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 - 641 through 660 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #59704
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2007,06:47)
    Kejonn

    I simply said the Trinity doctrine was written by early Church Fathers.


    Yes, and no. Yes, they had some elements, but no, they did not put it all together.

    Quote
    I dont claim Ignatius writtings to be scripture. However his writtings have some meaning because he was a disciple of the beloved John! For him to call Jesus God in more than one place is significant. For John also called Jesus God!


    I don't find it significant. I could study under Christ himself but walk away and spread my own beliefs. Since his writings were not canonized, it stands to good reason that they were objectionable.

    Quote
    You say…

    Quote

    Why did you highlight part of the Trallians epistle (which I think is not right, check again). Are we to believe an extra-biblical doctrine, or the one that is in our Bibles?

    I highlighted it because I believe he was teaching against some of the same things that are happening today!


    Just wanted to get it straight. The things you highlighted are not things I support, and since the post was a response to me, one could assume you meant them for me. I do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person. In fact, I don't support any of the things you highlighted in the Trallian quote.

    Quote
    The Biblical doctrine that Ignatius teaches lines up with scripture.

    But of course you have set yourself against that!


    I don't think it lines up with scripture. It certainly makes stronger assertions than the scripture, and it says things that Yeshua did not even say of himself.

    And I am no more set against Ignatius' words than you are of anti-trinitarians words.

    Quote
    “They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; *and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists*. Some of them say that *the Son is a mere man*, and that *the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person*, and that *the creation is the work of God, not by Christ*, but by some other strange power. “

    Looks like Father Son and Holy Spirit to me. No Binity!


    That's funny. Because he mentions the Holy Spirit in the same paragraph, that means he is teaching Trinity? I do not see equality of the Holy Spirit, nor of the Father and the Son.

    I never saw in his writings “The Holy Spirit is God”. Only Jesus is God. Binity.

    #59718

    K

    You say…

    Quote

    I never saw in his writings “The Holy Spirit is God”. Only Jesus is God. Binity.

    Ignatius again, is a desciple of John and his writings are not disputed. He was a contemperary of Paul and the other Apostles. So I agree that his writtings didnt become cannonical, but they are significant just as other historical facts are.

    The implication that he says the Father Son and Holy Spirit are not the same person is proof that he sees them as seperate persons!

    He also wrote…
    There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of equal honour one name. (To the Philippians, II).

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvii.ii.html

    Trinity!  Matt 28:19.

    I hope you dont blot that one out also!

    After all you said…

    Quote

    The ones that penned the words I read in the Bible. I don't care about the rest of them.

    Mattew penned Matt 28:19!

    :)

    #59727
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Do you think we should prefer to follow Ignatius?

    #59733

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 15 2007,08:31)
    Hi W,
    Do you think we should prefer to follow Ignatius?


    NH

    Why do you follow Eusebus?

    ???

    #59754
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2007,06:54)

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 14 2007,09:48)
    Kejohn,
    Which of the early church Fathers has a christology that neatly aligns with yours?


    The ones that penned the words I read in the Bible. I don't care about the rest of them. With the recent statements made by the Pope, Roman Catholicism is what it is: man-made mess.


    So there are absolutely no ante nicene fathers or groups that you can point to and say they believed like I do?

    #59839
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Is 1.18,
    Did Christ and the apostles believe as you do?
    Surely that would be more relevant?

    #59840
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 15 2007,10:19)

    Quote (kejonn @ July 15 2007,06:54)

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 14 2007,09:48)
    Kejohn,
    Which of the early church Fathers has a christology that neatly aligns with yours?


    The ones that penned the words I read in the Bible. I don't care about the rest of them. With the recent statements made by the Pope, Roman Catholicism is what it is: man-made mess.


    So there are absolutely no ante nicene fathers or groups that you can point to and say they believed like I do?


    Nope. Why? 'Cause I don't have time to study other people and what they believe. I'm a Christian, Christ's words are recorded for me in the Bible. To pattern my life after Christ, I need to study him, not what others outside of the Bible thought about him. Yeshua send he would send a Helper, and that Helper's name did not match any of the early church fathers.

    #59910
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D)

    Have a closer read. Ignatius taught that the Father is the most High God. He says that it was ministers of Satan that say that “Jesus is God over all”.

    So Ignatius didn't believe as Isaiah or WJ, rather he is condemning of their view that Jesus is the Most High God. Ignatius also condemns the view that Jesus is a mere man. So it appears to me that he would have had a problem with Athanasius and Arius.

    Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High. (Third Epistle).

    I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II).

    And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).

    And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).

    How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me. (To the Tarsians, VI).

    For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did also forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus] when he said, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.” And again, “And God said, Let us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him.” And further “In the image of God made He man.” And that [the Son] was to be made man, he says, “A prophet shall the Lord [YAHWEH] raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.” (To the Antiochians, II).

    The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of God, [saying, ] “I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the last,10 and besides Me there is no God,”11 concerning the Father of the universe, do also speak of our Lord Jesus Christ. “A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.”12 And concerning His incarnation, “Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel. (To the Antiochians, III).

    The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says, “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,” said also that “there is one Mediator between God and men.” Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says “The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself” for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V).

    May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh, through him who was begotten before time began. (To the Antiochians, XIV).

    Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Hero, the deacon of Christ, and the servant of God, a man honoured by God, and most dearly loved as well as esteemed, who carries Christ and the Spirit within him, and who is mine own son in faith and love: Grace, mercy, and peace from Almighty God, and from Christ Jesus our Lord, His only-begotten Son. (To Hero).

    May I have joy of thee, my dear son, whose guardian may He be who is the only unbegotten God, and the Lord Jesus Christ! (To Hero, IV).

    Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has obtained mercy through the grace of the Most High God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord, who died for us. (To Maria at Neapolis, Near Zarbus).

    As Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things; ” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things; ” and also one Holy Spirit…. For “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all. (To the Philippians).

    There is then One God and Father, and not two or three, One who is, and there is no other besides Him, the only true One. For “the Lord [YAHWEH] thy God,” saith, “is one Lord.” And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith, “who is in the bosom of the Father.” And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.” And in another place, “What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? ” And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also,” saith, “one Spirit,” since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.” There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of equal honour [one name]. (To the Philippians, II).

    #59928
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 15 2007,08:04)

    Ignatius again, is a desciple of John and his writings are not disputed. He was a contemperary of Paul and the other Apostles. So I agree that his writtings didnt become cannonical, but they are significant just as other historical facts are.


    Significance does not equate to truth.

    Quote
    The implication that he says the Father Son and Holy Spirit are not the same person is proof that he sees them as seperate persons!


    I think the Father and Son are separate persons. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person”. It is an extension of God's power, and is capable of carrying God's essence to us through His Son. This, to me, is the biggest failing of the Trinity doctrine. This can be seen in the simplest manner by realizing no one worships the Holy Spirit, yet you would think we should since we are to worship God.

    Quote
    He also wrote…
    There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of equal honour one name. (To the Philippians, II).


    I'm still interested as to why the Apostles ignored this command. No single baptism after this uses the language as presented in this verse. At least not in the Bible.

    Quote
    After all you said…

    Quote

    The ones that penned the words I read in the Bible. I don't care about the rest of them.

    Mattew penned Matt 28:19!

    :)


    Yep, but like I said before, why did the Apostles not follow up on this? Well, simple, it was not meant to be a formulaic phrase to be repeated. I see many people repeating the 3 in baptisms today. Yeshua often said he came in his Father's name, but this meant he came under his Father's authority. It is the same about baptism. Baptize in the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    But mentioning them all together does not mean that they share in quality, eternality, and substance, which the Trinity doctrin asserts. It merely shows that these three are involved in the salvation of the the person. The Father is the source of salvation, the Son was sent as the means of salvation, and the Holy Spirit is received after salvation. Thus, all three entities are a part of salvation.

    #60121
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    kejonn

    Quote
    I think the Father and Son are separate persons. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person”.

    It does not matter what you think. See what the Bible says.

    The Holy Spirit Is a Person, Not Just a Force

    He Does All the Things That Distinguish a Person from a Force
    A force pushes or pulls or otherwise exerts pressure. People can exert force, but so can water, wind and gravity. People have many other abilities that forces don't have. The following are some of them.

    Forces Don't Know and Teach, The Spirit Does
    “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth…” (1 Cor. 2:11-12).
    “For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say” (Luke 12:12, See also 1 Cor. 2:10, 13; John 14:26).

    The Spirit Has Emotions, Forces Don't
    He loves: “Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit…” (Rom. 15:30).
    He can be grieved: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).
    He can be insulted: “…and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29).

    The Spirit Speaks
    “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches…” (Rev. 2:7, See also: Rev. 2:11,17; 3:6, 13, 22; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 2 Pet. 1:21).
    He speaks in the first person: “…Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers saying… and I should heal them” (Acts 28:25-27).
    Can a force speak of the future?: “…which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas…” (Acts 1:16, See also 20:23, John 16:13-14).

    He testifies: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).

    The Spirit Gave the Ability to Speak in Foreign Languages
    “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).

    The Spirit Guides
    “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:13).
    “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

    The Spirit Ordains
    He sends out missionaries: “…the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. So they, being sent

    He appoints overseers: “…Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…” (Acts 20:28).

    What Else Might a Person Do?

    He comforts: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost…” (John 14:26; see also 14:16-17; 15:26).

    He helps: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities” (Rom. 8:26).

    He investigates: “…the Spirit searcheth all things…” (1 Cor. 2:10).

    He reveals: “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit…” (1 Cor. 2:10).

    He intercedes: “…the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us…” (Rom. 8:26).

    He can be blasphemed: “…the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven…” (Matt. 12:31).

    It's possible to lie to him: “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost…” (Acts 5:3).

    Back to the drawing board kejonn :O

    #60122
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    The Spirit of God is so amazing.
    But the Spirit of God is still
    the spirit of God.

    #60142
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    God is spirit.
    There is one God the Father.
    So is the Father the Spirit?

    We know there is one Spirit and that the Father is God and God is Spirit. There are not 2 Spirits, although there are many spirits.

    God has a spirit or is spirit. We have a spirit and we will one day have a spiritual body too. So is our identity the spirit in us or the spirit body? Or is that part of our nature or makeup.

    The Father is the father of all spirits. Therefore all spirit comes from him. Even Adam became a living soul when God breathed into him.

    Hebrews 12:9
    Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

    #60147
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    If the Holy Spirit was only the Fathers Spirit, then explain the following:
    The Bible speaks of Him as:

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11  But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O

    #60154
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    The Holy Spirit is a Person:
           
    a.    He performs personal actions in association with other persons: Matthew 28:19; Acts 15:28;
                  Revelation 22:17 – NB The Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Jesus – Matthew
                  28:19 etc.
    b.Takes the place of Jesus: John 14:16. Could an impersonal force take the place of the Divine Jesus on earth?
    c.The Greek word translated “Comforter,” “Helper,” or similar here is parakletos. This New Testament Greek word is never applied to other than persons.
    d.In John chapters 14-16 Jesus deliberately broke the rules of Greek Grammar and referred to the Holy Spirit as “He,” “Him,” etc.

    He exhibits qualities which evidence personal existence: Mind – Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10, Will – 1 Corinthians 12:11, Foreknowledge – John 16:13, He speaks – Acts 1:16, Commands and Forbids – Acts 8:29; 11:12; 13:2, 4; (In these verses just mentions He refers to Himself as “me” and “I.” If this was not a Person speaking then language doesn’t mean anything anymore); 16:6, 7; 10:19, 20, Appoints – Acts 20:28, Vexed and Grieved – Isaiah 63:10; Ephesians 4:30, Works Miracles – Acts 2:4; 8:39, Can be insulted – Hebrews 10:29, Blasphemed – Mark 3:29, Loves us – Romans 15:30.

    The Holy Spirit is God:

    Most, even those who deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, will admit that He is God in some way.
    a.He is clearly referred to as God: Acts 5:3, 4.
    b.Compare 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17 with 6:19 and also 2 Corinthians 6:16.
          Compare 1 Corinthians 12:11 with 12:28.
    c.The Holy Spirit is Yahweh: Compare Jeremiah 31:33, 34  with   Hebrews 10:15-17.
               “      Psalm 95:7-11         with   Hebrews 3:7-11.
               “      Isaiah 6:9, 10          with   Acts 28:25-28.
               “      2 Samuel 23:2         with   2 Samuel 23:3.
    d.       The Holy Spirit is Eternal: Hebrews 9:14.

    It is quite ridiculous really to say that the Holy Spirit is just the spiritual presence of the Father or the Son or of both. At the baptism of Jesus the Three were manifested there. The Father spoke from heaven, Jesus was in the water being baptized, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus like a dove. The Father and Jesus needed no spiritual presence of any third party.

    Remember too the baptismal formula Jesus gave at Matthew 28:19 – “baptizing them in the name (authority) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Blind Freddy can surely see that there are Three Persons in the Heavenly Trio.

    :O :O :O

    #60164
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 17 2007,11:28)
    If the Holy Spirit was only the Fathers Spirit, then explain the following:
    The Bible speaks of Him as:

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11  But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O


    Hi Cb,
    Did you not know that God pours of His Spirit into His son and through his Son to us?

    #60169
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 17 2007,11:28)
    If the Holy Spirit was only the Fathers Spirit, then explain the following:
    The Bible speaks of Him as:

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O


    We are one in spirit.

    God is the Father of all spirits.

    How else are we one. Certainly not in flesh. :D

    Of course Christ has a spirit, it comes from God. I have a spirit and you do too. Where does your spirit come from?

    #60178
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ July 17 2007,15:55)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 17 2007,11:28)
    If the Holy Spirit was only the Fathers Spirit, then explain the following:
    The Bible speaks of Him as:

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11  But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O


    We are one in spirit.

    God is the Father of all spirits.

    How else are we one. Certainly not in flesh.  :D

    Of course Christ has a spirit, it comes from God. I have a spirit and you do too. Where does your spirit come from?


    Hi t8. That is called putting the “twist” on scripture. I get this all the time from the JWs.

    Look again!

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11  But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O

    #60187
    kejonn
    Participant

    Cult wrote:

    Quote
    It does not matter what you think. See what the Bible says.


    It must matter. You think you are right, I hope I am :;):. You show me where you think scripture says one thing, I either agree or attempt to show where you've made interpretive errors. Like now :cool:.

    Quote
    The Holy Spirit Is a Person, Not Just a Force

    He Does All the Things That Distinguish a Person from a Force
    A force pushes or pulls or otherwise exerts pressure. People can exert force, but so can water, wind and gravity. People have many other abilities that forces don't have. The following are some of them.

    Forces Don't Know and Teach, The Spirit Does
    “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth…” (1 Cor. 2:11-12).


    Already you see where this verse is leading, and you missed it. “God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit”. Now you know how to read the rest of the verse. It is God working through the Spirit, not the Spirit acting on its own. It is His Spirit. It inhabits us along with our own spirit to aid in communication with God. Also see in this verse “that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God”. Its all God, and the Spirit can teach because it passes on the instructions from the Father. It is the means that the Father uses to make us more like His Son.

    Quote
    “For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say” (Luke 12:12, See also 1 Cor. 2:10, 13; John 14:26).


    The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. Without it, God would not instruct us. It must be there for us to be able to hear from God. God can do anything, but the method He chose was the indwelling of His Spirit.

    Quote
    The Spirit Has Emotions, Forces Don't
    He loves: “Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit…” (Rom. 15:30).
    He can be grieved: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).
    He can be insulted: “…and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29).


    Questions: do you love the Holy Spirit? Do you pray to the Holy Spirit? How often do you think “Holy Spirit, I love you”? No, those are all things you do in relation to the Father and the Son. The love of the Spirit is the love that we receive from our Father. Again, it indwells us so we can truly feel the Fathers love.

    I wonder how many people who don't have the Spirit feel loved by God and His Son? I'd wager very few if truly any. It is the indwelling of the Spirit that allows us to know the love of God.

    Quote
    The Spirit Speaks
    “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches…” (Rev. 2:7, See also: Rev. 2:11,17; 3:6, 13, 22; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 2 Pet. 1:21).


    God speaks to us through His Spirit. That is why Yeshua had the Father send the Spirit too us. It helps us communicate with God, it helps us to know Him. Also, the Spirit acts as mouthpiece of God and Yeshua. Besides, it was not the Spirit speaking in Rev. 2, it was Yeshua. The Spirit allowed John to retain the memory of the vision to record for us.

    Quote
    He speaks in the first person: “…Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers saying… and I should heal them” (Acts 28:25-27).


    Who do you think will heal them, the Spirit of its own accord? No, it is the Father speaking through the Holy Spirit. Just as now, God would send the Holy Spirit to indwell Prophets so they could speak the words of God. Just as He speaks in us now, and often gives you words to say when you are open and receptive.

    Quote
    Can a force speak of the future?: “…which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas…” (Acts 1:16, See also 20:23, John 16:13-14).


    Again (and this is getting monotonous), the Spirit is God's vessel. If God Himself inhabited you, you would likely explode. So He sends His Spirit to indwell those He wishes so they can receive His words.

    Quote
    He testifies: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (John 15:26).

    The Spirit Gave the Ability to Speak in Foreign Languages
    “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).

    The Spirit Guides
    “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:13).
    “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).


    All covered above in some form or fashion. As I stated before, if the Holy Spirit is a “person” of God, why do we not pray to or worship it? God told us to worship Him, so if the Holy Spirit is a “person” of God, we must obey and pray to the Holy Spirit and worship it. Do you?

    You better if you believe it is a “person” of God.

    Quote
    The Spirit Ordains
    He sends out missionaries: “…the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. So they, being sent

    He appoints overseers: “…Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…” (Acts 20:28).

    What Else Might a Person Do?

    He comforts: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost…” (John 14:26; see also 14:16-17; 15:26).

    He helps: “Likewise the Spirit
    also helpeth our infirmities” (Rom. 8:26).

    He investigates: “…the Spirit searcheth all things…” (1 Cor. 2:10).

    He reveals: “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit…” (1 Cor. 2:10).

    He intercedes: “…the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us…” (Rom. 8:26).

    He can be blasphemed: “…the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven…” (Matt. 12:31).

    It's possible to lie to him: “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost…” (Acts 5:3).

    Back to the drawing board kejonn :O


    Really? Whatcha drawing?

    All covered above. All part of the way God communicates in us.

    And as far as lieing to the Holy Ghost? Since the Spirit indwells us, our mind is known to God at all times. When we do something we know is wrong, is a lie, we can't escape it because the witness inside passes all back to the Father.

    #60188
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 17 2007,12:10)

    Hi t8. That is called putting the “twist” on scripture. I get this all the time from the JWs.

    Look again!

    1. The Spirit Himself (Romans 8:16; 8:26)
    2. The Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14)
    3. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

    Zec 7:11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
    :O


    Let me ask this, when you feel like you are being led to witness to a JW, do you saying “I feel God is leading me to witness to you” or do you say “The Holy Spirit is leading me to to witness to you”? Be honest.

    I rarely if ever hear someone say “The Holy Spirit will give you the words” even though scripture says so. Why? Are they scripturally wrong or do they know it is God speaking to them through the Spirit? Where do you think all knowledge comes from? The Holy Spirit or God?

    #60190
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KJ,
    Try these
    “Proverbs 1:23
    Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
    Proverbs 16:2
    All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
    Proverbs 20:27
    The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Viewing 20 posts - 641 through 660 (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