.

    Are you interested?


    t8

    The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.

    So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.

    And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.

    :)


    t8

    BTW.

    This is one of the examples I am talking about.

    Is 1:18

    Quote

    3. T8 has already demonstrated that he doesn't intend to directly answer the difficult questions (refer Q2 & 3 in Is 1:18's Proof Text #1). Answering the questions as they are asked is integral to a productive dialogue.


    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.

    :)

    #49122
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,06:54)

    Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49)
    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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.

    If he forfeits then that is up to him though.

    I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

    But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?

    If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.

    Are you interested?


    t8

    The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.

    So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.

    And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    So you are not interested in defending the Trinity doctrine with a post, rebuttal, and open discussion.

    For some reason replying strictly within 3 days is a matter for contention. But it would be nice if you guys respected my wishes to be flexible with time. After all I am not spending my time down the pub or in a casino. I only ask that you respect that my family and jobs come first and time leftover can be spent here.

    I am not willing to put a debate with a Trinitarian above any of these things. I am sorry but I cannot bend on this. I believe it would be wrong to take time away from these in order to satisfy a 3 day deadline. I have responsibilities and I take them seriously as I think all Christians should.

    I also think it is evident to all that this time thing is somewhat of a charade. What should be important is that we have the best opportunity to make our point and then anyone can judge what we have said.

    But if this is not good enough for you then that is fine. But I don't think you have any excuse to say in future that I wasn't prepared to answer any of your questions. I offered you a debate that would have allowed me to answer any of your points and you are the one turning it down, not me.

    I am happy for nothing else to be said of this, so long as you don't go around saying that we are not willing to give you an answer.

    #49125
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07)
    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.


    I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.

    We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.

    If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.

    I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.

    #49127

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:06)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,06:54)

    Quote (t8 @ April 15 2007,18:52)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,12:49)
    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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am talking about the other 11 discussions. No rules have been broken yet with them and anyway I wish to give Isaiah all the time he needs in order to give the best he has.

    If he forfeits then that is up to him though.

    I would have very much liked the challenge because I know it would have made me a better man. Iron sharpens iron and all that.

    But if he gives up, then maybe someone like yourself would be interested in carrying his torch?

    If so, I believe it would be in our best interest for both to be able to post the best answers and questions possible. So some grace regarding time should be okay. One post each and then the discussion is open.

    Are you interested?


    t8

    The original rules that were “understood” you changed by saying that you never gave a straight answer to the debate being open after the first response for every Tom, Dick and Harry to muddy the waters with their Henotheistic and Arianistic views.

    So its not a matter of just the time. But also of stacking the rules against the players by allowing everyone to get in the game. IMO.

    And no I am not interested because I know how you play and want nothing to do with it.

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    So you are not interested in defending the Trinity doctrine with a post, rebuttal, and open discussion.

    For some reason replying strictly within 3 days is a matter for contention. But it would be nice if you guys respected my wishes to be flexible with time. After all I am not spending my time down the pub or in a casino. I only ask that you respect that my family and jobs come first and time leftover can be spent here.

    I am not willing to put a debate with a Trinitarian above any of these things. I am sorry but I cannot bend on this. I believe it would be wrong to take time away from these in order to satisfy a 3 day deadline. I have responsibilities and I take them seriously as I think all Christians should.

    I also think it is evident to all that this time thing is somewhat of a charade. What should be important is that we have the best opportunity to make our point and then anyone can judge what we have said.

    But if this is not good enough for you then that is fine. But I don't think you have any excuse to say in future that I wasn't prepared to answer any of your questions. I offered you a debate that would have allowed me to answer any of your points and you are the one turning it down, not me.

    I am happy for nothing else to be said of this, so long as you don't go around saying that we are not willing to give you an answer.


    t8

    So I take by this you will answer my previous questions about the Holy Spirit?

    Why would I start a debate with you on your word when you havnt fulfilled your previous word.

    Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.

    All that would happen is people like David would muddy the water with his 5 page posts and the truth would get lost in chaos.

    Just look at this thread what has happend.

    That would be an advantage for you would it not? Seeing that the Non-Trintarians out number us 5 to 1.

    Not that the numbers matter in the grandstand as I have said.

    The truth will always prevail.

    But when they all get into the game, then that means a distraction also for the debater having to think of answering their response in defence also.

    The right thing is to have a thread where there is open discussion for the spectators after the debate starts.

    This way the debate flows without interruption.

    Again, I have challenged you to a debate on the Holy Spirit and you have refused to answer

    Sorry t8. I just dont trust you.

    :)

    #49128

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10)
    To To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07)
    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.


    I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.

    We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.

    If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.

    I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.


    t8

    Refer to my previous post.

    The answer is no.

    You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.

    Sorry I dont believe you.

    :O

    #49129
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24)
    Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.


    What terms would you debate then?

    :)

    #49132
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30)

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10)
    To To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07)
    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.


    I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.

    We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.

    If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.

    I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.


    t8

    Refer to my previous post.

    The answer is no.

    You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.

    Sorry I dont believe you.

    :O


    OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.

    However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:

    “3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”

    Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.

    An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.

    What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
    You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.

    If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.

    #49133

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24)
    Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.


    What terms would you debate then?

    :)


    t8

    With you there is none.

    I dont trust you.

    Is 1:18 has obviously more trust in you than I do.

    Sorry maybe later, when I see how you handle other debates like the one you have with Is:18.

    At the moment I am to emotionally involved with the way I have seen you do, to be focussed the way I should without emotion.

    Yes I am emotional, and this is one of my weaknesses.

    And you know how to exploit this. So lets just say I concede and you are the better man.

    Maybe later I will be up to it.

    :)

    #49136

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:42)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30)

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10)
    To To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07)
    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.


    I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.

    We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.

    If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.

    I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.


    t8

    Refer to my previous post.

    The answer is no.

    You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.

    Sorry I dont believe you.

    :O


    OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.

    However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:

    “3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”

    Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.

    An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.

    What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
    You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.

    If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.


    t8

    I thought the catogory for debates was for any topic?

    So I see the debate is only about your proof text John 17:3?

    ???

    #49140

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 16 2007,13:45)

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:42)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:30)

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:10)
    To To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,07:07)
    My personal experience of this is when we had a little debate in which I answered your questions when you said you would answer mine and of course after I answered you, you said you would answer mine when you had time.

    Still havnt gotten an answer.


    I can reply to any of them if you are willing to debate here with me.

    We all know that there are many discussions here and one can easily loose track of things. I know for example everytime I log on here, that much history has already been written and given the size an amounts of posts in some discussions not everyone has time to read everything.

    If you are that really concerned that I haven't given you a reply, then one way to make sure that I answer your points is to have a debate about it.

    I offered and you were the one that refused. So if you complain further, then I am not sure what else I can do for you.


    t8

    Refer to my previous post.

    The answer is no.

    You didnt forget about our discussion about the substance of God and the Holy Spirit on this very thread and your promise to answer when you have time.

    Sorry I dont believe you.

    :O


    OK you say it is in this discussion, so I will look for it.

    However it would be better if the discussion (about the Holy Spirit) took place in an appropriate discussion. This discussions subject is John 17:3 and the one of the 3 rules here stipulates the following:

    “3) No pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.”

    Sure people don't always stick to it, but it would be better to discuss the Holy Spirit in a more appropriate discussion for the sake of others who read here.

    An existing or new discussion specifically about this would be better. A debate where you pose the question or scripture to me, would force me to reply and would also be in agreement to the rules of these forums. i.e., discuss the topic and not deviate completely. This way you get what you want and it is in keeping with the organisation of discussions here.

    What do you say? A debate where I answer your question.
    You post first, I will reply. Simple. No time restraints and we can both put our best foot forward.

    If not, then I can only conclude that you are not really interested in the first place.


    t8

    I thought the catogory for debates was for any topic?

    So I see the debate is only about your proof text John 17:3?

    ???


    OK

    Never mind I see what you mean about this thread!

    :)

    #49203
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:42)

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,13:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,08:24)
    Why would I have a debate with you on your terms especially the “Open forum and the first response”.


    What terms would you debate then?

    :)


    t8

    With you there is none.

    I dont trust you.

    Is 1:18 has obviously more trust in you than I do.

    Sorry maybe later, when I see how you handle other debates like the one you have with Is:18.

    At the moment I am to emotionally involved with the way I have seen you do, to be focussed the way I should without emotion.

    Yes I am emotional, and this is one of my weaknesses.

    And you know how to exploit this. So lets just say I concede and you are the better man.

    Maybe later I will be up to it.

    :)


    WorshippingJesus if you do not trust me then expose me for all to see. I am sure you would love to get such dirt on me. But I ask you, what can I do that would be unfair if one person posts followed by the other guy?

    Also your judgement of me that I am not trustworthy because I was late in posting is quite harsh. As I mentioned to you before, how can you complain if that measure is what God judges you by. E.g., Would you understand if God said to you that you are untrustworthy because you were late to work due to family related issues? Well that is how you judged me and the proof is in your posts.

    Anyway, I proposed to you that you make a post and I reply followed by opening the discussion up. Then in a new discussion I make a post then you reply, followed by open discussion for all.

    WorshippingJesus, in that model, what can I honestly do that would be considered untrustworthy? Really the worse thing that could happen is that I do not reply to your post at all. However, in that instance, it would be taken by the other readers that I truly forfeited and that would be seen as a strength in your argument would it not? Sometimes no answer is the same as I don't have one in reply to your question. How bad is that? If you were able to do that, then that would be good from a debating point of view. I also think you would love this to happen.

    However I personally think the real reason for not debating is that you are not confident enough in your understanding of your doctrine to have it put under the spotlight.

    I think you are more comfortable posting in other discussions because a good answer given against you can be hard to find and therefore it can be ignored, and you have the ability to not answer good questions asked of you because you don't have to and you have the option of ignoring it.

    In a debate, there is no hiding. One of us makes a post, then the other follows. It's simple and there is no hiding anything. It is out in the light for all to see. Do you understand this?

    I think that anyone who comes here and teaches a doctrine, as zealously as you do, should be able to back it up and it should be brought out into the light to see if it is written. If a man doesn't want to do that, then I think he shouldn't be teaching in these forums in the first place.

    Anyway, so far all I have seen from you in the debate section is you attacking my character and no or little reply to the original post and rebuttal.

    The idea of participating in this debate is that the Trinity doctrine is suppose to be on trial. It is not meant as a place where we can attack people for their misgivings and human frailty. Such attacks to me look like a “if you can't beat them, then accuse them” attitude. Jesus faced this kind of thing all the time. So that is why I am not really surprised.

    The offer is still there for a debate. If you want someone to answer these questions you say you ask and no one answers, then please do not ever say that I didn't offer.

    This is my final offer to answer your questions that we are supposedly ignoring.

    :)

    #49204
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,08:20)
    Hi Isaiah.

    First thing I want to say is 12 posts isn't much considering that I have made a few thousand posts and you have around 1500 and also considering that I have been here since the beginning (BTW, I am not saying I am God) and you have been here for a number of years.


    A 12 proof text and rebuttal submission format, with a 3 day interval between postings by my estimation requires a 72 day time frame, and at 1000 words each (a conservative figure) for both submission and rebuttal it's going to be equivalent in written length to a Master's thesis, so yes it is “much”, by any measure. But you want to exponentially extend it out by dropping the deadline clause. I don't think it's unreasonable to object to that.

    Quote
    Secondly and I repeat that we should both have enough time to give our best possible post and I can assure you that I don't intend spending more than 2 hours on a post anyway, (I rarely do), although it may be possible that I could, especially if I do not know the answer.


    Well then 72 hours should be ample for you.

    Quote
    Finally, 12 posts each are not indefinite it requires exactly 12 posts which is not only finite, but quite small compared to what we have already posted in other discussions. I think this is a fair comment.


    I wrote “indefinite” not interminable. Obviously it will end at some point, but it's not possible to determine when, that's the problem. Work is quiet at the moment but that's not going to last for long.

    Quote
    However, if you wish to lessen the amount of proof text posts to 6 then I am happy to be swayed this way, even though I would have preferred a more comprehensive look at both sides of the Trinity debate. I feel that 12 posts each in this fashion could accomplish more than 100 posts loosely placed in other big discussions.


    You're right, it would accomplish much, as long as both you and I answer the questions posed in an honest manner. Six posts is a good compromise and maybe we could extend the deadline out by a day? Surely you could work within those conditions.

    Quote
    The only thing I ask is that you be reasonable given the time to post. My habit of posting here sometimes limits me to not posting for roughly 2 weeks and other times I can post everyday for a week. My number one concern which I believe is justified is not eating into family time because I have to post here. My commitment to my family is they are first. I also do travel from time to time and go to wild places where Internet connections do not exist.


    Yes, but you must know when you are going to be travelling, right? All you have to do is make sure it's done and dusted before you depart. It's called planning t8.

    Quote
    So I am happy to continue with less proof texts if you wish, but I just ask that you respect my wish to not provide a money back guarantee that I will post within 3 days, even though it is very possible that some replies or posts will be within that time.


    What about 6 posts and a 4 day interval? It's reasonable, I think.

    Quote
    In the end is it not more important that the quality of our posts be the best they can. Surely that is not only better for both of us, but is better for the readers who are making their minds up regarding this issue. This way we get quality and no one gets an advantage over the other because we both have enough time to proof our proof texts. Lack of time can only result in an incomplete answer anyway, so what is the point?


    Honestly t8, three days should be plenty for someone who confidently affirms “I don't intend spending more than 2 hours on a post anyway, (I rarely do)”. Four should be more than enough for you.

    Quote
    So, what do you say to no strict time limit, which would also ensure that all questions that are asked could be answered adequately, which seems to be another concern of yours? Let's face it, we are both most likely to posting here regardless for some time to come anyway, and I know that I am patient in making my case and do not feel that it needs to be made ASAP.


    In a debate you have to make answering your oppontents questions the highest priority, not an afterthought. Four days easily allows for a well thought out and honest answer.

    Quote
    What is important to me is not being hasty, but patient in order to get a better quality result for both of us. And as I have said before, telling God that he has 3 days to inspire a reply or post seems more than a tad cheeky, unless you think it is a good idea to reply using your own wisdom?


    Hey t8, in formal debate there is a time restriction. That's just the way it is. If we do it your way and still label it a 'debate', we will be operating under false pretenses. It will be a complete farce. WIT has already pointed out that this forum could clean up it's act in this regard. Don't you think he has a valid point?

    Quote
    My reasons are not bad Isaiah they are fair and good and they do equally apply to both of us, so neither has an advantage, so our posts will be better too.

    So the plan is:
    Proof text > Reply > Open discussion.

    What do you say?


    I say that a six submission, four day deadline format is eminently fair and reasonable and will engender a little credibility to the proceedings.

Viewing 20 posts - 401 through 420 (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