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 - 421 through 440 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49206
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Isaiah. I thought you were done with being harsh in your judgement toward me? You said it was forgiven.

    Anyway I like the idea of a debate, but for the same reason I have mentioned many times before (to you and WorshippingJesus), I cannot absolutely guarantee that I can stick to a deadline. Do you understand this? I have said this many times now. You know it is not wise to agree to something you cannot guarantee, so why do you need to push me in this way?

    I learned from the last time to not get into a contract with you. It's like a contract with a loan shark. One late payment and threats or nasty letters start turning up and the focus of the debate is lost in the frenzy of the attack.

    I will say it again, if it is one thing I have learned in the last month Isaiah and that is to not get into a contract because the devil can turn up in the details and then the accusations start flying. Don't you think it is better that we avoid this situation instead of stipulating the same rule but one or extra day or whatever.

    So please I ask you to be fair about this. One post followed by another. If someone doesn't post at all, then we can take that as a true forfeit because they didn't answer. The discussion just remains closed and the opening argument appears strong because the other party couldn't reply.

    Now the point I make is this. We both have made over 1000 posts and then you go on about how long and hard 24 posts are. But I am not planning on leaving soon, and I assume that you aren't either.

    Again I repeat that we do no favours for the truth by stipulating a deadline and being hasty. This is not a game of speed chess or a sport. We are talking about scripture here. Lets show some respect and let each man make his best post with no restrictions or limiting each others ability.

    Also yes I travel a lot and the last thing I want is to find that I cannot because it lies within a 3 day period that I am contractually committed to. You know that scripture Isaiah about the wind and how you do not know or predict it. Well the sons of God who are led by the Spirit are like that. I don't think it is wise to make this a contract and be bound by such a ruling. I wisely use the word 'bound' here.

    I ask you to be reasonable. Surely letting each person post his best post is very fair. What is wrong with that?

    12 posts and 12 rebuttals each. Compare that to the thousands we have already made and it isn't a big commitment unless you are planning on leaving soon.

    So again I ask that you respect my wish and the way that I live my life. I often cannot make it here and if you studied my posting patterns over the years you will see that I post in waves. There are plenty of troughs and peaks. Please respect that I may be different to you and others who may regularly come here. My life is different. I usually come here in the weekends and sometimes in the week if my other work is done. Sometimes I cannot turn up for weeks and I have been known to away for months too.

    We are all different Isaiah. I ask that you respect the fact that we are different. Surely we can cater for both by just keeping it simple. One post each and then open the discussion. What is so bad about that?

    #49207
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    <!–QuoteBegin–Is 1:18+April 17 2007,15:08–>

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,15:08)
    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?


    That is not the only kind of debate.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

    1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
    2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
    3. deliberation; consideration.
    4. Archaic. strife; contention.
      –verb (used without object)
    5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
    6. to participate in a formal debate.
    7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
    8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
      –verb (used with object)
    9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
    10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
    11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
    12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
    13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

    There are many forms of debate Isaiah and the rules of a debate are not all the same. Surely they can be made to suit everyone. There is no one right way or rules for every debate in the world is there?

    Why can't you be happy with a format that suits both of us and not just you. Are you insisting because you feel it gives you an advantage? Just accept that I cannot give my word to something that I may not be able to keep. You have the proof from the first debate. I couldn't make it in 3 days. Let's both be wise and learn from this.

    #49208
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…

    In the interests of ending this unbelievably inane dialogue, what do you say to an eight proof text format, with a four day deadline for each submission, and on the odd occasion if the deadline is not able to be met by either of us then an extension can be requested.

    Surely that's agreeable to you?

    #49209
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    It's simple Is 1:18. I can make it if there is a post and a rebuttal and then opening it up for comment.

    It is really simple and we both can follow that without falling into pits and traps.

    Are you agreeable?

    #49210
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:16)
    here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…


    Aha. Here you are using the word debate with no connotation to a strict time period.

    Come on lighten up. Life is too short to be grumpy.

    :)

    #49211
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Okay then, we're getting somewhere now, I take it you agree to my suggestions and since I have never disputed the original format you can take it as given that I agree to yours.

    Can you make sure this thread is unlocked tomorrow night so I can post my rebuttal? Thanks.

    Blessings
    :)

    #49212
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,21:25)

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:16)
    here we are again, having a debate about the terms and conditions of the debate….deja vu…


    Ah ha. Here you are using the word debate with no connotation to a strict time period.

    Come on lighten up. Life is to short to be grumpy.

    :)


    he he….I was just answering your points t8…you are a sensitive soul, aren't you.

    :D :) :D :cool:

    #49214
    Proclaimer
    Participant

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


    Sorry I didn't read this before WorshippingJesus.

    I originally wanted only myself and Isaiah to post with a post > rebuttal > rebuttal of the rebuttal > rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal.

    I felt that this would be a good design to force the other person to answer everything including the arguments made against the replies. This would have given a good measure of accountability. If it was one thing I was trying to avoid and that was drive by postings.

    But Isaiah was against this idea because he said it would take too long. So I proposed that we open the discussion up and get feedback from others as another way to get some accountability. So it wasn't just something that was done behind anyone's back. It was spoken of beforehand. You can read it yourself if you can find the posts. I couldn't find them just now. I think they were in the Trinity thread.

    I still think that just one post and a reply is completely inadequate. A reply could be completely wrong and if it is just left there with no comment whatsoever, then where is the accountability? We should really be there to give an answer as to what we teach.

    #49215
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,16:28)
    Okay then, we're getting somewhere now, I take it you agree to my suggestions and since I have never disputed the original format you can take it as given that I agree to yours.

    Can you make sure this thread is unlocked tomorrow night so I can post my rebuttal? Thanks.

    Blessings
    :)


    Hi Is 1:18 .

    I don't want to come across too serious about this, but I think I need to dot all the i's before starting. Can I get a summary of how this will work or your agreement to how I assume this is to take place which I have listed below:

  • I take it that one person posts, the other replies and then it is opened up for anyone to comment.
  • In total there are 6 discussions that we each start and 6 that we reply to.
  • We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post
  • We can opt to forfeit a discussion if we do not know or have the answer. I added this in because it is very possible that this could be an outcome for one or more of the discussions. (Just trying to think of every possible thing that can happen that is all.)
  • So far I have started 2 discussions and you have started one, so this means that I have another 4 proof texts and you have 5 to go.
  • Once each discussion is opened up, we can comment ourselves if we want, but we are not obligated to.

    Is this the format?

    I need to be sure about everything this time. I don't want this to be akin to taking out a loan with a loan shark complete with heavies who try and rough you up a bit. Let's be graceful generous toward each other please.

#49227

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,19:56)

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.

:)


t8

There you go, more patronizing.

If you consider me not trusting you an attack on your character, well then there is nothing I can do about that.

I have given my reasons and you dont like them, so patronize me if you want.

Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.

:)

#49339
Proclaimer
Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)
Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

But I am still praying about my answer.


WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

You should be careful with your words.

Life and death are in the tongue.

It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.

#49346
Is 1:18
Participant

Did God inspire your writing? How do you know that?

#49357
Is 1:18
Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 16 2007,21:55)
Hi Is 1:18 .

I don't want to come across too serious about this, but I think I need to dot all the i's before starting. Can I get a summary of how this will work or your agreement to how I assume this is to take place which I have listed below:

  • I take it that one person posts, the other replies and then it is opened up for anyone to comment.
  • In total there are 6 discussions that we each start and 6 that we reply to.
  • We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post
  • We can opt to forfeit a discussion if we do not know or have the answer. I added this in because it is very possible that this could be an outcome for one or more of the discussions. (Just trying to think of every possible thing that can happen that is all.)
  • So far I have started 2 discussions and you have started one, so this means that I have another 4 proof texts and you have 5 to go.
  • Once each discussion is opened up, we can comment ourselves if we want, but we are not obligated to.

    Is this the format?

    I need to be sure about everything this time. I don't want this to be akin to taking out a loan with a loan shark complete with heavies who try and rough you up a bit. Let's be graceful generous toward each other please.


  • Yes I agree with most of those.

    I don't like this one:

    Quote

  • We are also free to take whatever time is necessary to make our best post

  • Can we not just have a 4 day time limitation and seek extensions if need be? That way I can guage the time frame I am committing myself to and time pressure is a good thing in debates. Four days allows plenty of time for a submission, I don't see why you would objection to this.

    With regard to this point:

    Quote

  • We can opt to forfeit a discussion if we do not know or have the answer. I added this in because it is very possible that this could be an outcome for one or more of the discussions. (Just trying to think of every possible thing that can happen that is all.)

  • I don't think we need to forfeit an entire duscussion on account of one question that has one of us stumped. It's perfectly acceptable to just write “I don't have an answer for that question”. It's more commendable to do that than to blatantly equivocate, don't you think?

    Blessings
    :)

    #49370

    Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)
    Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

    But I am still praying about my answer.


    WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

    If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

    You should be careful with your words.

    Life and death are in the tongue.

    It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.


    t8

    So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

    Do you make that judgment?

    ???

    In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

    :(

    #49372

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,03:40)

    Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)
    Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

    But I am still praying about my answer.


    WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

    If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

    You should be careful with your words.

    Life and death are in the tongue.

    It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.


    t8

    So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

    Do you make that judgment?

    ???

    In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

    :(


    t8

    If you are so sure your writtings are inspired then why would you write this in yoiur rebuttal…

    Quote

    He in the above verse must be God, or possibly the author. (I don't have time to check this as my reply is delayed enough as it is.)

    I base this rebuttal on the translations as they were presented to me. I didn't have the time to look deeply into the Greek and so there is also a possibility that a translation issue could add, edit, or correct what I have said above.

    OK I have given my rebuttal. Now even though I took my time in replying I would have liked more time to check out the original language to see if what I am saying is so. I do not claim that all I say is true, but that I am a human who struggles with his sinful nature who desires to be perfect and so to that end, I am open to learning what others have to say and of course I am open to changing my mind.

    This dosnt seem like confidence that your writtings were inspired to me.

    ???

    #50128
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,22:40)

    Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)
    Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

    But I am still praying about my answer.


    WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

    If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

    You should be careful with your words.

    Life and death are in the tongue.

    It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.


    t8

    So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

    Do you make that judgment?

    ???

    In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

    :(


    If you look at what I wrote. I said that “if God inspired my writing”. It wasn't a statement to say that he absolutely did.

    Then you say if God inspired me do I think the opposite for Isaiah.

    Well we know that truth comes from God and lies come from the Father of lies and there is no truth in him.

    Now men can be inspired by either and in a lifetime both at different times. Peter is a good example of this.

    I claim to speak the truth yes, but I do not claim to be perfect, all knowing, and beyond making mistakes. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. I also do not believe that Isaiah (the member not the biblical writer) speaks the truth, rather he speaks the words of men. Rarely have I heard him speak the truth. Quoting a scripture is not what I am talking about. I am talking about his conclusions.

    I use scripture to prove my words and he uses a mixture of scripture and creeds/philosophy as any cult does . He also likes big words as philosophers often do, I am not against them per se, but feel that the truth is important enough to make it as clear as possible to all and that using them for prides sake is not a good reason.

    I believe that those who try and preserve the traditions of men do so because of pride. But a person who loves the truth will except truth even if the whole world is against it. And we know that the whole world is under the sway of the evil one.

    I am not interested in trying to prove that I am better than Isaiah or he is better than me because that would be foolish pride talking. But you asked for my opinion, I gave it. It is what I believe. It has nothing to do with reputations or pride.

    I believe that Isaiah doesn't speak the truth and pride is what stops him from seeing the simple truth from scripture.

    God reveals things to the innocent/children and we should accept the Kingdom of God like an innocent child. But not all do that, especially Pharisees.

    However, Paul was once a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church, so I do see that it is possible that someone like Isaiah could be made blind in order for him to see. So I respect him for his potential.

    #50129
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,23:01)
    If you are so sure your writtings are inspired then why would you write this in yoiur rebuttal…


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I spoke the truth when I said that.

    Given more time I know that God could have shown me. It wouldn't have been hard, I just needed to read it with more time. God speaks to us when we read his truth. But you still need to give God the space to speak in our lives.

    I gave the answer before allowing God to show me due to the pressure of men and their traditions. I gave the answer quicker than I would have liked to stop you guys from whining. That is the truth.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    That seems to be the case with you guys. Whatever I do, it is not good enough. But what you do to me was already done to Christ the Lord.

    Your fruit shows what manor of man you are. You love to accuse and you are harsh with your judgement toward me. All this because I have rightly rejected a doctrine that was developed hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written.

    #50177

    Quote (t8 @ April 22 2007,21:41)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,22:40)

    Quote (t8 @ April 17 2007,19:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 17 2007,22:13)
    Also I do have an answer for your twisted response to Is 1:18s proof text.

    But I am still praying about my answer.


    WorshippingJesus, you should be careful.

    If God inspired my writing then guess who you are calling twisted?

    You should be careful with your words.

    Life and death are in the tongue.

    It is not wise to let your emotions take control my friend.


    t8

    So if God inspired your writtings then Is 1:18s is not.

    Do you make that judgment?

    ???

    In my opinion you should be careful claiming that your writings are inspired because you may be calling God a liar.

    :(


    If you look at what I wrote. I said that “if God inspired my writing”. It wasn't a statement to say that he absolutely did.

    Then you say if God inspired me do I think the opposite for Isaiah.

    Well we know that truth comes from God and lies come from the Father of lies and there is no truth in him.

    Now men can be inspired by either and in a lifetime both at different times. Peter is a good example of this.

    I claim to speak the truth yes, but I do not claim to be perfect, all knowing, and beyond making mistakes. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. I also do not believe that Isaiah (the member not the biblical writer) speaks the truth, rather he speaks the words of men. Rarely have I heard him speak the truth. Quoting a scripture is not what I am talking about. I am talking about his conclusions.

    I use scripture to prove my words and he uses a mixture of scripture and creeds/philosophy as any cult does . He also likes big words as philosophers often do, I am not against them per se, but feel that the truth is important enough to make it as clear as possible to all and that using them for prides sake is not a good reason.

    I believe that those who try and preserve the traditions of men do so because of pride. But a person who loves the truth will except truth even if the whole world is against it. And we know that the whole world is under the sway of the evil one.

    I am not interested in trying to prove that I am better than Isaiah or he is better than me because that would be foolish pride talking. But you asked for my opinion, I gave it. It is what I believe. It has nothing to do with reputations or pride.

    I believe that Isaiah doesn't speak the truth and pride is what stops him from seeing the simple truth from scripture.

    God reveals things to the innocent/children and we should accept the Kingdom of God like an innocent child. But not all do that, especially Pharisees.

    However, Paul was once a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church, so I do see that it is possible that someone like Isaiah could be made blind in order for him to see. So I respect him for his potential.


    t8

    I am glad to see that you admit that you “dont know” if your wriittings are inspired.

    Because they abviously are not.

    You say…

    Quote
    I claim to speak the truth yes, but I do not claim to be perfect, all knowing, and beyond making mistakes. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. I also do not believe that Isaiah (the member not the biblical writer) speaks the truth, rather he speaks the words of men. Rarely have I heard him speak the truth. Quoting a scripture is not what I am talking about. I am talking about his conclusions.


    Isnt every one on this forum claiming to be speaking the truth?

    I am sure its no surprise to you that Trinitarians believe *you are not* speaking the truth.
    While you say “you are not talking about quoting scriptures”, but quoting scriptures is what we are talking about. And we obviously have come to the conclusion that Arianistic and Henotheistic views are inspired from satan the arch deciever, who has always sought to steal away the truth of “who and what Yeshua is”. If he can take his true nature as God and man out of the hearts of people than he has won the battle.

    For the sure foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ is built upon the rock of the Revelation of who Jesus is.

    And he is not just a man like us, or a son of God like us.

    He is the Monogenes, Unique Son of God which John wrote about when he penned Jn 1:1 and Jn 20:28 and three verses after recording Thomas saying “My Lord and my God” he writes…

    Jn 20:31
    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    Yeshua is the messiah written of in the Hebrew scriptures, in passages like Zech 14 which clearly shows Yeshua as YHWH.

    This is the truth of the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Jesus.

    1 Jn 4:3
    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ, (the Word/God) is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    You say…

    Quote

    I use scripture to prove my words and he uses a mixture of scripture and creeds/philosophy as any cult does . He also likes big words as philosophers often do, I am not against them per se, but feel that the truth is important enough to make it as clear as possible to all and that using them for prides sake is not a good reason.

    Scripture should interpret scripture by the Spirit of truth.

    Not Human logic. Human logic without the Spirit puffs up. And their false teachings begin to make them think that they are some sort of Prophet.

    You say…

    Quote
    I believe that those who try and preserve the traditions of men do so because of pride. But a person who loves the truth will except truth even if the whole world is against it. And we know that the whole world is under the sway of the evil one.


    I agree with you, however you claim that your truth is “the truth” just like everyone here, so you dont have a corner on truth. You can say you are right just like the rest of us, but it shall be known in the end and “The Truth” will prevail.

    You say…

    Quote
    I am not interested in trying to prove that I am better than Isaiah or he is better than me because that would be foolish pride talking. But you asked for my opinion, I gave it. It is what I believe. It has nothing to do with reputations or pride.


    You sure could have fooled me.

    You say…

    Quote

    I believe that Isaiah doesn't speak the truth and pride is what stops him from seeing the simple truth from scripture.

    God reveals things to the innocent/children and we should accept the Kingdom of God like an innocent child. But not all do that, especially Pharisees.

    However, Paul was once a Pharisee and a persecutor of the Church, so I do see that it is possible that someone like Isaiah could be made blind in order for him to see. So I respect him for his potential.

    This is what I am talking about.

    You talk about Isaiahs pride?

    You patronize him and infer that he is proud and that he is a Pharisee like Paul before his conversion.

    This is a low blow for a gentleman like Isaiah who I think a lot of people on this forum respect for his “Wisdom” and his good nature, and his relationship with God.

    Rather than proving his writtings false, which you have failed to do, you condemn him for being proud because he dosnt accept “your truth”.

    Jesus said…
    Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    I think Isaiah is the sheep, and the harmless dove, and the wise one.

    That leaves the other character for you!

    :O

    #50178
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi w,
    Do INSPIRED TEACHERS teach trinity?
    Thats funny because Jesus didn't and He was definitely INSPIRED.

    #50181

    Quote (t8 @ April 22 2007,21:50)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2007,23:01)
    If you are so sure your writtings are inspired then why would you write this in yoiur rebuttal…


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I spoke the truth when I said that.

    Given more time I know that God could have shown me. It wouldn't have been hard, I just needed to read it with more time. God speaks to us when we read his truth. But you still need to give God the space to speak in our lives.

    I gave the answer before allowing God to show me due to the pressure of men and their traditions. I gave the answer quicker than I would have liked to stop you guys from whining. That is the truth.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    That seems to be the case with you guys. Whatever I do, it is not good enough. But what you do to me was already done to Christ the Lord.

    Your fruit shows what manor of man you are. You love to accuse and you are harsh with your judgement toward me. All this because I have rightly rejected a doctrine that was developed hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written.


    t8

    You are just to proud to admit that it was not a time issue.

    Please stop making this excuse or show us where there was pressure.

    Here is the conversation agian t8.

    Posted: April 02 2007,16:44  Page 24 t8s proof text # 1 I said…
    Quote  
    You agreed to a three day time period.

    You posted and Is 1:18 replied.

    Then he posted and about 5 days later you say…

    Is 1:18 is willing to give you extra time to reply and then you come back to your proof text rebutting the the rebuttal totally ignoring his proof text and diverting attention back to yours.

    I was under the impression as well as others I think, that you were to rebutt Isaiahs proof text. That was what the extended time was about!

    Was'nt it?

    Posted: April 03 2007,03:14 page 27 t8s proof text #1 I said…
    Quote  
    t8

    I dont care about the three days and Im not saying that you have sinned.

    What bothers me is that you took the time and then went back to your proof text, totally ignoring his.

    Can you see how I would get upset?

    Posted: April 07 2007,05:00 page 29  t8s proof text #1 I said…Quote  

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

    Posted: April 08 2007,04:21 page 32 t8s proof text #1 I said…Quote  

    In fact here is the last thing I said to you on this…

    Here is my last word to you on this.

    I wish you the very best in your walk with God and pray that God will bless you and yours abundantly with his truth and Love.

    I sincerely pray that everyone on this board will see and know more truth including my self.

    Someday we will all come together in unity even if its on the other side.

    Does this match what you say…Quote  
    Maybe you didn't read WorshippingJesus post(s) but he was throwing accusations at me regarding this time issue. I was simply pointing out the truth that some things in life have a greater priority than debating here.

    But he kept right on with it. This is why I spoke about it.  Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time with such trivia.

    Not true t8 and you know it.

    Viewing 20 posts - 421 through 440 (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