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 - 581 through 600 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #58329
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 03 2007,03:46)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 22 2007,08:48)
    Hi W,
    You say
    “One Spirit, Three persons, One God!”
    Is this written
    or did you deduce it.

    Have you gone back to three deities after only espousing two?


    NH

    There is only “One God”. Since we know that God is Spirit and there is only “One Spirit” and the Spirit is God and Jesus is that Spirit, and that “God alone” created all things, and that By Jesus “All' things were created and without him was not anything created that was created then we know that Jesus is God!

    :D


    In other words here is your Creed:

    ====
    There is 1 God.
    There is 1 Spirit

    The Father is Spirit
    The Son is Spirit
    The Holy Spirit is Spirit

    Not 3 Spirits but One Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit is 100% Spirit, same with the Father and the son.

    And God is not 300% Spirit but 100%.

    Cursed is the man who thinks God is 300% anything.
    Cursed is the man who thinks any member of the God substance is 33.33333%
    ====

    OK, WJ. I give you this creed for nothing. You can have it. I think it best describes what you said, teach, and believe.

    It's all yours.

    :)

    #58335
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The thing is WJ is that the Trinity Doctrine has failed. It is not logical.

    If you are going to devise a theory about anything, it needs to be logical or it has failed.

    Yes God is beyond our thinking, but if you devise a theory, it needs to be comprehensible.

    After all, scripture makes it plain that understanding is important. That is why prophecy is a greater gift than tongues.

    A theory that defies basic logic is a failed theory.

    E.g., 1 + 1 =5 is a failure.

    #58361
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ July 06 2007,16:40)
    A theory that defies basic logic is a failed theory.

    E.g., 1 + 1 =5 is a failure.


    Basic logic is therefore:

    1+1 = 2

    “Basic Logic” is what we understand as being the norm, common, or what is expected.

    Right?

    Basic logic tells us that we did not preexist our births.

    Right?

    **********************
    A theory that defies basic logic is a failed theory.

    #58402
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Could anyone imagine a person being taken seriously if they claimed to a be a knowledgeable scientist or person, and said that the Venus, the Earth, and Mars were all one planet because they had the same physical makeup.

    Imagine if they came up with a theory that said, these 3 globes are one planet. Each of the 3 globes are all 100% planet, yet all 3 are one planet. Cursed be the man who says that there are 3 planets.

    Venus is 100% planet, Earth is 100% planet, and Mars is 100% planet. But not 3 planets but 1.

    Well the sad thing is that I read this kind of embarrassing foolishness nearly every time I visit these forums. Has not God made their wisdom into foolishness, especially when they profess to be wise.

    Their nakedness is there for all to see. Yet they keep shamefully saying the same ridiculous things with no shame, because they are truly ignorant and blind to their true state.

    These same kind of people also persecuted Copernicus many years ago for daring to say that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way round. Their shame is also exposed to us who live in their future. In hindsight we know how foolish were those that killed Copernicus and what a shame they brought on themselves.

    Those nasty people burned him at the stake and guess what, I too would be burned at the stake for not believing this Trinity crap if I lived back then.

    I forgive such people and pray that the true God would open their eyes, if only to cover their shame with his love.

    But I also pray that we never go back to those dark ages and that we who are the light of the world will shine the light for all to see.

    The light overcomes darkness. Never let us forget that.

    #58422
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Luke 4 1And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness If Jesus was the Spirit was he filled with himself?

    OLB/Mary> An excellent question. However, in speaking with trinitarians over the years, they will respond to you that Jesus ISN”T the Father, or the Spirit, but is himself alone. It seems that the term, “Almighty God” encompasses the three, to them. The term, “Almghty God” is like a title, and not the embodiment of a PERSON.

    I object to that understanding, however, for these reasons:
    In scripture, no matter what translation you use, “Almighty God” is proven to be the Father only. Please follow these identifying scriptures to their logical concluion:

    “Jehovah”/YHWH IS Almighty God:
    Gen 17:1 ASV: “Jehovah…I am God ALmighty…”
    Exodus 6:2,3 ASV: “God…I am Jehovah…”

    “Jehovah/YHWH” is also the “Most High”:
    Psalm 83:18 KJV: “Jehovah…art the Most High…”

    The Most High, in turn,is identified as “Father”:
    Luke 1:31,32 ASV: “…bring forth a son…Son of the Most High…”

    The Father, in turn, is identified as Jehovah, whom we learned above is Almighty God:
    Isaiah 64:8 ASV: “…Jehovah, thou art our Father…”
    Isaia 63:16 ASV “…thou art our Father…O Jehovah, artour Father…”

    and this is repeated in the NT for Christians: 2 Corinthians 6:18 ASV “…Father…Lord ALmighty.”

    So, you see, these identifying scriptues lead to a conclusion; Almighty GOd is the person of YHWH/Jehovah, who is the Father. Trinitarians state vehemently that Jesus IS NOT the Father, yet they claim he is ALmighty God. But ALmighty God is the Father, according to these scriptures.

    Also, as I said in my first post, I would like to see a trinitarian explain to me HOW they can worship three PERSONS, as a persn is an individual being, who are all EQUAL, yet not be breaking the first commandment. No one has explained that to me yet, aside from that I must have “faith” in the “mysteries” of God.
    I digress.

    : )
    Mary

    #58423
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    NH
    WJ-There is only “One God”.
    Mary> One ALMIGHTY God, agreed, and that “one” ALMIGHTY God is a singular being, according to Hebrew teaching and first century Christian teaching.

    WJ>Since we know that God is Spirit
    Mary>>Yes, the Bible says that God is A Spirit, meaning a spirit BEING: see John 4:24 KJV. He is A spirit, a singular being, one singular entity, according to the Bible.

    WJ>and there is only “One Spirit”
    Mary> God possesses the Holy Spirit. It is God's “spirit” or life-power which makes all living things alive. It is what makes man live, and is sustained in our bodies by breathing. (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

    Many scriptures show that the spirit is a power that God uses to accomplish his will, be it in creation, or how he uses this power by drawing us to Him.

    The word, “spirit” in the Bible is used in several ways, however, and we shouldn't confuse their obvious intended expression. Some scriptures use it to describe an invisible being an angel, and some show it as a dominant mental attitud, for good or bad.

    A literal “spirit” being is an angel. Jesus Christ is also said to be a spirit, he being LIKE HIS GOD/Father (1 Peter 3:18; 1 Corin. 15:44) God is said to be “A Spirit” (Jn
    4:24)

    WJ>and the Spirit is God and Jesus is that Spirit,
    Mary>>>This is a departure from trinitarian thought as I have heard it, and I've been writing posts on AOL boards for 10 yrs.
    Most trinitarians say that the Spirit IS NOT Jesus. If “God” were the Spirit, and Jesus is that same spirit, then that leaves Jesus BEING the Father as well, because Jn 17:20 and 20:17 show that the Father is JESUS' GOD.
    How do you get around that?

    WJ>and that “God alone” created all things, and that By Jesus “All' things were created and without him was not anything created that was created then we know that Jesus is God!

    Mary>>>My undersanding is that Almighty God “alone” created Jesus, (Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15) then bestowed his Holy Spirit of power and authority upon his first Son, and his Son, then, went on as an instrument of HIS GOD to create angelic life and the physical universe. And, the scriptures do say that it was “THROUGH” Jesus that the universe was made.

    WJ>Jesus is God
    Mary>The word “god,” if you look up the meaning of it in a theological dictionary, means a “person of authority.” It is not EXCLUSIVELY used of Almighty God.
    So,in your statement above, I ask you WHICH “GOD” is “Jesus”? IS he Almighty God, to you?
    To me, the “God” Jesus is, in Jn 1:1, is “Mighty God” of Isa 9:6, Almighty God's SON, who works UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the one whom HE CALLS “MY GOD,” even now, after he has gone back up to heaven exalted (Revelation 3:12; Heb. 1:9).
    It's all right to call Jesus “God,” but he is NOT to be understood as being Almighty God, for the scriptures never display him as such.

    Mary/OLB : )

    #58424
    Boni
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ July 06 2007,23:18)
    Could anyone imagine a person being taken seriously if they claimed to a be a knowledgeable scientist or person, and said that the Venus, the Earth, and Mars were all one planet because they had the same physical makeup.

    Imagine if they came up with a theory that said, these 3 globes are one planet. Each of the 3 globes are all 100% planet, yet all 3 are one planet. Cursed be the man who says that there are 3 planets.

    Venus is 100% planet, Earth is 100% planet, and Mars is 100% planet. But not 3 planets but 1.

    Well the sad thing is that I read this kind of embarrassing foolishness nearly every time I visit these forums. Has not God made their wisdom into foolishness, especially when they profess to be wise.

    Their nakedness is there for all to see. Yet they keep shamefully saying the same ridiculous things with no shame, because they are truly ignorant and blind to their true state.

    These same kind of people also persecuted Copernicus many years ago for daring to say that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way round. Their shame is also exposed to us who live in their future. In hindsight we know how foolish were those that killed Copernicus and what a shame they brought on themselves.  

    Those nasty people burned him at the stake and guess what, I too would be burned at the stake for not believing this Trinity crap if I lived back then.

    I forgive such people and pray that the true God would open their eyes, if only to cover their shame with his love.

    But I also pray that we never go back to those dark ages and that we who are the light of the world will shine the light for all to see.

    The light overcomes darkness. Never let us forget that.


    Quote

    Could anyone imagine a person being taken seriously if they claimed to a be a knowledgeable scientist or person, and said that the Venus, the Earth, and Mars were all one planet because they had the same physical makeup.

    Imagine if they came up with a theory that said, these 3 globes are one planet. Each of the 3 globes are all 100% planet, yet all 3 are one planet. Cursed be the man who says that there are 3 planets.

    Venus is 100% planet, Earth is 100% planet, and Mars is 100% planet. But not 3 planets but 1.

    Hi. I'm new and this is my first post. So, hello everyone.

    T8, that is an excellent analogy!

    #58426
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    I want to expound just a bit on something I said earlier, which is an important point AGAINST the EQUALTY of the triune-God doctrine.

    In John 20:17, Jesus uses the term, “MY GOD,” and “MY FATHER,” showing that he HAS A GOD, just like you and I.
    Are WE equal to the one WE address as “MY GOD”? Of course not, and neither is Jesus.

    Some may object that this was only when Jesus was on earth that he needed a God. However, several scriptures appear that show Jesus calling Almighty God “MY GOD” even after his death on earth and exalted resurrection back to heaven.

    Revelation 3:12 KJV

    “Him that overcometh I will make a pillar in the temple of 'MY GOD,' and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the 'NAME OF MY GOD' and the name of the city of 'MY GOD', which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from 'MY GOD'; and I will write upon him my new name.”

    Four times in the vs above, Jesus calls God “MY GOD,” showing that, even now as Jesus stands up as King of HIS FATHER'S KINGDOM, he STILL look to Him as being HIS GOD, just as we do!

    #58431
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Boni @ July 07 2007,04:01)

    Quote (t8 @ July 06 2007,23:18)
    Could anyone imagine a person being taken seriously if they claimed to a be a knowledgeable scientist or person, and said that the Venus, the Earth, and Mars were all one planet because they had the same physical makeup.

    Imagine if they came up with a theory that said, these 3 globes are one planet. Each of the 3 globes are all 100% planet, yet all 3 are one planet. Cursed be the man who says that there are 3 planets.

    Venus is 100% planet, Earth is 100% planet, and Mars is 100% planet. But not 3 planets but 1.

    Well the sad thing is that I read this kind of embarrassing foolishness nearly every time I visit these forums. Has not God made their wisdom into foolishness, especially when they profess to be wise.

    Their nakedness is there for all to see. Yet they keep shamefully saying the same ridiculous things with no shame, because they are truly ignorant and blind to their true state.

    These same kind of people also persecuted Copernicus many years ago for daring to say that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way round. Their shame is also exposed to us who live in their future. In hindsight we know how foolish were those that killed Copernicus and what a shame they brought on themselves.  

    Those nasty people burned him at the stake and guess what, I too would be burned at the stake for not believing this Trinity crap if I lived back then.

    I forgive such people and pray that the true God would open their eyes, if only to cover their shame with his love.

    But I also pray that we never go back to those dark ages and that we who are the light of the world will shine the light for all to see.

    The light overcomes darkness. Never let us forget that.


    Quote

    Could anyone imagine a person being taken seriously if they claimed to a be a knowledgeable scientist or person, and said that the Venus, the Earth, and Mars were all one planet because they had the same physical makeup.

    Imagine if they came up with a theory that said, these 3 globes are one planet. Each of the 3 globes are all 100% planet, yet all 3 are one planet. Cursed be the man who says that there are 3 planets.

    Venus is 100% planet, Earth is 100% planet, and Mars is 100% planet. But not 3 planets but 1.

    Hi. I'm new and this is my first post. So, hello everyone.

    T8, that is an excellent analogy!


    Hi and welcome boni,
    good posts too Mary-thanks

    #58436
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    Your doctrine does not align with the Monotheistic Hebrew scriptures.
    There is no other “god” beside him t8.
    Look…
    WJ>
    Isa 43:10
    Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

    Mary>>The scriptures in the Hebrew books of the Bible say that Almighty God has no one “before” him, which means that no one existed before HE existed, and no one “beside” him, meaning as his EQUAL.
    When he said “neither shall there be after me” means that no one will come along in the future who will ever be EQUAL TO him.

    That's what all those scriptures are about–one single entity with no one equal to Him.
    The ONE (echad–“one, a number”) ALMIGHTY GOD is here saying that NO ONE has ever been equal to him in any way, and NO ONE will ever be equal to him in any way AFTER him.
    This is not including those whom HE HIMSELF allowed to be called “gods,” such as the judges of ancient Israel (John 10:30+)
    Those whom the Alimighty himself called “gods” were not in opposition to him, but were under his tutelage, his authority, and worked along WITH him. Among those who worked along WITH him, whom he allowed to be called by the term “God” is his first creation, his Son, Jesus Christ (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14, Isa 9:6)

    Trinity doctrine disallows one to stick to the strict monotheistic belief in ONE SUPREME ALL-MIGHTY God.

    HOW can you have three separate DISTINCT PERSONS who are ALL EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER and yet claim to worship ONE GOD? It does not fit, because IF you have three EQUAL “persons” then you have three EQUAL “gods.”

    : ) Mary

    #58444
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    “PROSKUNEO” usage:

    The Greek word proskuneo, rendered “worship” at Hebrews 1:6, is used at Psalm 97:7 in the Septuagint for the Hebrew term, “sha·chah´”, which means “to bow down.” Bowing down is an acceptable and expected act showing respect for other men. (Genesis 23:7; 1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Kings 2:15) Or it can relate to worship of the true God. It can also be wrongly directed to false gods.-Exodus 23:24; 24:1; 34:14; Deuteronomy 8:19.

    Usually proskuneo shown to Jesus is the same as bowing down to kings and others. (Matthew 2:2, 8; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1 Samuel 25:23, 24; 2 Samuel 14:4-7; 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Kings 4:36, 37.)
    This bowing down, or obeisance is rendered to Jesus not as IF HE WERE Almighty God but as he correctly is, “God's Son.”-Matthew 14:32, 33; Luke 24:50-52; John 9:35, 38.

    Jesus always had and always will be under the authority of the one whom he addresses as “MY GOD” in Rev 3:12; Heb 1:9; John 20:17.

    Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus' position under HIS GOD's authority. (Philippians 2:9-11) (If he were not continuing subject TO HIS GOD, even as we speak, he would not be addressing him AS “MY GOD”–Rev 3:12; Heb 1:9).

    Here some versions render proskuneo as “pay…homage” (The New English Bible), or “bow before” (An American Translation).
    If one prefers the rendering “worship,” such “worship” is relative. We know this because of what Jesus told Satan:
    “Thou shalt worship [a form of proskuneo] the Lord thy God and him ONLY shalt thou serve”–KJV
    Matt. 4:8-10.

    Though Psalm 97:7, which speaks about worshiping God, was applied to Christ at Hebrews 1:6, Paul had shown that the resurrected Jesus is “the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Hebrews 1:1-3) So any “worship” the angels give God's Son is relative and is directed through him to HIS GOD, YHWH.

    #58447
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    The scriptures you quote are post ressurection, after his coming in the flesh.
    You make inference again. You have no scripture that says Jesus was a “man” with God from eternity!

    Mary>>>I would disagree with Jesus being a man from his coming into being as well. There are no flesh and blood “men” in heaven, only spirit beings.

    WJ>You betray your own words.
    Do you change your mind regularly NH?
    Listen to your own words you not to long ago said…
    Quote
    Hi W,
    The Word WAS God.
    He is now the Son of God
    Do you really think he still is God?

    Mary>>>If you research the real meaning of the term “god” you will find that a “god” refers to ANY person of authority, and can be relative in rank, good, bad, false or true, person or thing.

    There are “gods” who are false, that people worship ahead of Almighty God. These are “gods” such as Dagon and Marduk, drugs and alcohol, and even one's own belly can be their “god.”
    Any person, image, or thing can be a “god” according to how one views it.

    And, I agree that Jesus was NOT the “GOD” he was WITH in Jn 1:1.

    So, I ask you trinitarians, since it doesnt say he was Almighty God, then WHICH “God” WAS he?
    I maintain that he was and IS “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6) under the authority of the HIS GOD/Father, the ALL-mighty God YHWH. (Isa 63:16;64:8; 2 Corin 6:18)

    : )

    So was he both God and man from eternity?

    #58470
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (OneLadyBand @ July 07 2007,07:36)
    Your doctrine does not align with the Monotheistic Hebrew scriptures.
    There is no other “god” beside him t8.


    Welcome to these forums OneLadyBand.

    I am not sure what doctrine you are talking about?

    I don't believe the Trinity doctrine.

    :)

    #58515
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2007,16:30)
    Hi and welcome OLB,
    We did have one trinitarian who said when you pray you never know whicjh member of the trinity would take the call!
    It is a load of cobblers and a distraction from good bible learning


    Going by the way some pray due to Trinity indoctrination, it seems to be the case from what I have observed.

    #58526
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    I read where someone mentioned how the universe was created, citing the scripture that said YHWH did it “alone.”
    In my endeavor to understand the context of the Bible as a whole, having once been a trinity-believer and since then studied many translations and come to the conclusion against the doctrine, I consider how Almighty God could have created it all “alone,” and yet created it “through” his Son, as other scriptures say.

    As many words express various meanins considering how they are applied, the word “through” applies to both the Father and the Son in different ways:

    It applies to the Father, as creation took place through him as him being the source of it, the one who purposed it, then worked to bring it to fruition.

    The word “through” applies to the Son in that creation took place through him as him being the instrument used by the source.

    The same word can be used, however, the meaning, the position of those two involved, is not the same. If one questions that fact, 1 Corinthians 8:6 really takes away any confusion, showing that the “one God” (Jn 17:3) “the Father,” obviously be a wholly separate and distinct being from the “one Lord, Jesus Christ”.

    ” ….. yet for us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, AND ONE Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM are all things and through whom we exist.”
    –Luke 1:31,32, John 20:17

    Mary : )

    #58527
    OneLadyBand
    Participant

    Quote Nick Hassan
    Hi and welcome OLB,
    We did have one trinitarian who said when you pray you never know whicjh member of the trinity would take the call!
    It is a load of cobblers and a distraction from good bible learning

    Going by the way some pray due to Trinity indoctrination, it seems to be the case from what I have observed.

    Mary>>
    So, according to that, when we pray, we never know which one of the three “picks up the phone”? I wonder how they distinguish which one gets it, considering that Jesus, in Matthew 6, instructed Christians to pray TO THE FATHER in HIS name, not even mentioning the Holy spirit at all. Someone is taking the Father's “calls” illegally!

    See, this is what is so confusing about trinity doctrine:
    Most of the scriptures that trinitarians use to prove it only mention two, and leave out the Holy spirit, which, at best, would indicate some kind of duality rather than trinity. For trinity, obviously, three is needed.
    Nor does any legitimate, non-spurious text mention anything like all three being separate and distinct AND EQUAL. On the other hand, there are numerous scriptures which clearly describe Jesus' INEQUALITY to HIS GOD/Father, even AFTER he went back to heaven EXALTED, such as Rev 3:12 and Heb 1:9, in which Jesus himself clearly has someone whom he addresses as “MY GOD.”
    Does God the Father Almighty have anyone whom HE addresses as “MY GOD?” No!

    : )

    : )

    #58529

    Quote (OneLadyBand @ July 08 2007,02:19)
    I read where someone mentioned how the universe was created, citing the scripture that said YHWH did it “alone.”  
    In my endeavor to understand the context of the Bible as a whole, having once been a trinity-believer and since then studied many translations and come to the conclusion against the doctrine, I consider how Almighty God could have created it all “alone,” and yet created it “through” his Son, as other scriptures say.

    As many words express various meanins considering how they are applied, the word “through” applies to both the Father and the Son in different ways:

    It applies to the Father, as creation took place through him as him being the source of it, the one who purposed it, then worked to bring it to fruition.

    The word “through” applies to the Son in that creation took place through him as him being the instrument used by the source.

    The same word can be used, however, the meaning, the position of those two involved, is not the same.  If one questions that fact, 1 Corinthians 8:6 really takes away any confusion, showing that the “one God” (Jn 17:3) “the Father,” obviously be a wholly separate and distinct being from the “one Lord, Jesus Christ”.  

    ” ….. yet for us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, AND ONE Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM are all things and through whom we exist.”
    –Luke 1:31,32, John 20:17

    Mary : )


    OLB

    You say…

    Quote

    The word “through” applies to the Son in that creation took place through him as him being the instrument used by the source.

    So “Alone” and “By myself” dosnt mean “Alone” and “By myself”?

    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 45:18
    For thus saith the *LORD that created the heavens; *God himself* that formed the earth and made it*; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and *there is none else*.

    :D

    #58567
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi,
    Huge effort is made by some to try to establish a deity status for our Lord.
    Then it is used to try to justify accepting a nonbiblical doctrine called trinity.

    The “third person” rarely is given any press.
    Yet without three gods it is a binity theory.

    hogwash

    #58578

    Quote (t8 @ July 06 2007,16:37)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 03 2007,03:46)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 22 2007,08:48)
    Hi W,
    You say
    “One Spirit, Three persons, One God!”
    Is this written
    or did you deduce it.

    Have you gone back to three deities after only espousing two?


    NH

    There is only “One God”. Since we know that God is Spirit and there is only “One Spirit” and the Spirit is God and Jesus is that Spirit, and that “God alone” created all things, and that By Jesus “All' things were created and without him was not anything created that was created then we know that Jesus is God!

    :D


    In other words here is your Creed:

    ====
    There is 1 God.
    There is 1 Spirit

    The Father is Spirit
    The Son is Spirit
    The Holy Spirit is Spirit

    Not 3 Spirits but One Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit is 100% Spirit, same with the Father and the son.

    And God is not 300% Spirit but 100%.

    Cursed is the man who thinks God is 300% anything.
    Cursed is the man who thinks any member of the God substance is 33.33333%
    ====

    OK, WJ. I give you this creed for nothing. You can have it. I think it best describes what you said, teach, and believe.

    It's all yours.

    :)


    t8

    And here is your creed!

    There is 1 God!
    There is a smaller god!
    There is a Spirit! (which is what God is)

    The Father is a Spirit
    The Son is a Spirit
    The Holy Spirit is what God is!

    Not 1 Spirit, but 2 Spirits and a “what God is”!

    The Spirit is 100% “what God is”.

    And the lessor god, Jesus who is the other Spirit, came to dwell in us!

    Through the lessor god, the Bigger God made all things.

    Cursed is the man who thinks there is another god beside God!
    Cursed is the man that thinks there is another god like him!
    Cursed is the man who says that God made all things through a lessor god than himself!

    God is sextillion percent God!  1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 %

    :O

    #58580
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    God has sons including a monogenes son.

Viewing 20 posts - 581 through 600 (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