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 - 61 through 80 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46653
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Is 1.18,
    You quote.
    “The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)”
    as if that precludes Jesus being a son of God by any other means.

    Of course it does not.
    The Monogenes Son was sent into the world.
    Rom 1. 1Jn 4.

    #46654
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Is 1.18,
    You say
    “Hey Phoenix,
    I'm not getting on your case here. I underscored “scriptural” so you would notice the word more than anything.  I certainly I don't disagree that He is the Son of God but John 3:16-17 doesn't really tell us why He is properly called by this. A really clear scriptural reason is given in Luke 1:35.

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

    Of course if you accept trinity theory then God [the Father] is not the father of Jesus anyway but the Spirit is so the rest is just semantics.

    Matt 1
    ” 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

    20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

    21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

    Trinity theory is dangerous intellectual folly.

    #46655

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 22 2007,20:24)
    WJ wrote:  

    I see.

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

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

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

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

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


    Not3in1

    You are right about the worms and dead fish my friend! They are everywhere!

    :)

    #46656
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    So which person in the “trinity god” is the physical father of Jesus?

    #46657
    kenrch
    Participant

    Is1:18,

    You remind me of someone else :( “what the scripture doesn't say ???

    “Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:”

    What does the scripture SAY?

    You are already stating that you are wrong by denying what the scripture says. Give a different interpretation, but don't say what the scripture doesn't say. The scripture says what it says. You mean by using other scriptures you will show that this scripture doesn't say what it says?

    If that is the case then why can't someone show that this scripture shows what the other scriptures are saying?

    Are we to learn by what scripture DOES NOT say? Sorry but I find that very weird.

    IHL,

    Ken

    #46658
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kenrch @ Mar. 22 2007,22:58)
    Is1:18,

    You remind me of someone else :(  “what the scripture doesn't say ???

    “Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:”

    What does the scripture SAY?

    You are already stating that you are wrong by denying what the scripture says.  Give a different interpretation, but don't say what the scripture doesn't say.  The scripture says what it says.  You mean by using other scriptures you will show that this scripture doesn't say what it says?

    If that is the case then why can't someone show that this scripture shows what the other scriptures are saying?

    Are we to learn by what scripture DOES NOT say? Sorry but I find that very weird.

    IHL,

    Ken


    Hi Ken,
    I think you need to go back and read those comments in context.

    #46659
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kenrch @ Mar. 23 2007,17:58)
    Is1:18,

    You remind me of someone else :( “what the scripture doesn't say ???

    “Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:”

    What does the scripture SAY?

    You are already stating that you are wrong by denying what the scripture says. Give a different interpretation, but don't say what the scripture doesn't say. The scripture says what it says. You mean by using other scriptures you will show that this scripture doesn't say what it says?

    If that is the case then why can't someone show that this scripture shows what the other scriptures are saying?

    Are we to learn by what scripture DOES NOT say? Sorry but I find that very weird.

    IHL,

    Ken


    Good post K.

    :)

    #46660
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2007,14:46)

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


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    When you pray to God (the Trinity version) pray like this:

    “My God in Heaven.
    How are you all.
    I pray that you will ALL bless me, forgive me, and look after me.”

    You see WorhippingJesus, we should be praying to God, not his substance.

    However when I pray to God, I am praying to one God. Substance has nothing to do with it because I pray to the Father.

    I can only conclude that you pray to the substance if you talk to him as one and refer to him as HIM, HIS, etc.

    But if you pray to the Father in Yeshua's name, then you are praying to God through his son. This is what scipture teaches.

    #46661
    942767
    Participant

    Hi Isaiah 1:18:  

    You quote John 17:5 as one of the scriptures that support your belief that Jesus pre-existed his birth as a man child.  The verse states: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”.  But I believe that he explains what is meant by this scripture in John 17:24 which states: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that may may behold my glory, WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME: FOR THOU LOVEDEST ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”.

    John 17:24 indicates to me that Jesus glorification was pre-destined rather than he pre-existed his birth into this world.  He was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world.  (1 Peter 1:20)

    God Bless

    #46662
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi (4,
    Actually I think it means what it says, that the firstborn son of God was loved by God before the foundations of the earth were laid and the monogenes son was among the sons of Jb 38 who rejoiced to see it happen.

    #46663

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2007,05:10)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2007,14:46)

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


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    When you pray to God (the Trinity version) pray like this:

    “My God in Heaven.
    How are you all.
    I pray that you will ALL bless me, forgive me, and look after me.”

    You see WorhippingJesus, we should be praying to God, not his substance.

    However when I pray to God, I am praying to one God. Substance has nothing to do with it because I pray to the Father.

    I can only conclude that you pray to the substance if you talk to him as one and refer to him as HIM, HIS, etc.

    But if you pray to the Father in Yeshua's name, then you are praying to God through his son. This is what scipture teaches.


    t8

    You should really think about what you say before you post, especially in using sarcasm and mimicking language.

    Its not my business to tell you how to run this forum, but it dosnt shed a good light on you or the forum.

    But, for the subject at hand!

    I have a couple of questions for you.

    1. Are you saying that you have no fellowship with the Son?

    And if you do, how do you fellowship with him without “prayer” to him?

    2. Do you believe that when someone “calls on the name of the Lord”, “Jesus”, and they repent and he comes into their heart, that at that point they should never pray to Jesus again?

    3. Also since Jesus is no longer “physically here”, are men suppose to cease from coming to him, and if not how do they come to him without prayer?

    Jesus made many claims that only “God” could make. For instance…

    Matt 11:
    27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
    30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

    If we take your approach then we cannot come to him for there is no way to do that but by prayer. Right?

    But more importantly, Jesus is saying to “All Mankind”, to come to him, all over the world, many at the same time, and he will make their burden light and teach them “Of himself”. (Why didn’t he say “learn of the Father”?) Just a thought..

    Jn 12:32
    And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

    Is this a normal man? No. This is the “Monogenes” (Unique), Son of God!

    Couple of scriptures…

    Mk 10:14
    But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
    (Would you forbid little children to come to Christ “through prayer” )?

    Jn 6:65
    And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

    Jn 7:37
    In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

    Acts 2:21
    And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    Acts 9:14
    And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

    Do the above scriptures still apply for all men today?

    1 Jn 1:3
    That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship (koinonia) with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

    Fellowship koinonia; which means:
    1) fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse
    a) the share which one has in anything, participation
    b) intercourse, fellowship, intimacy

    As far as the Spirit…

    Phil 2:1
    If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship (koinonia) of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

    The selfsame Spirit, the Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Comforter (parakletos), the ontologically “ONE” Spirit that dwells in us also helps us with our infirmitys, for we don’t know how to pray as we ought.

    Rom 8:26
    Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

    Jn 16:15
    All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he (Comforter} shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (Fellowship}.

    t8.

    If you think that just praying a prayer to the Father and just tacking the name of Jesus on it is enough. Its not. You see its important to know what it means to pray “IN” the name of Jesus.

    It might have something to do with “substance”!

    Blessings  

    :)

    #46664
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You say
    'Jesus made many claims that only “God” could make. For instance…

    Matt 11:
    27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”

    Jesus identified God as the Father so in what way does Jesus here instead identify himself as God?

    #46665
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,02:29)

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2007,05:10)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2007,14:46)

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


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    When you pray to God (the Trinity version) pray like this:

    “My God in Heaven.
    How are you all.
    I pray that you will ALL bless me, forgive me, and look after me.”

    You see WorhippingJesus, we should be praying to God, not his substance.

    However when I pray to God, I am praying to one God. Substance has nothing to do with it because I pray to the Father.

    I can only conclude that you pray to the substance if you talk to him as one and refer to him as HIM, HIS, etc.

    But if you pray to the Father in Yeshua's name, then you are praying to God through his son. This is what scipture teaches.


    t8

    You should really think about what you say before you post, especially in using sarcasm and mimicking language.

    Its not my business to tell you how to run this forum, but it dosnt shed a good light on you or the forum.


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am not ashamed of what I said just as Yeshua wasn't ashamed when he called the Pharisees a bunch of blood suckers. I used an illustration that was appropriate regarding the point I was making.

    If you say God is triune and you can pray to all 3 of them, then how come when Trinitarians pray to God, they don't say “How are you all”, “can you all bless me” and that sort of thing.

    Your theology demands that you pray in such a way if you believe in a multiple person one substance God.

    Yet you pray to God as if there was only one person because that is what we see in scripture. i.e., that God is called by the following pronouns, Him, His, He, etc.

    The one part in the term 'one God' from a Trinitarian perspective is explained as one substance and if you call God, 'Him', then surely you are praying to the substance in that case, because it is either one substance or 3 persons. Can you see this?

    Now if you were talking to MEwould you call me “you guys”? Of course not. Would you talk to my flesh? Or would you talk to me, the person? Yet I am a 'he' I am a person, and yet I am a He just as God is, (I am not talking about gender here).

    So when people pray to God they are surely not talking to his nature, substance, or form, they are talking to HIM. They are talking to the person/identity. Yet you refer to him in a singular sense, while you believe that God is made up of 3 persons.

    Isn't that strange? Isn't that a contradiction?

    You can say this sheds bad light on this BB, but I think the truth is it shows how confused you are and how confusing the Trinity doctrine really is. It also shows me that you are trying to avoid explaining this confusion by moving the attention away from the confusion I am pointing out to my credibility and the light that sheds on these forums.

    Isn't that also strange? The same thing happened when Yeshua spoke. He also challenged the religious and some of them tried to find an accusation against him.

    But if you were being honest WorshippingJesus, you wouldn't divert the attention away would you? If you were being challenged by anything you believe and you were noble, you would take that as a good thing as it may just expose a possible weakness in your faith. In other words you would welcome such questions as they could possibly challenge you to the point of obtaining a more perfect faith.

    But if you wished to avoid the possibility of being wrong and to stick by your guns, then you could always be offended I suppose.

    WoshippingJesus do not get me wrong. I am not here to say I am right and you are wrong. I am here to be challenged and to challenge because I believe that the truth is more important than myself, you, and the pride of any man.

    #46667

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2007,11:28)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,02:29)

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2007,05:10)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 23 2007,14:46)

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


    NH

    Yes there is three persons, “One God”!

    :)


    To WorshippingJesus.

    When you pray to God (the Trinity version) pray like this:

    “My God in Heaven.
    How are you all.
    I pray that you will ALL bless me, forgive me, and look after me.”

    You see WorhippingJesus, we should be praying to God, not his substance.

    However when I pray to God, I am praying to one God. Substance has nothing to do with it because I pray to the Father.

    I can only conclude that you pray to the substance if you talk to him as one and refer to him as HIM, HIS, etc.

    But if you pray to the Father in Yeshua's name, then you are praying to God through his son. This is what scipture teaches.


    t8

    You should really think about what you say before you post, especially in using sarcasm and mimicking language.

    Its not my business to tell you how to run this forum, but it dosnt shed a good light on you or the forum.


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am not ashamed of what I said just as Yeshua wasn't ashamed when he called the Pharisees a bunch of blood suckers. I used an illustration that was appropriate regarding the point I was making.

    If you say God is triune and you can pray to all 3 of them, then how come when Trinitarians pray to God, they don't say “How are you all”, “can you all bless me” and that sort of thing.

    Your theology demands that you pray in such a way if you believe in a multiple person one substance God.

    Yet you pray to God as if there was only one person because that is what we see in scripture. i.e., that God is called by the following pronouns, Him, His, He, etc.

    The one part in the term 'one God' from a Trinitarian perspective is explained as one substance and if you call God, 'Him', then surely you are praying to the substance in that case, because it is either one substance or 3 persons. Can you see this?

    Now if you were talking to MEwould you call me “you guys”? Of course not. Would you talk to my flesh? Or would you talk to me, the person? Yet I am a 'he' I am a person, and yet I am a He just as God is, (I am not talking about gender here).

    So when people pray to God they are surely not talking to his nature, substance, or form, they are talking to HIM. They are talking to the person/identity. Yet you refer to him in a singular sense, while you believe that God is made up of 3 persons.

    Isn't that strange? Isn't that a contradiction?

    You can say this sheds bad light on this BB, but I think the truth is it shows how confused you are and how confusing the Trinity doctrine really is. It also shows me that you are trying to avoid explaining this confusion by moving the attention away from the confusion I am pointing out to my credibility and the light that sheds on these forums.

    Isn't that also strange? The same thing happened when Yeshua spoke. He also challenged the religious and some of them tried to find an accusation against him.

    But if you were being honest WorshippingJesus, you wouldn't divert the attention away would you? If you were being challenged by anything you believe and you were noble, you would take that as a good thing as it may just expose a possible weakness in your faith. In other words you would welcome such questions as they could possibly challenge you to the point of obtaining a more perfect faith.

    But if you wished to avoid the possibility of being wrong and to stick by your guns, then you could always be offended I suppose.

    WoshippingJesus do not get me wrong. I am not here to say I am right and you are wrong. I am here to be challenged and to challenge because I believe that the truth is more important than myself, you, and the pride of any man.


    t8

    You say…

    Quote
    I am not ashamed of what I said just as Yeshua wasn't ashamed when he called the Pharisees a bunch of blood suckers. I used an illustration that was appropriate regarding the point I was making.

    I never mentioned the word ashamed!

    t8. You started this by making flamatory remarks concerning my prayer life which you know nothing about.

    Then you proceed to give me a bunch of questions without even addressing one of mine. I will be happy to answer you.

    Why dont you answer mine?

    You say…

    Quote
    If you say God is triune and you can pray to all 3 of them, then how come when Trinitarians pray to God, they don't say “How are you all”, “can you all bless me” and that sort of thing.

    I dont remember the last time I asked God “How are you doing”?

    Usually I am praising him and thanking him for what he has done.

    Is this something you ask the Father?

    “Hey Father how are you today? Excuse me Jesus Im talking to the Father now”.

    Im not trying to be sarcastic but thats what you sound like.

    So I ask you again t8 the following questions, and if you have an answer please reply, because I am confused as to what you believe, and obviously your confused as to what I believe.

    1. Are you saying that you have no fellowship with the Son?

    And if you do, how do you fellowship with him without “prayer” to him?

    2. Do you believe that when someone “calls on the name of the Lord”, “Jesus”, and they repent and he comes into their heart, that at that point they should never pray to Jesus again?

    3. Also since Jesus is no longer “physically here”, are men suppose to cease from coming to him, and if not how do they come to him without prayer?

    4. What about the Spirit that prays in us?

    Rom 8:26 NIV
    In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the S
    pirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

    This is why he is called the Comforter!

    One last question t8.

    Do you have any writings on the Holy Spirit here on this forum, and if not, why?

    I hope you can give me an answer to these questions. And I will be happy to answer yours. :)

    I am not trying to provoke you or anything, but I sincerely would like to know your opinion about these questions.

    Blessings  :)

    #46668
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,10:38)
    t8

    You say…
    Quote
    I am not ashamed of what I said just as Yeshua wasn't ashamed when he called the Pharisees a bunch of blood suckers. I used an illustration that was appropriate regarding the point I was making.

    I never mentioned the word ashamed!

    t8. You started this by making flamatory remarks concerning my prayer life which you know nothing about.


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am sorry if you interpreted it that way. I was simply pointing out that if you believe in the Trinity why don't you pray to plurality as surely you are praying to the persons not the substance. 3 persons 1 substance. Do you see that?

    If you consider this inflammatory, then I can assure you that it is the Trinity doctrine that is inflammatory, not my statement, because I was neither condoning such a practice or saying that you actually do this.

    I was simply pointing out that if your doctrine is the Trinity, then if you really believe it, why don't you pray to the Trinity (them/3 persons) with the correct language structure.

    I think that it was a fair enough thing to bring up and my only intention was to show how ridiculous and confusing the Trinity doctrine is.

    Do you understand why now?

    #46669
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,10:38)
    I never mentioned the word ashamed!


    To WorshippingJesus.

    True.

    But if you say that I am shedding bad light on this BB, then I use such a word in context to say that I believe that I am not and hence why I am not ashamed of my stance and post to you.

    You then say that I do not answer your questions. But the fact is I know it is pointless.

    If a man cannot give you an answer and then throws other questions at you, it is simply a diversionary tactic and I don't have time to play along right now.

    Tell you what. If you tell me why you do not call the Trinity “them” when you pray, even though that would be the correct language structure to use, (if you believed that God was made up of 3 persons), then I will give you an answer to the questions you gave me.

    How does that sound?

    :)

    #46670
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Who did Paul pray to in 2 Corinthians 12:8?

    #46671

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2007,00:32)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,10:38)
    t8

    You say…
    Quote
    I am not ashamed of what I said just as Yeshua wasn't ashamed when he called the Pharisees a bunch of blood suckers. I used an illustration that was appropriate regarding the point I was making.

    I never mentioned the word ashamed!

    t8. You started this by making flamatory remarks concerning my prayer life which you know nothing about.


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I am sorry if you interpreted it that way. I was simply pointing out that if you believe in the Trinity why don't you pray to plurality as surely you are praying to the persons not the substance. 3 persons 1 substance. Do you see that?

    If you consider this inflammatory, then I can assure you that it is the Trinity doctrine that is inflammatory, not my statement, because I was neither condoning such a practice or saying that you actually do this.

    I was simply pointing out that if your doctrine is the Trinity, then if you really believe it, why don't you pray to the Trinity (them/3 persons).

    I think that it was a fair enough thing to bring up and my only intention was to show how ridiculous and confusing the Trinity doctrine is.

    Do you understand what I am saying?


    t8

    I understand exactly what you are saying.

    But I think you are trying to seperate the substance of God from himself. Which is Impossible.

    God is Spirit. I have fellowship with God in the Spirit.

    What does that mean? Is it gramatically incorect to refer to God as God?

    Does a title like Father or Jesus always have to be attched to my prayer or praise?

    If I know the Father through the Son and have the Spirit in me and pray…

    Pss 61:
    1 Hear my cry, O God; attend unto my prayer.
    2 From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock [that] is higher than I.

    Will God not hear my cry?

    Or do you believe I have to ritualistically tack Jesus name on it or directly refer to the title Father.

    If I am in a hardship and call on Jesus to help me, is that wrong.?

    What about Stephen?

    If the Spirit is praying through me is it wrong if I fail to tack Jesus on the end of it.

    Yes I do pray to the Father and Jesus, and through the Holy Spirit I have fellowship by the Spirit with the Father and the Son.

    That may not sound politically correct. But I believe it is scriptural.

    And if the Father and Christ dwells in me by that “ONE Spirit” then yes the very essence and substance of God dwells in me, because “God lives in me”

    You cant seperate God from his substance. God is Spirit.

    The Spirit is his substance and essence.

    Am I missing something here. Is there supposed to be some creed or religios prayer that we are to pray and tack Jesus name on it and it is job well done?

    We are in the living God and he is in us. We can talk to him like we talk to our Father because yes he is our Father.

    I am not saying using the name of Jesus is wrong, but it should not be some canned formula, or it is just words.

    God looks at the heart, it is not always how we pray but how he sees our heart.

    Matt 18:19
    19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
    20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    Another one of those Trinity scriptures.

    Notice, their prayer is answered because they are gathered in his name and Jesus is in their midst. Imagine that.

    I did a search to see if I could find a scripture that shows where the disciples prayed a prayer and then said in Jesus name. Couldnt find it. The scriptures mention the “Name of Jesus” for Preaching and Baptism and Healing and Miracles.

    Anyway you still didnt answer my questions t8?

    And I probably havnt answered yours.

    Blessings!

    :)

    #46666

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2007,00:35)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,10:38)
    I never mentioned the word ashamed!


    To WorshippingJesus.

    True.

    But if you say that I am shedding bad light on this BB, then I use such a word in context to say that I believe that I am not and hence why I am not ashamed of my stance and post to you.

    You then say that I do not answer your questions. But the fact is I know it is pointless.

    If a man cannot give you an answer and then throws other questions at you, it is simply a diversionary tactic and I don't have time to play along right now.

    Tell you what. If you tell me why you do not call the Trinity “them” when you pray, even though that would be the correct language structure to use, (if you believed that God was made up of 3 persons), then I will give you an answer to the questions you gave me.

    How does that sound?

    :)


    t8

    You didnt start your post with a question!

    You said…

    Quote
    To WorshippingJesus.

    When you pray to God (the Trinity version) pray like this:

    “My God in Heaven.
    How are you all.
    I pray that you will ALL bless me, forgive me, and look after me.”

    You see WorhippingJesus, we should be praying to God, not his substance.

    However when I pray to God, I am praying to one God. Substance has nothing to do with it because I pray to the Father.

    I can only conclude that you pray to the substance if you talk to him as one and refer to him as HIM, HIS, etc.

    But if you pray to the Father in Yeshua's name, then you are praying to God through his son. This is what scipture teaches.

    I dont see any question here. Just “Inflammatory” statements to me out of nowhere about my prayer life.

    So I responded with questions which you apparentlly won't answer.

    ???   :)

    #46650

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 24 2007,00:35)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,10:38)
    I never mentioned the word ashamed!


    To WorshippingJesus.

    True.

    But if you say that I am shedding bad light on this BB, then I use such a word in context to say that I believe that I am not and hence why I am not ashamed of my stance and post to you.

    You then say that I do not answer your questions. But the fact is I know it is pointless.

    If a man cannot give you an answer and then throws other questions at you, it is simply a diversionary tactic and I don't have time to play along right now.

    Tell you what. If you tell me why you do not call the Trinity “them” when you pray, even though that would be the correct language structure to use, (if you believed that God was made up of 3 persons), then I will give you an answer to the questions you gave me.

    How does that sound?

    :)


    t8

    This was the questions..

    have a couple of questions for you.

    1. Are you saying that you have no fellowship with the Son?

    And if you do, how do you fellowship with him without “prayer” to him?

    2. Do you believe that when someone “calls on the name of the Lord”, “Jesus”, and they repent and he comes into their heart, that at that point they should never pray to Jesus again?

    3. Also since Jesus is no longer “physically here”, are men suppose to cease from coming to him, and if not how do they come to him without prayer?

    4. Do you have any writings on the Holy Spirit here on this forum, and if not, why?

    ???

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (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