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 - 801 through 820 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #61177
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 22 2007,19:02)
    Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
    Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Who was being tempted here? Jesus; The Lord thy God..

    Luk 4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

    Who did the devil depart from. He departed from Christ who he was tempting.

    The truth of Luke 4:1-13 is that it was Jesus “the Lord thy God” who was being tempted. This battle at the highest level is between God and Satan. Christ and Satan.

    Jesus is The Lord Thy God. Worship Him! :O


    Nice job of removing context again. I know what is going on here: you were a JW before, weren't you? Let's list the verses in context, lest some would see what you see

    Luk 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness
    Luk 4:2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.
    Luk 4:3 And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

    Really, such a lame attempt is appalling.

    #61179
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 23 2007,16:43)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 22 2007,19:02)
    Luk 4:1  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2  Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Who was being tempted here? Jesus; The Lord thy God..

    Luk 4:13  And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

    Who did the devil depart from. He departed from Christ who he was tempting.

    The truth of Luke 4:1-13 is that it was Jesus “the Lord thy God” who was being tempted. This battle at the highest level  is between God and Satan. Christ and Satan.

    Jesus is The Lord Thy God. Worship Him!      :O


    Nice job of removing context again. I know what is going on here: you were a JW before, weren't you? Let's list the verses in context, lest some would see what you see

    Luk 4:1  Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness
    Luk 4:2  for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry.
    Luk 4:3  And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

    Really, such a lame attempt is appalling.

    kejonn. You still haven't addressed the fact that Jesus is The Lord Thy God. All you've done is created a diversion.

    Try again!

    Luk 4:1  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2  Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Who was being tempted here? Jesus; The Lord thy God..

    Luk 4:13  And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

    Who did the devil depart from. He departed from Christ who he was tempting.

    The truth of Luke 4:1-13 is that it was Jesus “the Lord thy God” who was being tempted. This battle at the highest level  is between God and Satan. Christ and Satan.

    Jesus is The Lord Thy God. Worship Him! :O

    #61181
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    In case you are still not sure who the Son of God is.

    Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
     :O

    #61183
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    So the Son of God is not the Son of God but is God?

    #61186
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To CultB

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 23 2007,13:00)
    Try again!

    Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
    Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.


    Luke 4:1
    1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert,
    2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.

    Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit and was being led by the Holy Spirit and while being led he is tempted by the Devil. This is why he said “It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”. So if he was tempted and he was being led by the Spirit and the Spirit was in him, then the Devil was tempting God. The Devil versus the Spirit.

    Jesus was the vessel for God and he didn't come in his own name either, he came in his Father's name.

    2 Corinthians 5:19
    that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

    John 5:30
    By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

    John 5:43
    I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

    #61203
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8

    Quote
    Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit and was being led by the Holy Spirit and while being led he is tempted by the Devil. This is why he said “It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”. So if he was tempted and he was being led by the Spirit and the Spirit was in him, then the Devil was tempting God. The Devil versus the Spirit.

    t8. So what you just said is that the Holy Spirit is God. :D

    You are putting the “twist” on scripture and by doing so, you are shooting yourself in the foot. :D   

    I prefer the clear Word of God.

    Try again!

    Luk 4:1  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    Luk 4:2  Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    Who was being tempted here? Jesus; The Lord thy God..

    Luk 4:13  And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

    Who did the devil depart from. He departed from Christ who he was tempting.

    The truth of Luke 4:1-13 is that it was Jesus “the Lord thy God” who was being tempted. This battle at the highest level  is between God and Satan. Christ and Satan.

    2Co 11:4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
    :O

    #61204
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 23 2007,14:12)
    t8. So what you just said is that the Holy Spirit is God.


    Correct. What's so funny about that?

    The LORD is the Spirit. It is God's Spirit. All good comes from God. He is also the Father of all spirits, (but isn't the blame for bad spirits).

    He isn't a third member of a Triune God.
    There isn't 2 or 3 Spirits that are God/YHWH. There are spirits that come from him. E.g., Revelation 4:5
    From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God.

    #61205
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    You preach a strange multipersonality God that is not in the bible.
    So what is this clarity in the Word of God that you prefer?

    #61206
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Those who preach Babylonian doctrine do it because of pride in their own understanding.

    Those who are led by the Spirit will be set free from such.

    #61224
    kejonn
    Participant

    CB,

    You have some serious context problems with your theology. I showed you Luke 4:3, but let's just deal with the verses around 4:12 so you can (finally) see the context. Though I doubt you will (or will admit to it).

    Luk 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
    Luk 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
    Luk 4:11 And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
    Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    In v9, again Satan calls him Son of God.

    In v10-11, Satan does not refer to Yeshua as the one who shall give angels charge over Yeshua, but uses the pronoun “he”. This verse refers back to Psalm 91:11 and refers to YHWH. So Satan is saying to Yeshua that YHWH, the Father, will give His angels charge over Yeshua if he jumps. This is what he meant in v9 — if you are the Son of God, God will give His angels charge over Yeshua to rescue him.

    in v12 Yeshua responds to the direct quote: Satan shall not tempt YHWH, a quote from Dt. 6:16.

    Where do you live CB? If you live in the US, check your local neighborhood churches. There may be some vacation Bible schools going on. You could learn alot by attending one of those.

    #61357
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,15:59)

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

    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.


    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.


    Interesting. Alright Kejonn, prove that these all refer to the Father of Yeshua.

    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.


    I'll go with the later, makes sense of a lot more scripture….

    Quote
    Are you becoming a Binitarian?


    No.

    Quote
    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.


    John 4:24
    God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

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


    Okay.

    Acts 5:3-4
    3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4″While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

    1 Corinthians 3:16-17
    16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

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

    It's a no brainer, the Holy Spirit is God….

    Quote
    I can handle 3 different entities. I just don't think they are equal to each other. And I have not been shown why anyone would consider the Holy Spirit “God”.


    Equal in what sense? You never seem to offer specifics when you write that. Acts 5:3-4, 1 Cor 3:16-17 and Eph 4:6 all show that the Holy Spirit is God IMO.

    Quote
    Actually none. I'll freely admit that. But we don't have a clear indication of what is happening in this whole relationship either. The men that wrote the Bible were inspired, not super geniuses.


    Thanks for being so candid. I agree that the identity/nature of the Holy Spirit is difficult to figure out. But I think that by comparing scripture with scripture it becomes clear.

    Quote
    You are correct. I'll be upfront and say I am still fine-tuning my theology. I think that is acceptable because it allows me to be open to the leading of the Spirit in my life. I had been on “cruise-control” for too much of my Christian life so here are still many things I will need to nail down. The Holy Spirit is more complex than some would think.

    But I know I have the essentials for my salvation. The rest is just knowing mre about God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. When I get a point where I know as much as I can while on earth about these, there is still a ton of stuff to learn.


    Amen.

    Blessings
    :)

    #61366
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi Is 1.18,
    Did you not know the Spirit is the Spirit of God?
    Do you know of any other beings whio are not ever one with their spirit?

    #61478
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 24 2007,03:29)

    Quote (kejonn @ July 21 2007,15:59)

    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.


    Interesting. Alright Kejonn, prove that these all refer to the Father of Yeshua.


    No definitive proof since the Son of God was never mentioned per se in a relationship to God in the OT. Show me anywhere in the OT where it says that the Messiah was to be the only begotten Son of God. Yet we see where Yeshua inherited the title “Lord of lords” and was given a new one, “King of kings”. However, if he is part of the Triune God, why is he never referred to as “God of gods”?

    Deu 10:17 “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

    1Ti 6:15 which He [Yeshua] will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    Rev 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
    Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

    See, “Lord of lords” but no “God of gods”. Methinks he cannot inherit this title because….well, you know doncha?

    Quote
    Acts 5:3-4
    3But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4″While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”


    Too simple, not enough evidence. It is well known among all, Trinitarians and non-Ts alike, that the Holy Spirit indwells Christians to help us communicate with God. Whatever the Holy Spirit knows, God knows.

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

    Rom 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,

    Besides, why is the separation necessary here if the Holy Spirit is God? Would the following not hold true for all of God?

    Mat 12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

    Quote
    1 Corinthians 3:16-17
    16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.


    What is this verse supposed to tell us? This does not show anything except that our bodies house the Holy Spirit as well as our own.

    Quote
    Ephesians 4:6
    One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.[/color]

    It's a no brainer, the Holy Spirit is God….


    Are you saying that the one God, the Father of all, is Yeshua, the Father, and the HS? I knew the Father was the Father, but now Yeshua is the Father? The Holy Spirit is the Father?

    For Trinitarians, its a numb-brainer. In other words, numb the brain so you can accept that God Himself dwells within us. Again, why all the hub-bub about sending one personality to put a flesh tent to death only to send another personality of God? Why didn't God just bypass all of this and give us freely of His own personal spirit? He can do all things.

    Quote

    Quote
    I can handle 3 different entities. I just don't think they are equal to each other. And I have not been shown why anyone would consider the Holy Spirit “God”.


    Equal in what sense? You never seem to offer specifics when you write that. Acts 5:3-4, 1 Cor 3:16-17 and Eph 4:6 all show that the Holy Spirit is God IMO.


    Not IMO. Those verses only convince those who are already convinced.

    #61512
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KJ,
    You say
    “No definitive proof since the Son of God was never mentioned per se in a relationship to God in the OT.”

    Ps2
    Prov30
    2 sam?

    #61554
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 25 2007,14:20)
    Hi KJ,
    You say
    “No definitive proof since the Son of God was never mentioned per se in a relationship to God in the OT.”

    Ps2
    Prov30
    2 sam?


    Nick,

    Those are “hindsight” passages. They do not really put forth a clear picture of who exactly the Son was to be. Not IMO anyway. But thanks!

    #61556
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi KJ,
    Others tell me Ps 2 is prophetic.
    Either way the Son is identified as the messiah king and the Jews would have been aware of that as the frequent use by the apostles, for various reasons, shows.

    #62115
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ July 23 2007,19:18)
    CB,

    You have some serious context problems with your theology. I showed you Luke 4:3, but let's just deal with the verses around 4:12 so you can (finally) see the context. Though I doubt you will (or will admit to it).

    Luk 4:9  And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
    Luk 4:10  For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
    Luk 4:11  And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    In v9, again Satan calls him Son of God.

    In v10-11, Satan does not refer to Yeshua as the one who shall give angels charge over Yeshua, but uses the pronoun “he”. This verse refers back to Psalm 91:11 and refers to YHWH. So Satan is saying to Yeshua that YHWH, the Father, will give His angels charge over Yeshua if he jumps. This is what he meant in v9 — if you are the Son of God, God will give His angels charge over Yeshua to rescue him.

    in v12 Yeshua responds to the direct quote: Satan shall not tempt YHWH, a quote from Dt. 6:16.

    Where do you live CB? If you live in the US, check your local neighborhood churches. There may be some vacation Bible schools going on. You could learn alot by attending one of those.


    kejonn. It seems that you are way out of context.

    The Lord God Jehovah in Massah was the Lord God Jesus Christ, so back to the drawing board again for you.

    The LORD (Jehovah) who led the Israelites through the wilderness, was Jesus who sent fiery serpents to bite the people because they tempted Him.

    1Co 10:9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

    Num 21:5  And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
    Num 21:6  And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
    Num 21:7  Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
    Num 21:8  And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

    Deu 6:16  Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

    Luk 4:12  And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God

    Yes!  Jesus is the Lord Thy God who was tempted.  Worship Him :O

    2Co 11:4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
     :O

    #62133
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    So who is the God of the Lord Jesus Christ?
    [Jn19]

    #62216
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ July 29 2007,09:31)

    Quote (kejonn @ July 23 2007,19:18)
    CB,

    You have some serious context problems with your theology. I showed you Luke 4:3, but let's just deal with the verses around 4:12 so you can (finally) see the context. Though I doubt you will (or will admit to it).

    Luk 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
    Luk 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
    Luk 4:11 And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
    Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

    In v9, again Satan calls him Son of God.

    In v10-11, Satan does not refer to Yeshua as the one who shall give angels charge over Yeshua, but uses the pronoun “he”. This verse refers back to Psalm 91:11 and refers to YHWH. So Satan is saying to Yeshua that YHWH, the Father, will give His angels charge over Yeshua if he jumps. This is what he meant in v9 — if you are the Son of God, God will give His angels charge over Yeshua to rescue him.

    in v12 Yeshua responds to the direct quote: Satan shall not tempt YHWH, a quote from Dt. 6:16.

    Where do you live CB? If you live in the US, check your local neighborhood churches. There may be some vacation Bible schools going on. You could learn alot by attending one of those.


    kejonn. It seems that you are way out of context.

    The Lord God Jehovah in Massah was the Lord God Jesus Christ, so back to the drawing board again for you.


    Show me once instance of “Lord God Jesus Christ” in the Bible and I will believe in the Trinity. Until then, you have just made your own title.

    Quote
    The LORD (Jehovah) who led the Israelites through the wilderness, was Jesus who sent fiery serpents to bite the people because they tempted Him.

    1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

    Num 21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
    Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
    Num 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
    Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.


    Some manuscripts have “Christos” and some have “kyrios”. So this verse is already in question for application to Trinitarian thinking.

    As far as “Lord”, this is not the first time that “Lord” in the NT was confused with “LORD” in the OT. In fact, the Septaugint uses “Lord” instead of “LORD” as used in the Masoretic to replace YHWH in English. So we can not be certain that “Lord” here is referring to Yeshua in 1 Cor or YHWH. Since it was a reference to an OT event, it leans towards YHWH. So this is a very vague passage when you try to use it in defense of the Trinity.

    Quote
    Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

    Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God

    Yes! Jesus is the Lord Thy God who was tempted. Worship Him :O


    Yes, Yeshua was tempted. But if he was speaking of himself here, why did he not quote this upon the first instance of temptation? Or the 2nd? No, he did not do so until Satan mentioned OT scripture that mentions YHWH (“He” in Luke 4:10).

    Also, look at these verses:

    Luk 4:6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.
    Luk 4:7 “Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.”
    Luk 4:8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' “

    Two things here. 1) If Yeshua was God, and not just the Son of God, why would Satan offer this? 2) If Yeshua was God, and not the Son of God, why would he not demand that Satan worship him (Yeshua)? Instead, Yeshua showed his allegiance in verse 8 — that he would not worship Satan but the “LORD your God”.

    #62273
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Kejonn. Why don't you just accept the Bible evidence that Jesus is The Lord Thy God instead of putting the twist on everything that does not fit your church's dogma.

    Quote
    Show me once instance of “Lord God Jesus Christ” in the Bible and I will believe in the Trinity. Until then, you have just made your own title.

    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
     

    Kejonn is now converted to the trinity    :D :D :D

Viewing 20 posts - 801 through 820 (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