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 - 781 through 800 (of 945 total)

←1 2 3…394041…46 47 48 →

Author
Posts

July 21, 2007 at 12:38 am#60948

NickHassan

Participant

Hi not3,
A man, a chosen man, an anointed man, a blessed man, but a man.

July 21, 2007 at 1:18 am#60952

Proclaimer

Participant

A brief history of time

Chapter 1: WorshippingJesus wisdom and conduct

WJ said that Ignatius was a disciple of John and his writings were significant and then used his writings to support his view.

In reality he completely misunderstood Ignatius because Ignatius uses the word “theos” differently to him, and Ignatius said that those who say that Jesus is the God over all are ministers of Satan. He continues to promote this lie even in light of this.

In his defense he said that the God over all was the Father and that Ignatius was simply stating that Jesus wasn't the Father.

Well there you have it, in order for him not be seen (by Ignatius wisdom) as a minister of Satan, he conceded on something that he has been opposing since he came here. Had he not got himself into a corner I guess that he would still oppose the truth that the Father is the God over all and not the son.

So perhaps he needs to stop the pretense and stubbornness. We can all see clearly the holes in his argument. It is of no profit for him to continue in this manner.

Let's recap:
He first rejects what Jesus, Paul, and Peter taught regarding the Father being the only true God and Jesus being the true son of the true God. He then rejects Ignatius teachings of whom he says is significant because he was a disciple of John. And now he continues to promote his faulty argument despite these findings.

What kind of man hears such words from scripture and from a disciple of John (who he says is significant) and continues right on with his crusade?

He respects Ignatius and Ignatius calls him a Minister of Satan and then he continues on as if nothing happened.

If he ignores them, then what chance does anyone here have of showing him the truth?

July 21, 2007 at 2:06 am#60954

Is 1:18

Participant

Hi kejonn and Mandy,
I thought I'd try and answer both of you posts with one.

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

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

Okay, I see your point of view now. Thanks for explaining. I actually agree with you that He did not inherit the title “God”. He always was (John 1:1c), is (John 20:28) and always will be “God” (Zech 14; Heb 1:8-12; Rev 1:17, 2:9, 22:13). I don't believe “being God” is something that one can inherit anyway, you either are God (from eternity) or you are not. And there is only One.

Quote

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

I agree there is a distinction between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. You can see this most clearly in John 14:23 where plural pronouns are used in the context of us being indwelled, which would be confusing (to say the least) if there was no distinction. But it's also plain that there is One Spirit and One God indwelling us.

Ezekiel 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Ephesians 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

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

One Spirit and One God, but at least two persons….

and I think we can reasonable surmise that The Holy Spirit is personal but neither the Father's nor the Son's personal Spirit from these passages:

The Holy Spirit:

1. Is personal

As He:

1) Helps: Jn 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7, Rom 8:26, 1 Jn 2:1.
2) Glorifies: Jn 16:13-14.
3) Can be Known: Jn 14:17.
4) Gives Abilities: Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:7-11.
5) Referred to as “He”: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13.
6) Loves: Rom 15:30.
7) Guides: Jn 16:13.
8) Comforts: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, Acts 9:31.
9) Teaches: Lk 12:12, Jn 14:26.
10) Reminds: Jn 14:26.
11) Bears Witness: Jn 15:26, Acts 5:32, Rom 8:16.
12) Has Impulses: Jn 16:13.
13) Hears: Jn 16:13.
14) Leads: Mt 4:1, Acts 8:39, Rom 8:14.
15) Pleads: Rom 8:26-27.
16) Longs (Yearns): Jas 4:5.
17) Wills: 1 Cor 12:11.
18) Thinks: Acts 15:25,28.
19) Sends: Acts 13:4.
20) Dispatches: Acts 10:20.
21) Impels: Mk 1:12.
22) Speaks: Jn 16:13-15, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2.
23) Forbids: Acts 16:6-7.
24) Appoints: Acts 20:28.
25) Reveals: Lk 2:26, 1 Cor 2:10.
26) Calls to Ministry: Acts 13:2.
27) Can be Grieved: Is 63:10, Eph 4:30.
28) Can be Insulted: Heb 10:29.
29) Can be Lied to: Acts 5:3-4.
30) Can be Blasphemed: Mt 12:31-32.
31) Strives: Gen 6:3.
32) Is Knowledgeable: Is 40:13, Acts 10:19, 1 Cor 2:10-13.
33) Can be Vexed: Is 63:10.
34) Judges: Jn 16:8.
35) Prophesies: Acts 21:11, 28:25, 1 Tim 4:1.
36) Has Fellowship: 2 Cor 13:14.
37) Gives Grace: Heb 10:29.
38) Agrees: 1 Jn 5:7-8.
39) Offers Life: 2 Cor 3:6, Rev 22:17.
40) Was involved in Creation: Job 33:4.
(source: I got this list from a post “Scripture Seeker” wrote, but modified it slightly)

These are all attributes of a person, not a thing, amd the sheer magnitude of the evidence for personal attributes makes it plain that the Holy Spirit is a person. The notable scriptures (to me) from the list are those that report that the Spirit has a “mind” (Romans 8:27) – which denotes intelligence, and has a “will” which denotes individuality. I can’t fathom how it could be possible for these descriptives could legitimately be used of a “force”, that would be quite misleading to readers, I think. There are a number of passages in which the masculine pronouns (sometimes EMPHATICALLY masculine pronouns – e.g. Jn 14.26) are used in referring to the Spirit, lending more support to a “Personal Agent” understanding of Him, than to an impersonal “central nervous” understanding.

2. Is not the Father's personal Spirit:

John 16:7
7″But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Yeshua here speaking of the “helper” declared that He will send “Him”. If this were the Father’s personal Spirit then this would run counter to the clearly defined line of authority between the Father and Son. It’s the father that does the sending…..This theme emphasised to a higher degree in vss 13 and 14:

John 16:13-14
13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

We see a clear picture of subservience to the Son in this passage (i.e. He will “hear, speak and disclose” [all of which are attributes of a person, BTW] only what He “takes” of Yeshua), so the Father's Spirit does not fit in this regard either. Just to underscore this Yeshua proclaimed that the Helper will “glorify” Him. There are also some telling passages in Romans 8….

Romans 8:14-15
14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!“

Paul articulates that the Spirit induces us to cry out “Abba! Father!”. Would the Father’s Spirit cry out to Himself this way? Makes no sense to me. In later verses of this chapter it's even more obvious that the Holy Spirit is not the Father's personal Spirit…

Romans 8:26-27
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but
the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The Spirit “intercedes” (to intercede in behalf of: – make intercession for. [Strongs]) on our behalf. Who does He intercede to? Wouldn't it be TO the Father? Seems to account for some other scripture. So to affirm that The Holy Spirit is the Father’s personal spirit you must hold that The Father (Who is Spirit) makes intercession by His Spirit TO HIMSELF…..which is the very essence of confusion, I think. It’s also germane that the Spirit does this “according to the will of God”, would this affirmation not be the very epitome of redundancy if the Spirit was the Father’s Spirit? I think it would be…..

3. Is not the Son's personal Spirit either:

It’s more plausible to me that the parakletos is Yeshua’s Spirit, but I think it’s unlikely on account of the following texts:

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

Again the language here is interesting to me. Yeshua foretold He would send “another Helper”, to me this infers that it would be a helper other than Himself. If He meant that He (or the Father) would send His own personal Spirit then why not just say it plainly?

John 15:26
26″When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me

1. The “Helper” proceeds from the Father.
2. The Helper testifies about Yeshua.

The Spirit of the Son would naturally proceed from the Son I believe, but John tells us the He proceeded from (Gr. ekporeuomai – to depart, be discharged, proceed, project: – come [forth, out of], depart, go [forth, out], issue) the Father so there is a metaphysical conundrum for those who affirm that it’s the Son’s personal Spirit, The Spirit is proceeding from the wrong source! Also, given that the Helper testifies about Yeshua leads me to conclude that it’s a person other than Yeshua in view here. Yeshua testifying about Himself appears a little nonsensical, at least to me.

John 16:7
7″But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

If this is Yeshua speaking of His personal Spirit here why does he use the third person pronoun “Him” and why does he express that He will “send Him”. These are words used to describe a person other than yourself. Also, does Yeshua send Himself? Would He not instead say “I will come to you” (as He did in other passages). It seems evident that Yeshua was speaking of another person here…..

John 16:13-14
13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

This is a passage I cited before, but as well as arguing against the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of the Father, it also argues against Him being Yeshua's personal Spirit. The data in this verse that suggest it's extremely unlikely that the “Spirit of Truth” is Yeshua's personal Spirit are:

1. The usage of third person pronoun by Yeshua. If He was speaking of His own Spirit, He would undoubtedly say “I, me, my”, but not “he” (i.e. he will glorify me)

2. The developed theme of subservience by the Spirit to Yeshua. Including the affirmation that the Spirit of truth will glorify Yeshua (wouldn’t that be a patent description of self-glorification?)

3. A clear distinction in operational attributes in ministry between Yeshua and the “helper”. Note how the Spirit will “disclose” what he “hears” in verse 13. In the next verse we see that it is Yeshua that He will hear from. He will “take of” Yeshua and “disclose it to” us.

So clearly this is not Yeshua speaking of His own Spirit here…..

I guess the other possibility is the parakletos is a co-joint union of the Father and Son, John 14:23 would appear to suggest this, but again we have a violation of the clearly taught line of authority between the Father and son with the “sending” of the Helper. The Son cannot logically send Himself, nor is it plausible that He would send the Father’s Spirit.

I hope I've given you some insight into why I see things 9i.e the Holy Spirit) the way I do.

Quote

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

You wrote: “by showing that Yeshua and God each own the Holy Spirit, one sees rather quickly that the Holy Spirit cannot be a third person, but a mutually shared essence.”

That's actually an interesting way to look at it. A blend of God's divine essence and Yeshua's human essence though? It's a little out of left field. What scriptures would lend support to this postulation?

Quote

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

Hang on a minute, in the last paragraph you inferred that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God had blended to become the Holy Spirit, but now you're making a distinction between them again. Just when I think I'm beginning to get a good read on your view you write something that contradicts a previous statement and I'm left scratching my head again.

Blessings

July 21, 2007 at 2:24 am#60956

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 21 2007,08:00)

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?

WJ has a good point here, Ignatius continually refers to Yeshua as “our God”. If he understood Yeshua to be another God, who along side of YHWH was his God, then He has made overtly poytheistic statements. Was Ignatius a polytheist? or did he hold to a personal plurality within ontological unity concept of YHWH? Those are the only two options as I see it.

July 21, 2007 at 2:29 am#60957

Proclaimer

Participant

But not the God overall Isaiah.

God > Christ > Man

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Ignatius uses 'theos' in different senses. It is not always the God over all and he stipulates that very point.

His warning about those who preach that Jesus is God overall is condemning.

July 21, 2007 at 2:36 am#60960

NickHassan

Participant

Hi Is 1.18,
So does each “Person ” in the proposed trinity have a spirit including the Spirit?
Is the one Spirit also a person in God?

July 21, 2007 at 2:41 am#60962

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 21 2007,14:29)

But not the God overall Isaiah.

God > Christ > Man

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

T8,
To you, does 1 Corinthians 11:3 teach that Yeshua is a lesser god than the father? If not what point are you trying to make by using it?

Quote

Ignatius uses 'theos' in different senses. It is not always the God over all and he stipulates that very point.

Alright t8, in what sense does Ignatius use “theos” of Christ?, please provide some proof of your contention here.

Quote

His warning about those who preach that Jesus is God overall is condemning.

I missed this, where is quote showing Ignatius' warning?

July 21, 2007 at 2:50 am#60963

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ July 20 2007,21:45)

Yes. A 17 y.o. daughter (–groan–)

July 21, 2007 at 3:59 am#60966

kejonn

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 21 2007,14:06)

Yep, only one. Now it depends what you mean by “one” :laugh: . Hehe, I note how you deftly left out the whole “title”. I'll show you the verses

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Jos 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if [it be] in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)
Psa 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.
Dan 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth [it is], that your God [is] a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Not just “God” but “God of gods”. That belongs to YHWH alone.

Quote

Yes, just one God. Then again, its either one God (YHWH) and one Lord (Yeshua) or one God (F,S,HS). Depends on your view, eh? I'm choosing the former.

Quote

Ezekiel 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Context of this chapter is the Holy Spirit, so yes, just one Spirit. I don't believe that Yeshua's Spirit ever indwells us like the Holy Spirit, but his spirit does bear witness with our own.

Quote

Ephesians 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Spirit that indwells Christians – the Holy Spirit.

Quote

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

Are you saying Yeshua is the Father? Why else list his verse? So He is Father and Son? Why bother with all the drama?

Quote

One Spirit and One God, but at least two persons….

Are you becoming a Binitarian?

Quote

and I think we can reasonable surmise that The Holy Spirit is personal but neither the Father's nor the Son's personal Spirit from these passages:

The Holy Spirit:

1. Is personal

As He:

Ah, now we'll be getting into a new realm. If the Holy Spirit is a “person”, what makes you think it (he, she) is equal in all aspects to God and/or Yeshua? Now that will be fun to see you prove. That is one of the aspects of Trinity. I'll let you pass on being equal in substance since God is a spirit (but Yeshua is flesh and spirit), but the rest will have to be shown.

Quote

2. Is not the Father's personal Spirit:

John 16:7
7″But I tell you the truth, it is to y
our advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Romans 8:26-27
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

No disagreement here. But you'll still have to show where the Holy Spirit is God since it is not God's personal spirit.