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 - 441 through 460 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50223
    Not3in1
    Participant

    t8, if it wasn't for your dedication AND time – there would be no forum for men to accuse you, and to show their wisdom :)

    I assume you have a family? Kids? A life?

    So, thank you for taking time to participate in these debates, and for your humble position.

    God respects those who are contrite at heart, and who tremble at his Word (holy fear for getting things wrong).

    Isaiah 66:2
    “….This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

    Ignore the monkey's on your back. And thanks again for your time here, and all that you do. My life is richer for having HeavenNet.

    #50224

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 24 2007,03:56)
    t8, if it wasn't for your dedication AND time – there would be no forum for men to accuse you, and to show their wisdom  :)

    I assume you have a family?  Kids?  A life?

    So, thank you for taking time to participate in these debates, and for your humble position.

    God respects those who are contrite at heart, and who tremble at his Word (holy fear for getting things wrong).  

    Isaiah 66:2
    “….This is the one I esteem:  he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

    Ignore the monkey's on your back.  And thanks again for your time here, and all that you do.  My life is richer for having HeavenNet.


    not3

    He continues to say there was pressure for time and my post to him shows there was no pressure.

    So you side with him if you want.

    Monkey see, Monkey do!

    :)

    #50227
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W.
    You say
    “What bothers me is that you took the time and then went back to your proof text, totally ignoring his.”

    Then you say

    “Can you see how I would get upset?”

    No.
    You are not Is 1.18.
    We are not employed to be accusers of the brethren.

    #50228
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Monkey see, Monkey do!
    *************************

    WJ, you make me laugh. I'm not “siding” with anyone, silly. I am simply saying that it takes a lot of time (I'm assuming) to maintain a website such as this. And people, in general, were giving him a bad time for a time constraint. I mean, what's the big deal? Sometimes I think we just want to argue about anything :)

    Why not open a debate and give 30 DAYS in which to respond? I've no idea what t8 does for a living, but I know that sometimes I am called out of town unexpectedly, and there would be no way I could agree to a 3-day turn-around on a post. Maybe something came up? Maybe his dog died? Maybe his mother has cancer? Who knows?

    Grace extended – words of encouragement – brotherly love – these are the more excellent choices!

    It's really not my place to correct anyone. I just wish I saw more encouragement among the brothers; it's disheartening to me to hear you guys go at it sometimes. I took a little break away from the boards for a while because it got to be discouraging instead of encouraging.

    WJ, I know it did your heart good for Nick to say, “Good points.” You commented on it and I could feel you smiling through the post. I was even uplifted by the fact that Nick extended that to you :) It feels good to receive encouragement, and a little help up, or even to stand once in a while. God bless you brothers.

    #50242

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,06:45)
    Hi W.
    You say
    “What bothers me is that you took the time and then went back to your proof text, totally ignoring his.”

    Then you say

    “Can you see how I would get upset?”

     No.
    You are not Is 1.18.
    We are not employed to be accusers of the brethren.


    NH

    Accuser of the brethren, LOL.

    Read this post and see who is accusing who…

    T8 said…

    Quote

    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.

    Whos is the accuser here?

    Its seems that when t8 makes these kinds of character attacks that it is ok.

    But if a Trinitarian speaks against t8 in anyway then he is the “Persecuted saint”, and woe be to us for daring to say anything against him cause we would be accusing Christ and becomming an accuser of the brethren.

    This is the same man that referred to me being a pig.

    Hogwash.  :)

    #50244
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ, you take things way to personal (like me).

    So now you've been called a pig, and a monkey…..and you're still here taking the abuse! Ha!

    I didn't mean to refer to YOU only as being the “monkey on his back” – I meant in general, brother. You are not the only one giving t8 a hard time, are you?

    I respect what you all have to say. My main thrust was that I was hoping for some more grace extended between all of you debating this issue. It just makes it nicer for those of us who are listening to see that you are treating eachother as you would want to be treated. That's all.

    #50250
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You have not explained why something said to Is 1.18 makes YOU upset.

    #50251

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,08:08)
    Hi W,
    You have not explained why something said to Is 1.18 makes YOU upset.


    NH

    Why does this matter to you?

    I defend and stand by the truth which I think Isaiah is a teacher of.

    :)

    #50253
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    He is able to take care of himself so do not get upset on his behalf.

    #50255

    Quote (Not3in1 @ April 24 2007,07:50)
    WJ, you take things way to personal (like me).

    So now you've been called a pig, and a monkey…..and you're still here taking the abuse!  Ha!  

    I didn't mean to refer to YOU only as being the “monkey on his back” – I meant in general, brother.  You are not the only one giving t8 a hard time, are you?

    I respect what you all have to say.  My main thrust was that I was hoping for some more grace extended between all of you debating this issue.  It just makes it nicer for those of us who are listening to see that you are treating eachother as you would want to be treated.  That's all.


    not3

    You say…

    Quote

    I respect what you all have to say.  My main thrust was that I was hoping for some more grace extended between all of you debating this issue.  It just makes it nicer for those of us who are listening to see that you are treating eachother as you would want to be treated.  That's all.

    Then why didnt you give some encouragement to Isaiah who is the one being attacked and tell him not to worry about the monkeys on his back, like t8 and David and NH Etc, Etc, Etc.?

    This is a sincere question. Was your motive to side with t8 because he is Non-Trinitarian?

    And I believe you did mean to refer to me being the monkey on his back since I am the one challenging him on his false statements.

    In my post as you can see I extended grace to him.

    I said…

    Quote

    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.


    But I dont see the same grace and courtesy extended to Trinitarians.

    So I refuse to let him continue with his miss-representation toward Isaiah and my self!

    :)

    #50256

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,08:34)
    Hi W,
    He is able to take care of himself so do not get upset on his behalf.


    NH

    I am full aware that Isaiah is able to take care of himself.

    I was upset because of the way t8 handled the debate at that point in time. And again it had nothing to do with time.

    :)

    #50257
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Trinitarianism is not a religion.
    It is not a denomination.
    It is not the body of Christ.
    It includes catholics and various protestants who have murdered each other for their individual differences for centuries.
    It is as divided and diverse a group as ever could be found who privately scorn each other's beliefs but here they NEVER correct one another.
    It is as if the thing that unites them is to be against US.

    #50258

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,08:51)
    Hi W,
    Trinitarianism is not a religion.
    It is not a denomination.
    It is not the body of Christ.
    It includes catholics and various protestants who have murdered each other for their individual differences for centuries.
    It is as divided and diverse a group as ever could be found who privately scorn each other's beliefs but here they NEVER correct one another.
    It is as if the thing that unites them is to be against US.


    NH

    Check your history, Arians were also guilty of mudering Trinitarians. Millions of Trinitarians died because of there faith and are still dieing because of their faith.

    “Interestingly Constantine's son sided with the Arians and exiled Athanansius for his beliefs in the Trinity…. eventually the northern Germanic tribes, also Arians, sacked Rome and persecuted trinitarians until they eventually became trinitarians themselves….. “Constantius was pro-Arian in his leanings and took an active part in the affairs of the Christian church — convening one council at Rimini and its twin at Seleuca, which met in 359 and 360.” (Wikpedia)

    I suppose you are one that believes that current white Americans are guilty of the murder and rape of slaves centurys ago.

    Heck, if you were able to check your geneology back far enough you would probably find some murderers in your blood line.

    So your argument is a straw.

    :)

    #50259

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,08:51)
    Hi W,
    Trinitarianism is not a religion.
    It is not a denomination.
    It is not the body of Christ.
    It includes catholics and various protestants who have murdered each other for their individual differences for centuries.
    It is as divided and diverse a group as ever could be found who privately scorn each other's beliefs but here they NEVER correct one another.
    It is as if the thing that unites them is to be against US.


    NH

    BTW.

    The Pharasees and Sadusees of Jesus day were well taught in the Hebrew scriptures, and yet they were guilty of crucifying Jesus.

    Does this mean the truth that they held found in the Hebrew scriputes was not still the truth? ???

    #50261
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi w,
    The scripture spoke of Christ but they did not hear the message.
    John 5:46
    For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
    John 10:35
    If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    They at least knew Who God was.
    They just knew nothing of the Son of God and had made Satan their father.

    #50264

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,09:22)
    Hi w,
    The scripture spoke of Christ but they did not hear the message.
    John 5:46
    For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
    John 10:35
    If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    They at least knew Who God was.
    They just knew nothing of the Son of God and had made Satan their father.


    NH

    You didnt answer the question.

    Did the truths that they believed concerning the Messiah coming still remain as truth even though they killed the Messiah?

    The scriptures have been used by wicked men for lots of evil purposes, but that dosnt nulify the truth.

    So again trying to attach the murders of Professed Christians on either side dosnt change the truths found in Gods word.

    So attaching such to a Trinitarian is a straw.

    :O

    #50267

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,09:22)
    Hi w,
    The scripture spoke of Christ but they did not hear the message.
    John 5:46
    For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
    John 10:35
    If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    They at least knew Who God was.
    They just knew nothing of the Son of God and had made Satan their father.


    NH

    You say…

    Quote

    They at least knew Who God was.
    They just knew nothing of the Son of God and had made Satan their father.

    HUH? They knew God but made satan their Father.

    They didnt know who God was at all, or they wouldnt have crucified Jesus.

    Jn 8:19
    Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

    :O

    #50271
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    They thought Jesus was God and wanted to kill him.
    That problem has never gone away.

    #50273

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2007,09:50)
    Hi W,
    They thought Jesus was God and wanted to kill him.
    That problem has never gone away.


    NH

    No they didnt think Jesus was God or they wouldnt have killed him.

    The didnt like the fact that Jesus claimed to be God, the Lord from heaven, the one before Abraham, the I AM, the Son of God, which were terms to them that meant he was claiming to be equal to God.

    They were right that Jesus made those claims, thats why they cried blasphemy and wanted to crucify him, because they didnt believe him.

    But John did! And you should too.

    :)

    #50282
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Did he, or are you joining in their foolish misinterpretation of his words?
    They were not his friends but wanted to kill him so choose yours carefully too.
    He did claim to be the son of God and that is much safer ground we can agree on.

Viewing 20 posts - 441 through 460 (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