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 - 721 through 740 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #60676

    Quote (kejonn @ July 19 2007,17:47)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,17:08)

    The key to your claim that because he teaches against Polytheism means that he teaches against the trinity is the fact that he claims Jesus as the Creator!

    Plain and simple.

    Ignatius like John who discipled him believed Jesus to be YHWH in the flesh.


    WJ,

    I was wondering where you kept coming up with this “Jesus the Creator” stuff. Now I see, Epistle to the Tarsians. This Epistles was listed under the spurious writings of Ignatius. That is, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xiii.html

    We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch.

    In that to the Tarsians there is found a plain allusion to the Sabellian heresy, which did not arise till after the middle of the third century. In the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived. The Epistle to Hero plainly alludes to Manichæan errors, and could not therefore have been written before the third century. There are equally decisive proofs of spuriousness to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians, such as the references it contains to the Patripassian heresy originated by Praxeas in the latter part of the second century, and the ecclesiastical feasts, etc., of which it makes mention. The letter to Maria Cassobolita is of a very peculiar style, utterly alien from that of the other Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. And it is sufficient simply to glance at the short Epistles to St. John and the Virgin Mary, in order to see that they carry the stamp of imposture on their front; and, indeed, no sooner were they published than by almost universal consent they were rejected.

    So to refer to the Tarsians Epistle is grave error. If you want to use Ignatius' writings, at least stay within those that the scholars feel were actually written by him.

    As to your other part of the post, it was off base and stuff already covered many, many times on this board.


    kejonn

    What da ya know we have another Trinitarian that thinks like Ignatius!!!

    :D

    By the way you do believe that all things were made by him and for him dont you? ???

    He laid the foundations of the world you know!

    Hebrews 1:10

    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1278

    :)

    #60677
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 18 2007,17:34)

    Quote (kejonn @ July 17 2007,23:38)
    WJ and Is,

    Yes, I did. What do I need to address? I provided the verse that shows the old adage: “what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine”. I could get detailed and provide lessons on many of the passages, and in particular Romans 8:9, but in the end the Holy Spirit originates from the Father but is shared by Yeshau, the monogenes Son who inherited all things from the Father. The only thing Yeshua did not inherit was certain rights and titles that he could never have, like being God and therefore being “God of gods”.

    I'm sorry if my answer does not satisfy you. In fact, if you look again at Romans 8:9, you would see that with the separation of “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” in the same verse, you would realize that both Yeshua and the Father influence you through their roles. Would “One God” need to make such distinction? Why the need to have Yeshua and God's Spirit, both the same but with each contributing a little different essence to our lives be necessary?

    There is a lesson for you in Romans 8:9-11, and it is not that the Holy Spirit being a third member of a triune God. Haha, in fact, by showing that Yeshua and God each own the Holy Spirit, one sees rather quickly that the Holy Spirit cannot be a third person, but a mutually shared essence. Where do we see “Spirit of God”, “Spirit of Christ” and “Spirit of Holy Spirit”? We don't. Ooops, you're theology stumbles again.

    Here is the lesson of Romans 8:9-11 – Having the Spirit of God means we are not in the flesh. Having the Spirit of Christ allows us to be more like Yeshua. We can't be like God because God was never flesh and never faced temptation and overcame. Yeshua did and he is our kindred, our brother, and the head of our collective body because he shares our humanity.

    Peace!


    I will address this post point by point, but I want clarification on something first.

    When we read “Spirit of Christ” (or a synonym) in the NT should we understand this to mean Yeshua's personal Spirit?

    Thanks.


    Kejonn,
    Did you miss this post? Awaiting your reply.

    Thanks

    #60678
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,18:15)
    Kejonn
    That’s the question you have not answered?


    Huh?

    Quote
    Scripture teaches we can not approach God but through The mediator between God and man the man Jesus. What does it mean through Jesus?


    It means through the humanity of Yeshua. We are human, God is not. Where are you falling down on this one?

    Quote
    Does it mean through Jesus Spirit. So the Father is a Spirit and Jesus has a Spirit.


    Point? Are we not all one in the Spirit? Does our spirit not bear witness with Yeshua's spirit? Doe this not occur because we all share the Holy Spirit?

    Quote
    Well, again there is no way to cut it that that means that we have received 2 Spirits!


    You seem to be confused. I never said that. We have only the Holy Spirit and Yeshua can communicate with us through the Holy Spirit we share with him.

    Quote
    Now when I make that statement then the “Unitarians” “Henotheist” and “Arians” put on their filters and say see Jesus cant be God because he is a man. “How can he be the God he was with?” As if to say it is not possible that God can be ontologically one with the Word and the Holy Spirit!


    Yeshua flesh, God not. –sigh–

    Luk 24:39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

    Quote
    The scriptures say there is One True God, but not at the exclusion of the Son.


    What Bible do you use?

    Jhn 17:1 Jesus 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,
    Jhn 17:2 even as You [Father] gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
    Jhn 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

    You're right, not “one true God” but “only true God”. Stronger word, only.

    Quote
    We don’t, but we see Comforter, Holy Spirit, Finger of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Jesus, Spirit of him…Etc, Etc.


    Cool, a finger is now a person. Still no Spirit of Spirit. –sigh–

    Quote
    Its fallacious to say because the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name that he cannot be a person, or that he dosnt exist as another! The Father dosnt have a personal name that we know does he?


    Sure does. Father's name is YHWH, Son's name is Yeshua. Holy Spirit, no name. Ooops.

    Quote
    You didn’t answer my post on the following scriptures. Please tell me how you read these and not see “Another”!!!

    Jn 16:
    13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: 1. for he shall not speak of himself; but 2. whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    14 He shall glorify me: 3. for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    15 4. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    1. Does the Father speak of himself?


    No. Guess He's in charge then. What's the point of this exercise?

    Quote
    2. Does the Father speak only what he hears?


    No again. Are you rambling now?

    Quote
    3. Does the Father take from Jesus and show it to us?

    4. Does he give all things to Jesus then take from Jesus and shew to us!

    Is the Father subservient to Jesus? ???


    I'm curious, but I don't see how these absurd questions relate to the verse you quoted. Are you running out of defenses now and moving on to the ludicrous?

    Quote
    Jesus baptises in the Holy Spirit and fire!

    Imagine that! Can a mere man do that?


    Just as a man can call down fire and consume a water soaked altar and all of the prophets of Baal at the same time. Just as a man can split the Red Sea. IS there a point to this? What one man can do through the power of YHWH, all men can do if He so wills it.

    Quote
    Men try to understand the nature of the spirit comparing him to our own personal being. Therefore men would put limitations on him and in so doing put limitations on God.


    No, we just don't exalt others to the place reserved of God. We can honor the Son and the Father without calling the Son God. Whoever called the Holy Spirit God (besides Trinitarians)?

    Quote
    The Holy Spirits ministry is not to speak of himself, but to serve the Father and Jesus, For the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.


    And? Preaching to th choir with this statement.

    Quote
    Rev 22:1
    And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the
    throne of God and of the Lamb
    .

    This distinction is made between God and the Lamb because Yeshua is also forever God in the flesh!


    Your words, not mine nor the Bible's. Well, the part after the Revelation quote that is :laugh:. Speaking of Revelation

    Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

    Which God gave Yeshua the Revelation? Father, Son, or Holy Spirit?

    #60681
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 19 2007,18:52)

    Kejonn,
    Did you miss this post? Awaiting your reply.

    Thanks


    Probably did miss it :cool:.

    Yeshua's personal spirit does not indwell us. The Holy Spirit does. But our spirit can communicate with his spirit via the shared Holy Spirit. How else can we as the body communicate effectively with the head of the body? The Holy Spirit can be likened to the nervous system of the body.

    By the same token, does the following verse mean our spirit indwells Yeshua or God?

    Jhn 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

    Actually, this is the key verse to know how it all works:

    Eph 2:18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

    #60683
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Okay, thanks. My next question is – why is the Holy Spirit called:-

    1. “Christ”:

    Romans 8:10
    10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    Colossians 1:27
    27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 3:11
    11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

    2. “Jesus Christ”:

    2 Corinthians 13:5
    5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

    3. “Spirit of His Son”:

    Galatians 4:6
    6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

    Why?

    #60684
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    And I'll pose this question to both yourself and WJ, to see who has the most reasonable answer:

    How can we reconcile these two verses:

    John 14:23
    23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

    Ephesians 4:6
    One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

    My money's on WJ, just quietly….

    :)

    #60693
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 19 2007,18:52)

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 18 2007,17:34)

    Quote (kejonn @ July 17 2007,23:38)
    WJ and Is,

    Yes, I did. What do I need to address? I provided the verse that shows the old adage: “what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine”. I could get detailed and provide lessons on many of the passages, and in particular Romans 8:9, but in the end the Holy Spirit originates from the Father but is shared by Yeshau, the monogenes Son who inherited all things from the Father. The only thing Yeshua did not inherit was certain rights and titles that he could never have, like being God and therefore being “God of gods”.

    I'm sorry if my answer does not satisfy you. In fact, if you look again at Romans 8:9, you would see that with the separation of “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” in the same verse, you would realize that both Yeshua and the Father influence you through their roles. Would “One God” need to make such distinction? Why the need to have Yeshua and God's Spirit, both the same but with each contributing a little different essence to our lives be necessary?

    There is a lesson for you in Romans 8:9-11, and it is not that the Holy Spirit being a third member of a triune God. Haha, in fact, by showing that Yeshua and God each own the Holy Spirit, one sees rather quickly that the Holy Spirit cannot be a third person, but a mutually shared essence. Where do we see “Spirit of God”, “Spirit of Christ” and “Spirit of Holy Spirit”? We don't. Ooops, you're theology stumbles again.

    Here is the lesson of Romans 8:9-11 – Having the Spirit of God means we are not in the flesh. Having the Spirit of Christ allows us to be more like Yeshua. We can't be like God because God was never flesh and never faced temptation and overcame. Yeshua did and he is our kindred, our brother, and the head of our collective body because he shares our humanity.

    Peace!


    I will address this post point by point, but I want clarification on something first.

    When we read “Spirit of Christ” (or a synonym) in the NT should we understand this to mean Yeshua's personal Spirit?

    Thanks.


    Kejonn,
    Did you miss this post? Awaiting your reply.

    Thanks


    BTW, I haven't forgotten to reply to your post, I had my weekly Bible study tonight so i'll make time to do it in the weekend.

    Blessings

    #60695
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 19 2007,19:15)
    Okay, thanks. My next question is – why is the Holy Spirit called:-

    1. “Christ”:

    Romans 8:10
    10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    Colossians 1:27
    27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 3:11
    11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

    2. “Jesus Christ”:

    2 Corinthians 13:5
    5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

    3. “Spirit of His Son”:

    Galatians 4:6
    6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

    Why?


    Hi Is 1.18,
    Because the Spirit was GIVEN to Christ.
    God gives to Christ and Christ GIVES to us.
    That is why he is the one who baptises us in the Spirit.

    Not only that the word usage is applied retrospectively in 1 Peter 1.10f

    Christ died and his own spirit left him but he was alive in the Spirit and is eternally.

    #60699
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2007,18:51)

    kejonn

    What da ya know we have another Trinitarian that thinks like Ignatius!!!

    :D

    By the way you do believe that all things were made by him and for him dont you? ???

    He laid the foundations of the world you know!

    Hebrews 1:10

    https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1278

    :)


    Uh…no. I think any logical person who doesn't see Trinity in every verse in the Bible and any other writing could see that Ignatius was NOT a Trinitarian. Not when he says “being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son” and “and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father“. Had you presented your doctrine to Ignatius, he would have accused you of being polytheistic and unbelieving. And I would agree with him on the former :;):.

    As far as the Hebrews 1:10 verse, I am not one who currently adheres to the thought that Yeshua did not exist in some manner prior to his earthly birth. So you're barking up the wrong tree on that one :cool:.

    I've seen some try to explain this verse away and I was scratching my head thinking “huh”? Some say it refers to the new heaven and earth due to the context of the chapter. But verses 11-12 kinda blows that out of the water. The new heaven and new earth will perish?!?

    Some also try to say that the Father was being spoken of in v10 because of the Greek and the fact that v10 ends with “THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD”. I don't know anything about Greek, but I know enough about English to say “no no”.

    #60700
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 19 2007,19:15)
    Okay, thanks. My next question is – why is the Holy Spirit called:-

    1. “Christ”:

    Romans 8:10
    10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    Colossians 1:27
    27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 3:11
    11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.


    First off, you starting out with a false assumption. You said “why is the Holy Spirit called”. In these verse, the Holy Spirit is not being called Christ. I see no reference to this at all, how do you? In fact, this is but a continuance of the verse I quoted earlier

    Jhn 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

    This happens via the indwelliing of the Holy Spirit.

    Quote
    2. “Jesus Christ”:

    2 Corinthians 13:5
    5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?


    Ditto. Did you think Jesus Christ was different from just Christ above?

    Quote
    3. “Spirit of His Son”:

    Galatians 4:6
    6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

    Why?


    Look at the way this verse is worded. Yeshua's spirit is not indwelling us in this instance but communicating to our spirit via the Holy Spirit to exclaim “Abba Father”. Its a specific action, and a one of praise from Father to Son. Yeshua is showing us one of the many ways to honor his Father.

    Spirit is of the same substance. It takes spirit to communicate to spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit is like our central nervous system in the body of Christ. The head of the body, Yeshua communicates to our spirit with his spirit using the mutual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And he gets his leading from his Father, his head. These verse sum up my thoughts, I think

    1Cr 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

    1Cr 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

    1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

    1Cr 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

    1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

    1Cr 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

    1Cr 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

    #60701
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 19 2007,19:21)
    And I'll pose this question to both yourself and WJ, to see who has the most reasonable answer:

    How can we reconcile these two verses:

    John 14:23
    23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

    Ephesians 4:6
    One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

    My money's on WJ, just quietly….

    :)


    Your money is on WJ because he'll give a Trinitarian answer. Quite a subjective “bet” wouldn't you say :p.

    Here's all of you answers

    Jhn 14:20 “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

    Jhn 15:7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

    Jhn 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

    Really, I don't don't know why you guys don't look this stuff up for yourselves :;):. There are many online tools, biblegateway.com, bible.cc, blueletterbible.com…

    Yes, and you did have to point out that there is one God and Father of all, eh? :cool:. Unless you want to sum up verses 4-6 by saying we are part of the Godhead too :p.

    #60746
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KJ,
    Their mission is apparently not to find truth
    but to prove themselves right.

    #60747
    kejonn
    Participant

    Nick,

    Perhaps. But I'm of the opinion that they likely think the same of those on the other side of the issue. It was relatively easy for me to start seeing the fallacies in the Trinity because it was rarely brought up. Whenever I heard references to it, I always had this strange feeling that it was somehow wrong.

    #60764
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KJ,
    Trinity is not an issue but a nonevent.
    It is a major distraction to those who wish to find what the bible does say
    but since the bible says nothing about any trinity it is a dead horse they flog.

    #60787
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 19 2007,16:53)
    Looking through Ignatius' writings, he often refers to Yeshua as “God”. I put it in quotation marks because I wonder of it should be capitalized. But I also not that he calls the Father the Almighty God in some places and true God in others. He never uses Almighty or true God to refer to Yeshua. Yet as you can see above, he warns against polytheism by saying there is “one and only true God, His Father”.

    Weird indeed. If I had my guess — and it helps straighten out “My Lord and My God” by Thomas — I'd say that he is referring to Yeshua as God in the same fashion that YHWH told Moses he would be Pharaoh's God (Ex 7:1). How else could you reconcile Ignatius' warning of polytheism by Yeshua making known “the one and only true God, His Father”?

    Thoughts? Or was Ignatius just some wacked out, double-minded dude? ???


    I personally think that many including translators don't understand that 'theos' and 'elohim' are not words used exclusively for the Almighty, but are also used in reference to men and angels.

    Probably the biggest reason that people cannot see it is because of bias, predefined beliefs, and not checking out everything they are told.

    Mass delusions are possible. God makes those who do not love the truth to believe the/a lie. He respects their free will and gives them what they want.

    Those who don't believe in God often embrace the theory of evolution and others who have a form of godliness and tradition, tend to go for ready made creeds. This is a generalisation of course.

    #60795
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2007,10:42)
    Hi KJ,
    Their mission is apparently not to find truth
    but to prove themselves right.


    Is this necessary? What does a post like this achieve?, other than to aggavate….

    #60796
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,00:14)
    First off, you starting out with a false assumption. You said “why is the Holy Spirit called”. In these verse, the Holy Spirit is not being called Christ. I see no reference to this at all, how do you? In fact, this is but a continuance of the verse I quoted earlier

    Jhn 14:20   “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

    This happens via the indwelliing of the Holy Spirit.


    Noting carefully the underlined words, compare these passages:

    Romans 8:10
    10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    Colossians 1:27
    27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 3:11
    11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

    ….with this one:

    John 14:16-17
    16″I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

    Do you see it kejonn?

    :)

    #60798
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Is 1.18,
    All the One Spirit
    IN US

    #60801
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,00:14)
    Ditto. Did you think Jesus Christ was different from just Christ above?


    Obviously not. What a silly question that was. The designation “Jesus Christ” just makes it plainer still that Yeshua's personal Spirit really is IN us. In fact if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him (Rom 8:9).

    #60803
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,00:14)
    Look at the way this verse is worded. Yeshua's spirit is not indwelling us in this instance but communicating to our spirit via the Holy Spirit to exclaim “Abba Father”. Its a specific action, and a one of praise from Father to Son. Yeshua is showing us one of the many ways to honor his Father.


    riiiight…so when Paul wrote “God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts” He didn't mean the literal Spirit of God's literal Son into our literal hearts? I see.

    :D :p

Viewing 20 posts - 721 through 740 (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