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 - 41 through 60 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46630
    charity
    Participant

    Substance to inherit something hoped for to come.

    Were we with him in the beginning all of us?

    Pro 8:21  “That I may cause those that love me” to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
    Pro 8:22 ¶ *The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way*, before his works of old.

    And Hebrews the Apostles will only report what has been past down from the fathers

    Hbr 11:2  For by it the elders obtained a good report.
    Hbr 11:3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    That we all together may work towards receiving substance hoped for?

    And one is having kept the ways until that which is perfect came?
    A statement of having received the substance
    After working towards the goal?
    Pro 8:32 ¶ Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed [are they that] keep my ways.
    Pro 9:1 ¶ Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
    Pro 9:2  She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.
    Pro 9:3  She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,
    (Who has complicated himself with theologys?)
    Pro 9:4  Whoso [is] simple, let him turn in hither: [as for] him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
    Pro 9:5  Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine [which] I have mingled.
    Pro 9:6  Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
    Pro 9:7 ¶ He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked [man getteth] himself a blot.
    Pro 9:8  Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
    Pro 9:9  Give [instruction] to a wise [man], and he will be yet wiser: teach a just [man], and he will increase in learning.

    Who is man enough to except wise counsel from a woman caring for his soul?
    A teachable spirit receives substance inherited?
    Instruction without substance received is the foolishness of the earthly mind deceived?

    Charity

    #46631
    Adam Pastor
    Participant

    Quote (charity @ Mar. 22 2007,11:04)

    HE WAS THERE WHILE HE HAD NOT YET MADE THE EARTH …
    He finds out knowledge of witty Inventions
    By Him Kings reign
    HE CAUSES US TO RECEIVE SUBSTANCE! what substance?


    Its SHE! Proverbs 8 is talking about GOD's attribute of Wisdom.
    GOD's Wisdom is being personified as a Woman!

    (Prov 8:1-3)  Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

    In Provs 8. wisdom is no more a literal person/being then prudence is in verse 12 with whom she dwells!

    So, all one needs to do is read from verse 1 to find out what Solomon is talking about in Proverbs Chapter 8-9. Solomon (by the inspiration of GOD) is using the literary device of personification to describe GOD's wisdom!

    Thus, if GOD would use wisdom to create all things how much more should we ought to seek after GOD's wisdom!
    That is the message of Provs. Ch. 8-9!

    #46632
    charity
    Participant

    Quote (Adam Pastor @ Mar. 22 2007,12:47)

    Quote (charity @ Mar. 22 2007,11:04)

    HE WAS THERE WHILE HE HAD NOT YET MADE THE EARTH …
    He finds out knowledge of witty Inventions
    By Him Kings reign
    HE CAUSES US TO RECEIVE SUBSTANCE! what substance?


    Its SHE! Proverbs 8 is talking about GOD's attribute of Wisdom.
    GOD's Wisdom is being personified as a Woman!

    (Prov 8:1-3)  Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

    In Provs 8. wisdom is no more a literal person/being then prudence is in verse 12 with whom she dwells!

    So, all one needs to do is read from verse 1 to find out what Solomon is talking about in Proverbs Chapter 8-9. Solomon (by the inspiration of GOD) is using the literary device of personification to describe GOD's wisdom!

    Thus, if GOD would use wisdom to create all things how much more should we ought to seek after GOD's wisdom!
    That is the message of Provs. Ch. 8-9!


    Hi Adam pastor

    Thankyou for your response

    A woman?
    Was it the spirit of wisdom God spoke to here then?
    The child Jesus waxed strong in the spirit of wisdom as he grew up?
    For the Image was only and idea to be executed yet formed?
    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    :) charity

    #46635
    Adam Pastor
    Participant

    Your answer is in Gen 3.22, 11.7, Isa 6.8; i.e. the us is GOD's heavenly host.
    Heb 1:1-2 makes it very clear that it wasn't until NT times that Jesus the Son of GOD existed in order for GOD to speak through him (much less speak to him).

    No one literally exists before their conception. This includes Jesus of Nazareth.
    Also, although GOD may consult His heavenly host, in the above examples in Genesis, He acts alone.
    Hence He alone created all things.

    (Isa 44:24)  Thus saith YAHWEH, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am YAHWEH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    #46636
    charity
    Participant

    Thanks Adam pastor

    Can I ask you to take these thoughts captive to the will of God?

    I know this that the father David’s covenant has been voided
    And for this wisdom and understanding is voided
    \Psalms 89 is the covenant given to David, whether people like it not by David Saints returned at Christs Side
    This Man united redeemed souls to God well before baby savour was born.
    By this Man, Redeemed Men came out of the graves by election walked the earth again, for his faithful witness that began Gods work King David
    And today they beat tracks through bushes to refuse him and void
    His crown and cast it to the ground; they shall find no rest;
    Even christ brought not rest that we may seek out his fathers reedemning hand.

    Isa 44:24 ¶ Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    Isa 44:25  That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise [men] backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
    Isa 44:26  That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
    This Man Is Holy and exalted, chosen out of the whole creation that was cursed to return to dust?
    Psa 89:19  Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon [one that is] mighty; I have exalted [one] chosen out of the people.
    Psa 89:20  I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
    Psa 89:21  With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
    Psa 89:22  The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
    Psa 89:27  Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
    Psa 89:28  My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

    Has David got a Y Name? And that would be a father name of Jesus, for his seed father is David.
    And David said himself My lord said to my lord….

    God bless

    charity

    #46637
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Good morning! :) Thank you, t8, for pointing out so well that WJ “sees what he wants to see.” I prayed about this last night and came to the conclusion that pride is an enemy towards the things of God. Pride will not allow you to admit that you are wrong, and it will not let you ask for forgiveness – for sure. Pride continues to stir……pride is a spoon……it stirs things up! Not for the benefit of anyone, but for the benefit of showing it's own “wisdom.” Wisdom that is not first of all, peace loving, is not wisdom from God. There's some scripture for all of us this morning, huh? :)

    John 17:3: Jesus is praying. He is praying to his Father. He says of his Father, “….you are the only true God.”

    When someone says “only” that pretty much excludes anyone or thing from being that “only one or thing.”

    If you compare all the scriptures that say God is the “only one” of something, you will find that Jesus is not included in those scriptures explicitly. You must cut and paste to your own slant to make it point to Jesus as well. Even Jesus set himself a part from God. Why do you think he did this? Does the Bible say why he did this? “….thought it not robbery to be equal with God…” Phil 2:6 ROBBERY!

    #46638
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Not3in1

    John tells us who this “Eternal life” is.

    Jn 5:20…….This the true God and *Eternal life*
    ___

    WJ, I think you got the wrong verse here, maybe? I read John 5:20 in the KJV and it doesn't say Jesus is “the true God and eternal life?”

    We have eternal life in Jesus Christ. But I think you are confusing the “Giver” and the “Gift.”

    Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.[/U]

    #46639

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 22 2007,10:25)
    To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2007,02:22)
    t8

    All I quote is scripture t8 and show how they relate letting them interpret themselves and you say this is pride.

    I am doing what you condemn me of not doing.

    This is not pride t8, this is confidence in what is written.


    You have no confidence in John 17:3.

    You change the meaning to fit your theology.


    No t8.

    I have no confidence in your interpretation of it.

    I simply let the scriptures interpret the verse, while you ignore the scriptures that I quote to fit your belief of the verse.

    Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions.

    They were Monotheist, why would they do this and then in many cases call him God?

    Also consider…

    Why would Jesus include his own name in direct relation to knowing the “True God and Eternal life” if Jesus didnt consider himself as sharing deity with the Father?

    Not to mention the context of the verse shows Jesus had Godlike attributes…

    Jn 17:
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    Why did he not just say…

    1 John 17:3
    “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, the Father”

    ???

    #46640

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 22 2007,17:04)
    Good morning! :)  Thank you, t8, for pointing out so well that WJ “sees what he wants to see.”  I prayed about this last night and came to the conclusion that pride is an enemy towards the things of God.  Pride will not allow you to admit that you are wrong, and it will not let you ask for forgiveness – for sure.  Pride continues to stir……pride is a spoon……it stirs things up!  Not for the benefit of anyone, but for the benefit of showing it's own “wisdom.”  Wisdom that is not first of all, peace loving, is not wisdom from God.  There's some scripture for all of us this morning, huh?  :)

    John 17:3:  Jesus is praying.  He is praying to his Father.  He says of his Father, “….you are the only true God.”

    When someone says “only” that pretty much excludes anyone or thing from being that “only one or thing.”

    If you compare all the scriptures that say God is the “only one” of something, you will find that Jesus is not included in those scriptures explicitly.  You must cut and paste to your own slant to make it point to Jesus as well.  Even Jesus set himself a part from God.  Why do you think he did this?  Does the Bible say why he did this?  “….thought it not robbery to be equal with God…”  Phil 2:6  ROBBERY!


    Not3in1

    I see.

    So the Lord showed you the definition of “pride” is when someone dosnt “Submit to your doctrine or belief” then they are proud. HMMM?

    John 1:1 says “only true God” also.

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

    Gen 1:1
    In the beginning *God* created the heaven and the earth.

    Jn 1:2
    The same was in the beginning *with God*.

    Gen 1:26
    And God said, *Let us* make man in *our image*, after *our likeness*:

    Gen 1:27
    So *God* created man in *his own image*, in the image of *God* created he him; male and female created he them.

    Jn 1:3
    All things were made *by him; and without him* was not *any thing made that was made.*

    :)

    #46641
    Adam Pastor
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2007,17:18)
    Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions.

    They were Monotheist, why would they do this and then in many cases call him God?


    “many cases call him God”?? ???
    WJ, what do count as many?
    I know there are only two occurrences/verses in the NT where the title god/theos is used in ref. to Christ without any ambiguity;
    so what are the many others that you have in mind?

    #46642
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You say.
    “Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions”
    Funny that.
    Couple means two.
    Not one
    Not three
    Two.
    But you do not READ what you quote or say.

    #46643
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You quote,
    “Not to mention the context of the verse shows Jesus had Godlike attributes…

    Jn 17:
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

    As if having GLORY was a sure sign of being GOD.
    The Son has GLORY as testified by those with him of the mountain.

    Then I have some more candidates for you
    1Cor 15
    ” 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

    41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”

    #46644

    Quote
    If you compare all the scriptures that say God is the “only one” of something, you will find that Jesus is not included in those scriptures explicitly.  You must cut and paste to your own slant to make it point to Jesus as well.  Even Jesus set himself a part from God.  Why do you think he did this?  Does the Bible say why he did this?  “….thought it not robbery to be equal with God…”  Phil 2:6  ROBBERY!

    Not3in1

    “Robbery” Greek, “harpagmos” which means:

    1) the act of seizing, robbery

    2) a thing seized or to be seized

    a) to deem anything a prize

    b) a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

    Most of the translators render the word “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped(or held on to).

    “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”. Phil 2:5

    Phil 2:7
    But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

    Jesus left his place of Glory and power with the Father and took on the likeness of sinful flesh.

    *Only One*

    1 Tim 1:17
    Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

    Again, who is this king *the only wise God* Paul speaks of in this epistle?

    1 Tim 6:

    KJV
    14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
    15 Which in his times he shall shew, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
    16 Who *only* hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

    ESV
    14to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,15which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

    Nasb
    14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,  
    15 which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,  
    16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him {be} honor and eternal dominion! Amen. [/I]

    RSV
    14 I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ;  
    15 and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,  
    16 who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.[/I]

    YLT
    14 that thou keep the command unspotted, unblameable, till the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ,  
    1Ti 6:15   which in His own times He shall shew — the blessed and only potentate, the King of the kings and Lord of the lords,  
    1Ti 6:16   who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom [is] honour and might age-during! Amen.

    WB
    14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:  
    15 Which in his times he will show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;  
    16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honor and power everlasting. Amen.
     

    Compare…

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

    Rev 19:
    15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
    16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

    :)

    #46645

    Quote (Adam Pastor @ Mar. 22 2007,18:21)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2007,17:18)
    Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions.

    They were Monotheist, why would they do this and then in many cases call him God?


    “many cases call him God”?? ???
    WJ, what do count as many?
    I know there are only two occurrences/verses in the NT where the title god/theos is used in ref. to Christ without any ambiguity;
    so what are the many others that you have in mind?


    AP

    I just listed a couple more.

    How many do we need to believe the scriptures?

    :)

    #46646

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 22 2007,19:32)
    Hi W,
    You say.
    “Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions”
    Funny that.
    Couple means two.
    Not one
    Not three
    Two.
    But you do not READ what you quote or say.


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)

    #46647

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 22 2007,19:36)
    Hi W,
    You quote,
    “Not to mention the context of the verse shows Jesus had Godlike attributes…

    Jn 17:
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

    As if having GLORY was a sure sign of being GOD.
    The Son has GLORY as testified by those with him of the mountain.

    Then I have some more candidates for you
    1Cor 15
    ” 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

    41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”


    NH

    Yes and there is One Glory of God!

    :)

    #46648
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2007,19:46)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 22 2007,19:32)
    Hi W,
    You say.
    “Paul and the Apostles almost always couple the Father and Jesus together in their salutations and valedictions”
    Funny that.
    Couple means two.
    Not one
    Not three
    Two.
    But you do not READ what you quote or say.


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)


    Hi W,
    I am searching for a scripture that says there are three persons in God but come up with nothing.
    You seem sure of this but what are your sources?
    Scripture cannot be one.

    #46649
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2007,19:47)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 22 2007,19:36)
    Hi W,
    You quote,
    “Not to mention the context of the verse shows Jesus had Godlike attributes…

    Jn 17:
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”

    As if having GLORY was a sure sign of being GOD.
    The Son has GLORY as testified by those with him of the mountain.

    Then I have some more candidates for you
    1Cor 15
    ” 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

    41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”


    NH

    Yes and there is One Glory of God!

    :)


    Hi W,
    Does that glory that Jesus had WITH the Father prove they were the same being to you?

    #46651
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ wrote:

    I see.

    So the Lord showed you the definition of “pride” is when someone dosnt “Submit to your doctrine or belief” then they are proud. HMMM?

    ****************************************************************
    I prayed, and then came to a conclusion myself regarding pride. Re read my post!

    It exhausts me to interact with you, WJ. You can read into THAT whatever you wish. That is the problem with your slant on scripture is that you read into everything (while saying you take scripture literally – it's a merry-go-round with you – and I want OFF).

    I'll leave the interaction with you to t8, Nick and others. They definitely have a more mature faith, and the ability to love you in spite of yourself. I'm not that mature yet! :) The reason I know this is because I bite on every little piece of bait you through out here….and there are worms and dead fish everywhere! Ha!

    I'd like to try chatting with you later, when I've learned to control myself, and am able to remember the most excellent way – Love.

    #46652
    Phoenix
    Participant

    Quote
    Quote  
    Grrrrr!!!!

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

    17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

    18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    Is this reason good enough for you??  

    Hey Phoenix,
    I'm not getting on your case here. I underscored “scriptural” so you would notice the word more than anything.  I certainly I don't disagree that He is the Son of God but John 3:16-17 doesn't really tell us why He is properly called by this. A really clear scriptural reason is given in Luke 1:35.

    “The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

    I don;t believe He was the “eternal son”, nor do I believe that He was supernaturally begotten before time, there is just no evidence for these. What is evident is that His sonship is somehow a function of His natural birth. The Logos had no beginning:

    “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” (Micah 5:2)

    “In the beginning was (Gr. en – imperfect tense verb denoting pertuality of the Logos existing in the past) the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

    “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. (Hebrews 7:3)

    Luke 1:35 is unambiguous, but that is not to say that there is no other reasons why the appelative is applied to Yeshua. But it is a legitimate one nonetheless…

    Sorry if you took what I wrote to be a rude and obnoxious comment, I didn't mean for it to come off that way.

    Blessings

    Hi Is

    Yep I thought you were just digging at me. But that is ok. I like that reason you have shown me. Its even better than what I put there.

    Thanks Heaps!!

    Hugs
    Phoenix

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (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