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 - 481 through 500 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51419
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2007,10:25)
    I just didnt understand your reaction in defending t8, in light of his response and critical words toward Isaiah.


    Sounds like a school yard to me.

    Gangs ganging up and complaining when it happens.

    Come on WJ. It is not about sticking up for people and ganging up on others. What a joke.

    It is simply putting mens doctrine on trial. Judgement is made using scripture that is all. If a man agrees with another it is not meant to be taken that he endorses that person full stop.

    You can agree on what a person says if you truly agree with it. Simple. If you don't agree, then you give your reasons. Simple again.

    Honestly just throw away this gang mentality and belief in a conspiracy. I have said it before, there is no conspiracy.

    If it appears that there are people united against anyone, then that could be the work of the spirit. i.e., those who know the truth saying the same thing. There is no secret meetings where people conspire against others.

    Well if there is, then I don't know about it.

    #51424

    Quote (t8 @ May 05 2007,22:19)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2007,10:25)
    I just didnt understand your reaction in defending t8, in light of his response and critical words toward Isaiah.


    Sounds like a school yard to me.

    Gangs ganging up and complaining when it happens.

    Come on WJ. It is not about sticking up for people and ganging up on others. What a joke.

    It is simply putting mens doctrine on trial. Judgement is made using scripture that is all. If a man agrees with another it is not meant to be taken that he endorses that person full stop.

    You can agree on what a person says if you truly agree with it. Simple. If you don't agree, then you give your reasons. Simple again.

    Honestly just throw away this gang mentality and belief in a conspiracy. I have said it before, there is no conspiracy.

    If it appears that there are people united against anyone, then that could be the work of the spirit. i.e., those who know the truth saying the same thing. There is no secret meetings where people conspire against others.

    Well if there is, then I don't know about it.


    t8

    Just pointing out the hypocrisy thats all.

    I think you just like being contentious.

    Were you one of those kids that started fights between people in school, and then cowardly stood back and watched while they had it out?

    ???

    :D

    #51513
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Not at all. I have hated violence all my life.
    Why do you ask, were you?

    What hypocrisy are you talking about?

    Your not going to start accusing us of being hypocrites now? That would be a serious charge and accusation to make considering what scripture says about hypocrites.

    How about you slay us with the word of God instead of your accusing tongue. I don't mind being stabbed by the Word of God, but as for the tongue of an accuser, well they only judge themselves when they speak harshly toward us.

    Who is us? Well 'us' believe the following:

    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    #51516
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8

    Quote
    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    The above says that there is but one God the Father. (There are no commas in the Greek)

    There is also but one God the Son

    There is also but one God the Holy Spirit.

    It also says  “and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,”

    Do you believe that the Father is also Lord?

    Did I hear yes?

    Likewise Jesus is also God.

    Joh 9:41  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. :O

    #51527
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    You say
    “There is also but one God the Son

    There is also but one God the Holy Spirit.”
    You step out on a plank of your own understanding.
    Can you not find scriptures that says these things, and then puts them all together as a trinity?
    Then do not trust your own understanding.

    Pr 3
    “5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

    6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

    7Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. “

    #51536
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ May 07 2007,20:28)
    t8

    Quote
    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    The above says that there is but one God the Father. (There are no commas in the Greek)

    There is also but one God the Son

    There is also but one God the Holy Spirit.

    It also says “and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,”

    Do you believe that the Father is also Lord?

    Did I hear yes?

    Likewise Jesus is also God.

    Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. :O


    Like I said in another discussion CultB. You change the word of God to suit your philosophy and you do not seem to grasp that the word lord in this verse is a completely different word to the word LORD in the Old Testament. That word is YHWH.

    But you mix them up because it suits your man-made doctrine.

    God has sent people to you to show you these errors. It is up to you to let go of your pride and admit that you need to align yourself with the truth. Only you can make that decision.

    Paul teaches that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You say that there is one God the Father, Son, & Spirit and one Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Father, Lord Spirit.

    You need to repent of this. You teach against Paul the apostle. Christ made Saul blind in order that he could see and he became Paul. You teach against him and I suspect that you to need to become blind in order that you may see because you cannot see the truth with your eyes.

    #51549

    Quote (t8 @ May 07 2007,09:30)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ May 07 2007,20:28)
    t8

    Quote
    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    The above says that there is but one God the Father. (There are no commas in the Greek)

    There is also but one God the Son

    There is also but one God the Holy Spirit.

    It also says  “and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,”

    Do you believe that the Father is also Lord?

    Did I hear yes?

    Likewise Jesus is also God.

    Joh 9:41  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. :O


    Like I said in another discussion CultB. You change the word of God to suit your philosophy and you do not seem to grasp that the word lord in this verse is a completely different word to the word LORD in the Old Testament. That word is YHWH.

    But you mix them up because it suits your man-made doctrine.

    God has sent people to you to show you these errors. It is up to you to let go of your pride and admit that you need to align yourself with the truth. Only you can make that decision.

    Paul teaches that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You say that there is one God the Father, Son, & Spirit and one Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Father, Lord Spirit.

    You need to repent of this. You teach against Paul the apostle. Christ made Saul blind in order that he could see and he became Paul. You teach against him and I suspect that you to need to become blind in order that you may see because you cannot see the truth with your eyes.


    t8

    :)

    The writer of the book of Hebrews ch 1:10 thinks the word Lord (kurios) is the same word as the Hebrew word Lord.

    What gives?

    1 Cor 8:6 applys to Yeshua but Heb 1:10 dosnt?

    Yet you say…

    Quote
    You change the word of God to suit your philosophy and you do not seem to grasp that the word lord in this verse is a completely different word to the word LORD in the Old Testament. That word is YHWH.


    Who is it that is changing the Word of God to fit their philosophy t8?

    ???

    #51551

    Quote (t8 @ May 07 2007,00:04)
    Not at all. I have hated violence all my life.
    Why do you ask, were you?

    What hypocrisy are you talking about?

    Your not going to start accusing us of being hypocrites now? That would be a serious charge and accusation to make considering what scripture says about hypocrites.

    How about you slay us with the word of God instead of your accusing tongue. I don't mind being stabbed by the Word of God, but as for the tongue of an accuser, well they only judge themselves when they speak harshly toward us.

    Who is us? Well 'us' believe the following:

    1 Corinthians 8:6
    yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


    t8

    Getting a little defensive here?

    Remember t8, the truth of God shines brightly. His word is ever revealing and convicting.

    But thanks be to the Lord our God, the Father and Yeshua who ever shows us mercy and goodness and Love!

    :)

    #51583
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Nick

    Quote
    Hi CB,
    You say
    “There is also but one God the Son

    There is also but one God the Holy Spirit.”
    You step out on a plank of your own understanding.
    Can you not find scriptures that says these things, and then puts them all together as a trinity?

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

    Here Christ is also identified as God. And since the Father is speaking, here is more conclusive proof of a Godhead with two of its three Persons mentioned.

    Also

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

    Evidence of Their Deity.

    1.     The Father is Jehovah.      Not even the children of Arius will argue this.

    2.      Christ is Jehovah.       See John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8. Also

    Jer 23:5-6  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (Jesus), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD
    (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    3.    Jehovah the Holy Spirit

    II Cor 3:17
    Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.  (NWT)
      (From the cult's own bible)

    Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Here are all the three Divine Persons of the Godhead in one verse.
    Now let's confirm their deity from scripture .

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

    Here is Christ (the Word) identified as God. This verse states that there are at least two who are God.

    And the third Person

    Jehovah the Holy Spirit

    II Cor 3:17
    Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.  (NWT)
      (From the cult's own bible)

    Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    :O  :O  :O

    Isa 42:20  Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.    

    #51584
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8

    Quote
    Like I said in another discussion CultB. You change the word of God to suit your philosophy and you do not seem to grasp that the word lord in this verse is a completely different word to the word LORD in the Old Testament. That word is YHWH.

    Hi t8.

    I also said the following in another discussion.

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

           (NWT) The Holy Spirit is Jehovah
                         His Divinity is Stated

    “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

    Notice who the Spirit is according to the New World Translation:

    “Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.”    
    2 Cor 3:17 New World Translation).

    “…exactly as done by Jehovah the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18, New World Translation).

    (It seems that the arian's own bible cannot hide the truth.)

    Just include God the Father with the above distinguished company and you have the three Persons of the Godhead.

    Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  :O :O :O

    #51588
    Tim2
    Participant

    Quote
    Paul teaches that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You say that there is one God the Father, Son, & Spirit and one Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Father, Lord Spirit.

    You need to repent of this. You teach against Paul the apostle.

    Does Jesus teach against Paul when He says, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth”? Matthew 11:25.

    Does Paul teach against Paul when He says, “The Lord is the Spirit”? 2 Corinthians 3:17.

    Tim

    #51594
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Tim2,
    Does it surprise you that the Gardener is the Lord, of the Lord of the branches?
    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    #51624

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 08 2007,07:30)
    Hi Tim2,
    Does it surprise you that the Gardener is the Lord, of the Lord of the branches?
    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


    NH

    The Gardener is “One” with the vine. The gardner is in the vine and the vine is in the gardner.

    Does it surprise you that to say there is more than one Lord, is unscriptural?

    So they must be One Lord and One God.

    The Father by his word and his servants calls Jesus both Lord and God.

    Zech 14:9
    And *the LORD/YHWH shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

    Who is this *King of Kings and the Lord of Lords*?

    Is 45:
    21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and *there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
    22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
    23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, *That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear*.

    Phil 2:
    10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
    11 And *that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Rom 14:11
    For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and *every tongue shall confess to God*.

    OH MY, how the evidence continues to mount up against the Unitarians and Henotheist and the Arians.

    Behold in the above scriptures how the Apostle Paul once again affirms Yeshua is YHWH in the flesh, the Lord from heaven.

    :O

    #51625
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    No Jesus is the Son of God. He is Lord of lords, and God the Father is his Lord and God.

    #51628
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Indeed the Gardener is one in will and purpose with the vine which serves him.
    But any suggestion that they are not two separate beings who are working together seems to be undermined by the parallel shown here by Jesus.

    #51635

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 08 2007,11:43)
    Hi W,
    No Jesus is the Son of God. He is Lord of lords, and God the Father is his Lord and God.


    Zech 14:9
    And *the LORD/YHWH shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

    Who is this *King of Kings and the Lord of Lords*?

    Is 45:
    21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and *there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
    22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
    23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, *That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear*.

    Phil 2:
    10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
    11 And *that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Rom 14:11
    For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and *every tongue shall confess to God*.

    OH MY, how the evidence continues to mount up against the Unitarians and Henotheist and the Arians.

    Behold in the above scriptures how the Apostle Paul once again affirms Yeshua is YHWH in the flesh, the Lord from heaven.

    :O

    #51636
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Still struggling with God's Son and the authority and roles assigned to him by God?

    #51688
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    NH

    Quote
    Hi W,
    Still struggling with God's Son and the authority and roles assigned to him by God?

    Quote
    Hi W,
    No Jesus is the Son of God. He is Lord of lords, and God the Father is his Lord and God.

    Hi Nick. Do you know that the Son is your Lord and God?

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

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

    Phi 2:6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
     

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

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

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

    Jer 23:5  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6  In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

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

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

    COLOSSIANS 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Col 2:10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    CompareIsa 40:3  The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
    With (John the baptist announcing Jesus)
    Mat 3:3  For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

    Compare
    1Sa 2:2  There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
    With
    1Co 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    TITUS 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;  :O

    #51691
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    You quote
    'COLOSSIANS 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
    And then you try to tell us he is Who dwelled in him?

    #52275

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 08 2007,11:43)
    Hi W,
    No Jesus is the Son of God. He is Lord of lords, and God the Father is his Lord and God.


    NH

    So Jesus is Lord of Lords, and the Father is Lord?

    Is Jesus Lord of the Father?

    I thought the Lord our God is one Lord?

    Deut 6:4
    Hear, O Israel: *The LORD our God is one LORD*:

    Zech 14:9
    And *the LORD/YHWH* shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall *there be one LORD, and his name one*.

    Who is this King of Kings and Lord of Lords? And what is his name?

    The name above all names…

    *Yeshua which means; YHWH is salvation, Jesus, the Lord from heaven, counselor, Emmanuel-God with us, the Mighty God, the great I AM, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the first and the last, the Word of God, the Lion of Judah*.

    The one who sits on the throne with the Father and is worshipped!!!

    :)

Viewing 20 posts - 481 through 500 (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