Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject: John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaters: t8 & Is 1: 18

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…..

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 life, which 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 - 761 through 780 (of 945 total)

←1 2 3…383940…46 47 48 →

Author
Posts

July 20, 2007 at 9:00 am#60859

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2007,19:59)

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2007,19:51)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2007,19:02)

My kids are 6 yrs, 4 yrs and 5 months, all boys! I'll email you some photos….

Are your 3 sons, one being?

Funnily enough they are 100% human like me and my wife, they have exactly the same ontology as the being that begat them….

You walked right into that one t8….

Quote

OK, I am just being funny. I have one son but I think another child would be great. We would like to have one more child. I would like a girl, but another boy would be great too.

Kids are YHWH's second greatest blessing…..

Walked into what? A trap?

I will walk a bit further to prove I am not trapped.

They are man(kind) in nature. But not one being called (the) man. Your precious sons are 3 distinct persons and 3 disinct beings (human beings) but share the same nature (human nature). So are they one human being? Do I need to give the answer?

Can you see the difference? Can you see how your argument doesn't stack up?

You say God is one being containing 3 persons made of the same substance/nature. 3 persons one substance.

But scripture says that the Father (not the substance) is the only true God and his son was sent by him, came from him, and shares many of his attributes. The son is distinct from God, but is the most like God because he is the only begotten of God.

July 20, 2007 at 9:43 am#60862

kejonn

Participant

Tsk tsk, I hate to say this, but you are going down the River of Denial with a leaky boat and no paddle. You, next to CB, have the thickest Trinity glasses on this board . But 33 years of believing something is hard to give up on. I respect that.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2007,19:32)

Show me where Ignatius says the Father is the “one and only true God” at the exclusion of Jesus.

Here's where your glasses start to fog up pretty hard. I'll quote him again. both from the Epistle to the Magnesians: “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”. No, you are right, he did not leave Yeshua out of the quotes but anyone without the Trinity glasses can see the obvious separation of Yeshua from his Father as to who is the true God and the Almighty God. You seen to forget that as a Christian, Ignatius would speak in terms of Yeshua and his Father, not as a strictly monotheistic Jew who did not accept Yeshua as the Son of God, much less the Christ.

Quote

Besides the fact, what you say about his writings make no sense for Ignatius like John and Paul could have used another word to describe Jesus as “a god” or “a divine being” or a “god to themselves”.

Why didn’t they use one of these words instead of “Theos”…

“chrematizo, Acts 10:22, Heb 11:7”

A holy thing, a saint? Nah…he was merely mimicing his teacher, John. “The Word was God”…

Quote

“theios, 2 Pet 1:3,4, which by the way is used by Peter for divine nature and power.

See above.

Quote

“theotes, Col 2:9”

“theiotes” Rom 1:20″

Instead he uses the word “Theos” which is only ascribed to the living Father and Jesus in a true sense in the New Testament!

And I have pointed out how Ignatius showed that he was against polytheism by showing who the Almighty God was. So he viewed Yeshua as a God in the same way Moses was a god to Pharaoh. How can he say in one breath that others are polytheistic and in the other that Yeshua was God in the same sense as the Father and not believe he was also polytheistic? “And to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father”

Quote

Scripture to show that Yeshua is the only mediator between God and man?

Uh….uh…angels were mediators? Judges, yes, but judges were done away with well before Yeshua.

Quote

Again, there are no other “Elohims or Theos” found in NT scriptures as mediators between God other than Yeshua! Please show me where. There are no more “Elohims” of the OT that stood between God and man! Therefore “Theos” in a true sense only applys to the living Father and the Son as God in Jn 1:1.

No elohims since the NT was written in Greek . So now you are admitting that Yeshua is a mediator like the judges of the OT now. Good, you are going in the right direction. But not good in the “Son as God” aspect. John 1:1 says “was”. And that verse has been overused. There are 4000 different translations. Shame that John did not write the Greek so the verse read “and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was THE God. But he didn't so the contention will remain until the end of time.

Quote

So the question is back at you kejonn, scripture please?

How can I provide scripture for that which does not exist? I never claimed that God would send any more judges or representatives of Himself.

Quote

You say…

Quote

Ignatius said as much. But he also said that the Father was the one and only true God, the Almighty. You know, same Almighty as YHWH in the OT.

Another one of those fallacious arguments. I am starting to think that you purposely are using subterfuge in your post.

Subterfuge? No its called basic English. Its not called “how can I read this sentence so it says that the Almighty God is the Father and Yeshua. Wait, let me adjust my Trinity lenses”. The lines read “and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father” and “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”.

Manifest – “To show or demonstrate plainly; reveal”. Does not mean “clone”, “duplicate” or anything similar.

Quote

Yes Ignatius did say Jesus was God in the flesh, yet you speak of YHWH as if they are not the same. YHWH is often refering to both the Father and Yeshua the Word that was with God and was God.

When? Scripture. With YHWH or LORD. Thanks.

Quote

You have your non-Trinitarian glasses on and seek to spiritualize and explain away the scriptures that clearly show Yeshua as the God of the OT that appeared to Moses and others.

Scripture. Your supposition does not convince.

Quote

Listen to some of these teachi
ngs with an open heart and mind…

http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm

Thanks for the link. If I have time I'll check it out.

Quote

You never addressed the scriptures in Zech 10 and 14. YHWHs feet shall stand upon the mount of olives. Not to mention John speaks of Yeshua as being the one pierced in Zech 10 and John also speaks of Yeshua as being the Lord who Isaiah saw in Isa 6:1-5.

The Zech 12:10 verse has an unclear wording and several other renderings exist. Again, I do not think it is wise to base theology on verses that read differently enough that one call see either side. 1 Cor 8:6 is one verse that all versions have the same meaning.

As far as the Zech 14, I find that one funny. Yeah, Yeshua spoke of end times on the Mount of Olives, but “the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south” never happened. It may happen but until then scripture does not support Yeshua. You have to get the whole verse right first, not just part of it.

Quote

You should take those filters off and Look at scripture by scripture as a whole, not just Isolated scriptures that you say claims the Father as the true God exclusive of Yeshua.

Hehe, I use exegesis not eisegesis. That's why the Trinity is a “mystery”. Since it took many years after Yeshua walked this earth to develop it, it was also a “mystery” to him too I guess.

Quote

Look at scripture in the light of scripture.

Example…

In the light of John 1:1-3 and John 20:28 and 1 Tim 3:16 and Titus 2:13, Heb 1:1-3 Heb 1:8-10, Col 1:14-17, Zech 12 and 14, Isa 9:6 Etc Etc..

Been there, answered many times already.

Quote

look at 1 John 5:20…
And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

You can read this any way cant you? But not in the light of the rest of scriptures!

The word used for “this” is “houtos” which has also been translated as “he”.

BBE: And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
DBY: And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding that we should know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
WEY: And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we know the true One, and are in union with the true One–that is, we are in union with His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the Life of the Ages.
NLT: And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we are in God because we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.
ESV: And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
NCV: We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we can know the True One. And our lives are in the True One and in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the eternal life.
NLV: We know God's Son has come. He has given us the understanding to know Him Who is the true God. We are joined together with the true God through His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and the life that lasts forever.

All the versions above allow you to follow the masculine pronouns.

Quote

How about Titus 2:13 NASB
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

This scripture is Unambiguous! The Grandville Sharp rule confirms it!

Again, until I point back to Ignatius' use of the word “God” as applied to Yeshua. His two quotes above show that the use of “God” may not be in the same sense as the Almighty God.

Plus

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
ASV: looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
WBS: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;
WWE: All this is while we wait and hope to see the one who brings blessing. We are waiting for our great God to come in Jesus Christ. He is the One who will save us. He is wonderful!

So not as unambiguous as you would have us believe. Theology should not be based on different Bible versions. I am not, I am just showing that this verse is in doubt so can't be used as strong evidence.

Quote

I said…

Quote

Please show me scripture where any being was considered to be “God” in the flesh!

You said…

Quote

None was. No other man was born of the Holy Spirit and called the Son of God. What is your point?

Evasive!!!

Refer to above! John used the word “Theos”. Very significant!

Nope. Word was, Word became. Did not say that he became the Word again. Revelation points to it but it is just a name on his garment. Name does not mean he is the Word again. I've already covered what Word may be on several occasions and why it can be seen as something totally different. Show me this Word in the OT and you'll convince me.

Quote

I said…

Quote

Also while you are at it, how about a New Testament scripture where the word “Theos” in a tru
e or positive sense is ascribed to a “living” being in his time other than the Father and Jesus!

You say…

Quote

You are running low on excuses. This is one of the most desperate pleas I've seen from you. There was no more representatives of God in the NT. The Apostles carried out what Yeshua started, they were not prophets or judges. They are as we are today: Christians who had the honor to spread the Gospel.

Subterfuge again! !!!Diversion!!! !!!Smoke Screen!!! !!!illusive!!!

You make me smile. I can picture you behind your keyboard, with outrage on your face. Take it easy fella, you get too steamed and I'm not the first person to say so.

Quote

You didn’t answer the question again! BTW Were any of the Apostles that carried out what Yeshua started called “Theos” in any place? How about an Angel? Or a king? Or a Prophet?

–snore–The Apostles represented Yeshua because he ushered in the New Covenant. So why would anyone be called such? Besides, you're trying to compare OT Hebrew to NT Greek. Not a good comparison because “elohim” could be used of judges in the OT, while the Greek for judges is”kritēs”. Apples and apples, WJ. Not oranges.

I will finish the rest later. I need some sleep.

Advice: calm down dude. You act like your world will fall apart if you don't prove your point. Maybe it will but all of the “subterfuge”, “evasive”, “smokescreen” stuff won't make me think twice. No more than others calling you a harlot should you. Cheap tactics don't win points.

July 20, 2007 at 9:45 am#60863

kejonn

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2007,19:51)

Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,19:26)

Huh? He's probably a scary dad, what with that scarf over his face, headband, wild grayish white hair, big loop earring and single manacle! :laugh:

It's my best side! I have my moments as a parent, as I'm sure everyone does. Do you have kids kejonn?

Yes. A 17 y.o. daughter (–groan–) and an 8 y.o. son. Next to God and Yeshua, my family comes before me.

July 20, 2007 at 7:31 pm#60890

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,19:26)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 20 2007,19:10)

I'm sure you're a great Dad, Isaiah!

Huh? He's probably a scary dad, what with that scarf over his face, headband, wild grayish white hair, big loop earring and single manacle! :laugh:

Just a play on the avatar!

Yes, I would wager that IS would be a good dad as well. He is very spiritually discerning judging by his posts, even if we do see the differing sides of the Trinity. Anyone like that would likely be a good, strong but kind spiritual leader in his home.

Totally agree!

Plus, I've just been privileged enough to see a picture of Isaiah with his family…….he's way better looking than his Avatar, trust me!
:laugh:

What does this say of me, I wonder? I have a cat butt for my Avatar? Ha!

July 20, 2007 at 8:00 pm#60895

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Kejonn

You say…

Quote

Tsk tsk, I hate to say this, but you are going down the River of Denial with a leaky boat and no paddle. You, next to CB, have the thickest Trinity glasses on this board

. But 33 years of believing something is hard to give up on. I respect that.

And I will never let go of my belief in the Lord my God who saved me.
I have not forgotten who it was that I called out to and asked him to come into my life and forgive me of my sins and give me a new and glorious life. I will not throw away my faith in him and stop seeking him for he is my prize and My Father is pleased that I give him the same honour and praise that I show him for he who has the Son has God, and he who honours the Son as they honour the Father pleases the Father for the Father says this is my “Monogenes” Unique” Son hear ye him.

Scriptures command men everywhere to call out to God to know him and to seek him with their whole heart and yet Paul says…

Phil 3:
[7] But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
[8] Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, [/u][/b]that I may win Christ,
[9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
[10] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
[13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
[14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Yet I am supposed to listen to men who tell me I am not to listen to or pray to or worship and praise this Jesus who is the one whom I seek, my beloved, the One whom I shall go into to at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. I would like to know how these men think they can approach the Father apart from him. What, do they go through him saying excuse me Jesus I need to talk to the Father for I cant talk (pray) to you. And also they say they worship the Father “through” Jesus, which I find to be in violation of the second commandment if Jesus is not God! These men claim that they serve God while calling Jesus their Lord and Master when clearly scriptures teach there is only “one Lord and Master” and that you cnat serve 2 masters. Its seems to me they want it both ways by saying we call Jesus our “Lord and Master” because God has made him Lord and Master therefore is not wrong to call him this. However on the other hand the Father calls Jesus God, Heb 1:8 as well as other scriptures yet they deny him as such.

So One Lord and Master to them dosnt mean One Lord and Master, yet One God means the Father to the exclusion of the Son.

John, Thomas, Paul, Peter, The writer of Hebrews, and early Fathers like Ignatius called Jesus God, so why don’t they call him God now?

You say…

Quote

Fogged up! Look closer, I repeat my previous post..

You are getting good at subterfuge, for earlier you quoted the first part of Ignatius quote as…

Quote

“On this account also they were persecuted, 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, who is His *Word*, not spoken, but essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utterance, but a substance *begotten by* divine power, who has in all things pleased Him that sent Him.679”

Then you left the last part of the quote off and put the little article “and” between the other quote…

Quote

“and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father“, do so in a manner where “one and only true God” or “one God, the Almighty” is said of Yeshua

A little slieght of hand there hey chap? Maybe you could show me the source of your verse so I can look at its context.

Decepto Meter!

You are twisting his words to say what you want!

And again if what you say is what Ignatius meant then he is a lunatic as you say for he also says…

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

Quote

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).

Here we see him quoting Moses saying there is “One Lord, One God”, yet at the same time speaks of the “Lord Jesus” being the one who brought the judgment to Sodom and Gomorrah and then saying “God” created and “Let us” make man in our Image!

He reafirms his Monotheistic view to the Philipians…

Quote

There is then One God and Father, and not two or three (or another smaller god or divine being), 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” cr
eated us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word.

Here he says there is “None Beside him”, and yet he calls Jesus “God the Word”!

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and *Jesus Christ, our God*: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace*.

Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves *by the blood of God* (see Acts 20:28), ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you.

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; *God existing in flesh* (1 Tim 3:16) [/b]; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

We have also as a Physician *the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ*, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, Or, “before the ages. but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh. John i. 14. Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

For he who shall both “do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom. Matt. v. 19. *Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ*, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.
*For our God, Jesus Christ*, was, according to the appointment Or, “economy,” or “dispensation.” Comp. Col. i. 25; 1 Tim. i. 4. of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Hence worldly wisdom became folly; conjuration was seen to be mere trifling; and magic became utterly ridiculous. Every law of wickedness vanished away; the darkness of ignorance was dispersed; and tyrannical authority was destroyed, *God being manifested as a man, and man displaying power as God.

So let me see if I understand, Ignatius goes around calling Jesus his God yet accusing those who say that Jesus is God as Polytheist?

The rest of your post is just a repeat of the same!

Yes I am passionate about Yeshua and feel like overturning tables and driving out the money changers at times!

And I am sure you will say this is “ruse” and just another cheap tactic!

Kejonn, you exert a lot of energy my friend to make Jesus just a mere man. I say that because if he is not God in the flesh then what is he?

Of course I fully expect for you to say “the Son of God”!

But so are we!

July 20, 2007 at 8:12 pm#60902

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
You say
“And I will never let go of my belief in the Lord my God who saved me.
I have not forgotten who it was that I called out to and asked him to come into my life and forgive me of my sins and give me a new and glorious life. I will not throw away my faith in him and stop seeking him for he is my prize and My Father is pleased that I give him the same honour and praise that I show him for he who has the Son has God, and he who honours the Son as they honour the Father pleases the Father for the Father says this is my “Monogenes” Unique” Son hear ye him.”

So Jesus is your Lord God and not the Father
but the Father is pleased you believe this?

July 20, 2007 at 8:26 pm#60906

kejonn

Participant

WJ,

I will answer the rest later (and the rest of the earlier post ) but again, you pull a quote from one of the spurious writings of Ignatius. Why do you do this? It only puts your honesty into question because you want to claim that it was actually Ignatius writing these things. Heres a note about the spurious epistles and the Epistle to the Antiochians

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 the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived.

If you continue to quote from the spurious writings, I will ignore you. You try to make people look bad by using your own questionable sources and it does not become you.

July 20, 2007 at 8:53 pm#60909

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
You say
'Yes I am passionate about Yeshua and feel like overturning tables and driving out the money changers at times!”
But it is you who has brought a new God into the sacred temple of God that you say we should worship.

July 20, 2007 at 8:56 pm#60910

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
You quote,
“14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

Indeed God was in Christ Jesus
reconciling the world to Himself [2Cor5.19].

But God was not the vessel He was in.

July 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm#60911

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
The new temple of God is not for Jesus who is a cornerstone of that temple.

Eph 2
” 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

July 20, 2007 at 9:05 pm#60913

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,08:26)

WJ,

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 the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived.

If you continue to quote from the spurious writings, I will ignore you. You try to make people look bad by using your own questionable sources and it does not become you.

kejonn

Which quote are you talking about?

July 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm#60915

NickHassan

Participant

Hi W,
You say
“Of course I fully expect for you to say “the Son of God”!

But so are we! “
Not so W.
You are not The Son of God.
You may have become and adopted son by rebirth into him but you are not him and never will be.
You would then just be a branch in the vine that may yet be pruned off if not found useful to the Gardener.
You are not Lord of all or king of kings but a servant seeking earnestly to be found useful to him.

July 20, 2007 at 9:30 pm#60918

kejonn

Participant

WJ,

Here is the rest of response to the other post.

Quote

You are getting good at subterfuge, for earlier you quoted the first part of Ignatius quote as…

Quote

Then you left the last part of the quote off and put the little article “and” between the other quote…

Quote

A little slieght of hand there hey chap? Maybe you could show me the source of your verse so I can look at its context.

No “sleight of hand”. If you’ll look back in my previous posts you will see I quoted the whole passages that relate to the excerpts I pulled out. I merely emphasized them because you passed them by at least 2 times without saying a word about them. I don’t want to have to quote whole passages every post I make.

Quote

This is what many do with 1 Cor 8.

Lets look at the antagonist view of their model scripture which is highly distorted…

1 Cor 8:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, “the Father”, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one “Lord Jesus Christ”, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The distorted view of this scripture is obviously the foundational scripture for all Arians.

Even though there is no implication here that Paul is apposed to the deity of Christ.

They think that this scripture is saying there is “one God”, the Father, therefore Jesus is not God.

But lets apply that logic to the whole verse, “there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ” therefore God is not Lord.

Uh, you hit the nail on the head. God passed that on to His Son because we are to recognize that His Son is Lord. I think I do see that changing the word YHWH to LORD did actually do its job of making people think that LORD is Lord. YHWH is God of Gods, Yeshua is Lord of lords.

If the verse says there is “one God, the Father”, what else is anyone supposed to get from that verse? Yeshua is not God in the real sense, he is the last human representative of God. The last. The rest of humanity now represents His Son because we have humanity in common with Yeshua.

Quote

This conclusion is ludicrous, since we know that God is Lord, so the invalid inference applied to this verse is evident.

I have no problem with one Lord, why do you? The Bible clearly states as much and wherever you see Lord alone in the NT, it refers to Yeshua.

Quote

Now lets look at the context…

Corinth was at this time a pagan city. Paganism and polytheism was the order of the day. But the Apostle Paul does an amazing thing in these verses. First he states in vrs 4…

“That there is none other God but one.”

Yes, and he clarifies who it is in verse 8:6. There’s your context. Here’s how it goes then:

1Cr 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Cr 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
1Cr 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Plain as the nose on your face. For us there is one God, the Father. There is one Lord, Yeshua. What else can you read into those verses? These are the clearest verses in the NT to show who the real God is, and who the representative of God in the NT is. Who better to represent God then His only begotten Son?

Quote

Somehow, those on this sight seem to always leave this one out!

By calling Jesus “a god” but not in the sense that Trinitarians say. Or they allude to John 10, but they cant like Ignatius bring themselves to saying he is a god, or “god” or a divine being and yet they wont say he was just a man. So I ask what is he to them? So they say he is the Son of God! And I say what does that mean we are all Sons! Is he a mere man like us in everyway? If he is why the virgin birth? What is he? I get no answer, just he is not the God he was with!

I don’t do that, that is someone else. And that kinda gets on my nerves too . But this is conversation is between you and I for the moment so we’ll leave others out.

I do not call Yeshua a mere man. I believe he has always existed, but not as he is now. We don’t have a lot to work with for what he was, but it wasn’t flesh, it wasn’t human. So already we see the rules are changed. All we have to go by is other’s claim to calling him God but him never saying he was. Yes, he acknowledged Thomas (the only one to call him that while he was on earth) but there really was not a big deal made of that. If it was, John did not record it. No other apostle called him that while he was with them after the resurrection and no other Gospel writer recorded what Thomas did. That is why one has to wonder if, in a monotheistic society (at least with the Jews), why more was not made of the exclamation of Thomas. I’m not saying he didn’t say it – it is there in B&W and we either accept or deny scripture. There is no middle ground.

Quote

Makes me wonder if they know Jesus at all?

Some would say the same about you. I am not one of th
em. I see you are very passionate about Yeshua. The only real issue I would have with you is that I think you may be forgetting who the Father is and focusing too much on who Yeshua is. They are both worthy of honor and praise. And Yeshua showed us how to pray, and our prayers are to be addressed to the Father. And we can go boldly to the throne of God because we have a mediator and Great High Priest who intercedes for us because he shares our humanity even now. That is the common factor in all mediators, judges, and prophets: they were all human. So it required the last Adam to take all off their places.

Quote

Then in vrs 5 Paul speaks of “gods many and lords many”. Then emphatically declares “to US there is but one God”.

Yes, and verse 6 nicely sums up who He is, the Father.

Quote

Then in vrs 6 without hesitation Paul glossed over “God” with the Father, and “Lord” (Kurios) with Jesus Christ, and then in the same breath ascribes a God like attribute to each…

“Glossed over”? What “Godlike” ability did he attribute to each?

Quote

“God” is the Father, “from whom are all things and we to him,” and the “Lord” is Jesus, “through whom are all things and we through him.”

This is well established by most. Some deny that Yeshua had anything to do with the creation but I see way too much evidence to deny his part. But YHWH was the source of all creation, Yeshua was the instrument to carry it out. In fact, it appears that all three were involved: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the creation. There is much evidence. But because all three were involved does not make them a Trinity. YHWH is still the source of all things and can be the only Almighty God. You may think this makes me henotheistic but no one believes that The Trinity is monotheistic except those who adhere to the doctrine. There is no escaping that there are three different entities involved, although the Son and the Holy Spirit came forth from the Father. Word and Wisdom it appears.

But what is “divine”? Are the angels divine? There are many definitions. Samuel was called a “divine being” (1Sa 28:13 ). Does that make him a god?

At this point, if we break things down to the most basic level, you and I both agree (I think) that Yeshua and the Holy Spirit are divine beings. Where we differ is that you believe they are equal to the YHWH, the Almighty God, and I do not. YHWH could operate without them, but the opposite could not be possible. And we could not survive without YHWH because he keeps the world in motion. But its not a matter of need but desire, want and love. That which came directly from YHWH, His Son and Holy Spirit, are loved more by Him than all else. They were with Him from the start. But He loves us too and had to make a way for us to be able to get back to Him. He did that through the action of both the Word and Wisdom.

Quote

If Paul was defending Unitarianism here against the polytheistic views of the Corinthians who believed in many gods and lords, he wouldn’t have mentioned Jesus as “Kurios” in the same breath, and ascribing a God like attribute to him, “through whom are all things and we through him.” .

Why do you think “kurios” has “Godlike” attributes in this case? Strong’s does say “God” in the description, but is this word used in the Septuagint to replace LORD of the OT Masoretic Yhovah? I don’t have access to the Greek of the LXX to know for sure. But “kurios” is also rendered as “Lord”, “lord”, “master”, “Sir” and “sir”.

Quote

Unless of course he knew and believed that Jesus the Word/God is Divinely and Uniqually ONE with the Father.

Not necessarily. It is to you and that is understandable but you can’t always assume that Paul meant it the way you want because, well, that is what you want. If this was the case, why would Paul not say something akin to “There is one God, the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit), and one Lord, the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit). Instead, he said it as it is written. This is a very strong case of eisegesis on you part when the very evident exegesis says the one God is the Father.

Quote

In fact compare this…
1 Cor 8:6 and one “Lord Jesus Christ”, by whom are all things, and we by him.

With Pauls quote in Rom 11:36…

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Similar, but there is a difference and one you can’t miss: “of him”. The NASB says “from Him”. In other words, the Father is the source of all things. Yeshua was there and was the instrument of creation along with the Holy Spirit, but YHWH was still the director, the head, the source.

Quote

Look at the context of Romans 8 and tell me who Romans 8:36 is speaking of!

Can you see the language my friend?

Paul as a true Monothiest who called himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew that Jesus was God in the flesh.

That is still not very certain. Paul overwhelmingly separated the Father from the Son in a distinguishable manner. God was attributed to the Father, Lord to Yeshua. Just as we see in 1 Cor 8.

Quote

Or else he would had not introduced Jesus as the Creator the one who laid the foundations of the earth, knowing full well the scriptures he had taught that “God alone created the heavens, by himself, non other beside him.

6 But to us there is but one God, “the Father”, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one “Lord Jesus Christ”, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Why not? Yeshua was there, he was the instrument. He was the hands to the Father’s head. Just as we are directed by Yeshua as our head, in turn God is the head of Yeshau and guides him in all things. Of that I think we both agree.

July 20, 2007 at 9:33 pm#60919

kejonn

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 21 2007,09:05)

Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,08:26)

WJ,

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 the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived.

If you continue to quote from the spurious writings, I will ignore you. You try to make people look bad by using your own questionable sources and it does not become you.

kejonn

Which quote are you talking about?

WJ,

Sorry, this one. I was in a hurry and did not put the quote in.

“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”.

This is from the spurious Epistle to the Antiochians and not to be trusted as a work of Ignatius. Please do not use them unless you are willing to accept that he did not say these things.

Have a good day!

July 20, 2007 at 11:41 pm#60929

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,09:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 21 2007,09:05)

Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,08:26)

WJ,

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 the Epistle to the Antiochians there is an enumeration of various Church officers, who were certainly unknown at the period when Ignatius lived.

If you continue to quote from the spurious writings, I will ignore you. You try to make people look bad by using your own questionable sources and it does not become you.

kejonn

Which quote are you talking about?

WJ,

Sorry, this one. I was in a hurry and did not put the quote in.

“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”.

This is from the spurious Epistle to the Antiochians and not to be trusted as a work of Ignatius. Please do not use them unless you are willing to accept that he did not say these things.

Have a good day!

Kejonn

You are correct! Sorry. I can assure you this was not intentional. This quote was in a list of the many quotes I had bunched together!

I will not use it again. However I do agree with the statement!

Good day to you also.

July 20, 2007 at 11:59 pm#60932

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 21 2007,09:18)

Hi W,
You say
“Of course I fully expect for you to say “the Son of God”!

I've read that you say Jesus was reborn of the Spirit at the Jordan. Here you are saying that we must be reborn of the Spirit and then we have hope of being adopted, but we will never be THE Son of God.

True.

But may I ask, if Jesus also needed to be reborn of the Spirit, why wasn't he adopted as well?

Why didn't Jesus *need to* be adopted?

July 21, 2007 at 12:04 am#60933

NickHassan

Participant

Hi Not3,
He already was the Monogenes Son and son also by birth.

July 21, 2007 at 12:12 am#60937

Not3in1

Participant

A son by birth. Ah, yes…..this is the truth of God!
Jesus is the ONLY SON of God by birth.
Jesus is the ONLY SON who does not need to be adopted, because he already belongs.

Tell me something more, can Jesus be a son of God [who does not need to be adopted] if he is part human?

July 21, 2007 at 12:17 am#60941

NickHassan

Participant

Hi Not3,
It is not us who decides who is a son of God but God
and he has declared Christ[and Adam and others] to be sons.

July 21, 2007 at 12:23 am#60944

Not3in1

Participant

Surely a son by birth is more important than all the other sons? Scripture seems to set Jesus a part from all other “sons.”

Angels will worship him.
We will bow down to him.
He belongs to the family.
We will be adopted.

Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 761 through 780 (of 945 total)

←1 2 3…383940…46 47 48 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Discussion

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Discussion

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account