Home Debates Trinity Debate – John 17:3 Page 45

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaters: t8  & 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 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 - 881 through 900 (of 945 total)
123…4445464748
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 14, 2007 at 11:02 am#64025
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    kejonn

    Quote
    The Holy Spirit has absolutely no will of its own.

    Says who?

    1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

    Kejonn. You must be refering to your “another spirit” The masonic spirit.

    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

    August 14, 2007 at 11:18 am#64028
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hey CultB.

    You believe that God created all things through Christ and that Christ is the God that created all things through him.

    You also believe that God is 3 persons and yet you call God “Him” instead of “They”.

    The Spirit of God is the Spirit of God. It is not a 3rd person. It is what God is for it is written that God is Spirit.

    You are a confused man CultB and you should leave the cult that you promote. But I truly don't expect you to have the ears to hear. But I do like surprises, so go ahead and surprise me.

    :)

    August 14, 2007 at 11:23 am#64030
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Regarding thrones, Christ sits with his Father on the Father's throne and likewise we can sit with Christ on his throne.

    Revelation 3:21
    To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

    Our inheritance is in Christ and Christ's inheritance is in God.
    God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man.

    The Trinity doctrine attacks these very truths. The Trinity doctrine also attacks the foundation that Jesus built his Church on. The truth that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God,

    But CultB or the Gates of Hell cannot prevail. So CultB should give it up. He can't fight God and he still has a chance to repent. As for the Gates of Hell, well they have nothing to lose because they have already lost.

    August 14, 2007 at 11:33 am#64031
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8.

    The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God, a Person.

    Your spirit is “another spirit” from the Jehovah's Witnesses church.

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m

    THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON: FORTY PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES

    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) Is the Creator: Job 33:4.

    The Holy Spirit is Jehovah.

    Compare
    Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD(JEHOVAH) I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD (JEHOVAH): for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD (JEHOVAH): for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    With
    Heb 10:15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
    Heb 10:16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
    Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

    Conclusion.      The Holy Ghost = Jehovah

    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

    August 14, 2007 at 11:58 am#64034
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 14 2007,06:02)
    kejonn

    Quote
    The Holy Spirit has absolutely no will of its own.

    Says who?

    1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

    Kejonn. You must be refering to your “another spirit” The masonic spirit.

    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


    As usual, CB wins the “I do not know what context is” award :;):.

    1Co 12:6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
    1Co 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
    1Co 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
    1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
    1Co 12:10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
    1Co 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

    Verse 12:6 says who works all things in all persons: God. So it is by His will we have our certain gifts. Again, the Holy Spirit is an extension of God's power, of His own spirit.

    Your “another” Jesus quote is getting old. Paul was not a Trinitarian.

    August 14, 2007 at 8:03 pm#64049
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    God bless you. The only problem with the trinity is that it's false. You are yet to answer the questions posted to you that point out the flaws in the trinity reasoning.

    How can he be God and the Son of God?

    If he is God, how can he be sent by God?

    The Father called him his Son, yet you say he is God. How can you possibly overcome truth with error. I so much appreciate your zeal, but save yourself from those which have entangled you. Deliver yourself. We have given you the truth. If there's any apects of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit that do not make sense to you, I personally pledge to help you.

    God bless

    Mr. Steven

    August 14, 2007 at 11:51 pm#64062
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Kejonn

    You said…

    Quote

    And I came back and admitted that it is very likely. But as it stands, there is no reference to it being mentioned again in scripture. But none of that takes away “name will be called”. A name does not denote our substance, it is but a name. If I decide to name my child Napolean that will not make him the historical character, will it? Or even Napolean Dynamite for that matter.

    No. But if the Holy Spirit inspires a prophet to give your son a name that is equally used as descriptive title of YWHW himself then you would have something wouldn’t you?

    Isa 10:21
    The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God (gibbowr, El ).

    Jer 32:18
    Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, (gibbowr, El) the LORD of hosts, is his name,

    Is there any other in scriptures that is given the name “Mighty God” by the Holy Spirit?

    LOL

    You said…

    It is a favorite because it is more realistic. Do you think you will be God someday? Unless you have that thought, than you can never even hope to think you could ever be like him.

    This is more realistic…

    Gen 1:
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    So were they God? God created them in his likeness.

    Jesus said we can be like his Father/God…

    Matt 5:48
    Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    “Perfect” Greek ‘teleios…which means…

    1) brought to its end, finished
    2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
    3) perfect

    So again “Straw”! Jesus does not have to be a mere man for us to be like him. He is man, but scriptures  say he is God also. We can become like God and not be God.

    You said…

    Quote

    We are born without sin. But we are also born in a fallen world. We are the ones who make our choices. The final decision to sin is ours alone. Yeshua overcame.

    Please show me scripture that says we are born without sin.

    Pss 51:5
    Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    Rom 5:12
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    1 Cor 15:21,22
    For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    You say…

    Quote

    It appears satan knew more about Yeshua than some people today. And I think satan has done a work on many people today by making another being seem to be equal to the God of the OT, YHWH. In some strange way, the Trinity detracts from the focus on the Father and puts it on Yeshua. Yet, if you read about what Yeshua said, he was all about pointing us to his Father.

    Mark 9:7
    And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

    Heb 1:2
    Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    Jn 6:44
    No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    Jn 14:21
    He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he *that loveth me* shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    Luke 24:27
    And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    Acts 28:31
    Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

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

    There is no fellowship with the Father apart from the Son and there is no fellowship with the Son apart from the Father.

    Kejonn, as you pointed out Jesus mentioned the Father “2 times”, in the Acts of the Apostles, but their message was Jesus and teaching and preaching Jesus.

    Jesus didn’t even give us the Fathers name.

    Col 1:19
    For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

    All things were made by him and for him and without him was not anything made that was made. Jn 1:3, Col 1:16.

    The Father calls him God and we should to.

    You said…

    Quote
    If you think that Yeshua was different from us because he couldn't sin, then why would he even need to face temptation? After all, if he couldn't sin, his ability to resist temptation would be a given. Again, we could never hope to be like someone like him. The difference in Yeshua and us is that he overcame perfectly.

    If we are men without his life giving Spirit then you are correct, we could never be like him.

    The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It is the Spirit of God living in us that gives us the victory over sin.

    Jesus overcame sin in the flesh because he was the Word/God the Spirit of life that took on the likeness of sinful flesh and not just over came, but condemned sin in the flesh, which only he could do. Now he has given us of his Spirit so we can overcome sin in the flesh and become like him.

    Rom 8:
    1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
    3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit    .

    Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil and condemn sin in the flesh.

    1 Jn 3:8
    He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

    You are right, kejonn, we could never hope to be like him without the power of his Holy Spirit in us.

    1 Jn 4:4
    Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

    Who is in us?…
    2 Cor 13:5
    Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you    , except ye be reprobates?

    I said…

    Quote

    By the way God has not brought forth a lessor being as an image of himself for us to follow and serve and bow down to.

    You cant serve two masters.

    Think about that.

    You said…

    Quote

    Think about what? This is a silly statement. We are to honor Father and Son. It has nothing to do with who is lesser or greater. It is God's will. You're “two masters” is a poor example because the “two masters” the Bible speaks of are opposing ideals. Let me show you so you won't use this poor example in relation to serving God and Yeshua again.
    Mat 6:24  “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

    I wouldn't believe you would use the Bible out of context that badly. The love of money is the root of all evil! But to honor the Son is to honor the Father who sent him. It has no bearing on Yeshua's “divinity”.

    Silly? LOL. That sounds like a word my 6 year old grandchild would use! Your condescension wont work with me.

    Seriously, though.

    Mat 6:24  
    “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

    You do know what an “Analogy” is don’t you?

    Now I could say the above like that or I could show some grace and say it like this.

    I believe Jesus is using an “analogy” here”!

    Would you prefer that we ingage in patronizing or showing some respect for each other and have some serious dialogue?

    Jesus makes the comparison between men serving masters and men serving God or mammon.

    Notice the period after the word “other”. The Translators put that there to make sense of the sentence.

    So then Ill say it like this…

    No man can serve 2 Gods. God has not brought forth a lessor divine being or a god as an image of himself for us to follow and serve and bow down to.

    Think about that.

    You said…

    Quote

    And potentially more bias? The Trinity is pretty much become mainstream and has been since the translators of the KJV. The Greek and Hebrew words can mean many things, but the translators decided what they did. Can we be certain they were not biased? The only ones who were not biased were the ones who first wrote the scriptures.

    Actually the trinity goes all the way back to the Apostles and early Fathers like Ignatius.

    2 Tim 3:16
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Either we let the scriptures correct us or we correct the scriptures.

    I choose the former.

    You said…

    Quote

    But that I had to accept the reality that where man is involved, mistakes are made. The Apostles did not write the NT in Microsoft Word and make DVD backups for preservation.

    Explain these two verses to me if you would please:
    Joh 5:31  “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

    Joh 8:14  Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
    So, which is it? 5:31 says “not true”, 8:14 says “true”. And the word “alone” in v5:31 is not in the original Greek.

    Kejonn, I know you want to take this debate in this direction and I understand why.
    If we are gonna debate over the scriptures being true or not, then this conversation is useless, because everytime I give a scripture that dosnt agree with you then your response can be it was tampered with. So I am wasting my time and I am surely not on the same plane as you, for the rules can change with you but I choose to hold to the scriptures as being true.

    To answer your question the “alone” was put there by the translators so there wouldn’t be a contradiction. And the truth is Jesus would not say or do anything apart from the Father neither will the Father do ar say anything without Yeshua. The Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and the Son.

    I just realized kejonn that we are not playing by the same rules.

    So I think it is best I not go further with you.

    You win. I concede. There is no chance of me being able to reach you or you reach me if you believe the scriptures are corrupt and I believe that they are true.

    Its been fun. I pray that you come to a greater knowledge of Father and the Lord Jesus.

    Blessing to you.

    Keith

    August 15, 2007 at 3:02 am#64069
    kejonn
    Participant

    WJ,

    I had worked several minutes on a response to you but accidently closed the tab I was working in. I had come to the statement about no longer debating me so instead of doing it over, I will address some points. None will have anything to do with the verses you listed.

    First, I understand why you feel the way you do. I used to be the same way in that I believed that the Bible was 100% without error. But I found that this was not true long ago, well before I even thought of questioning the Trinity. Now, instead of viewing the Bible as we have it now as some book that was handed down directly from God, I realize that it still has the essential truthes of God that we need to know. Many more things will be taught to us by God through His Holy Spirit.

    I actually find it rather amazing that we do not have more errors than we do. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that what we have is amazing accurate, but certainly not perfect. It has nothing to do with the original text or inspiration of God in the men who wrote the various books, but everything about errors made in copying, the occasional footnote of a scribe that somehow becomes inserted into scripture, and problems with translation. If you feel that you can read it with an open mind, then I suggest you check out Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators by Bruce Metzger.

    You see WJ, my faith is bigger than all of this. I can accept that man is not perfect and that the various errors we have in our modern Bibles are the result of fallible man. But the power of faith allows us to overcome these things.

    But we also have to remember that what we typically view is translations. Translations by men and women who may be biased, and who may be working from the work of others before them rather than starting anew with good manuscripts. Why are some words capitalized in some places, but not in others? The context is not there in some of those cases. Why did “it” become “he” as time progressed when the Greek word could be either? Things like this do not bring question to the original manuscripts but the motives of those translating them.

    Look at the NWT. Do you think it is a fair and unbiased translation? How about the one you pointed to at 2001translation.com? So its not a problem with the original languages as much as it is the ability of those translating Greek and Hebrew that was written 1700-2000+ years ago.

    And as to you're other statement that I was being condescending, I do not think so at all. I said your comparison between the Father and Son versus God and mammon was silly, and it is. The two are not even close so this analogy is way off base. I did not call you a name or say you were silly, but that the comparison was silly. I think you may be offended too easily.

    Or, it may be that you have tired of our debate and are looking for a graceful way to bow out by making me look “bad”. That's fine. You had just started listing the same old verses time and again anyways and it was getting boring addressing them again.

    Thanks for the time, WJ. It has been interesting. You have provided quite a challenge and I hope and pray that if nothing else has come from our exchange that you put the Father in the proper perspective. I encourage you to read the Gospels again and note how Yahshua was all about the Father's business. This will help you see that Yahshua is to be honored, but that the Father does not need to be forgotten on the way.

    Thanks, and best of wishes for the future. I pray that you serve God with your whole being.

    August 15, 2007 at 4:15 am#64073
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Kejonn….>well stated, maybe some of the things you brought out will cause WJ to reconcider his position some day, I hope so……….gene

    August 15, 2007 at 6:45 am#64081
    Not3in1
    Participant

    KJ and WJ – wow brother's you gave this debate a good ride! It has been interesting following your posts. Thanks to both of you.
    :)

    August 15, 2007 at 6:54 am#64082
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    kejonn

    Thanks for your response.

    First of all I assure you I am not trying to make you look bad. He He. You are a hero on this sight and even if I could make you look bad it wouldn’t matter here.

    Secondly, I think you misunderstand me about the scriptures. Its not that I blindly accept every word that I read. I test the words with the many translations on biblegateway and blueletter.com as well as check Greek and Hebrew text and Lexicons and what ever source I can find. The difference I suppose between us is I don’t have a mission to disprove the scriptures that in my opinion are unambiguous. What I mean by that is if the majority has translated the scripture or scriptures the same and there is no credible reason for not accepting it, then I accept it for what it says. Not that the majority is always right, but there has to be credible evidence to sway me away from the majority of the translations. There is safety in numbers. And I agree that my faith also is bigger than the book, however I believe that the scriptures are there to make us wise and as a plumb line to guide us in our faith, and with the help and guidance of the Spirit of truth we can build a sure foundation. The Word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.

    While you may not agree, it seems to me that these things were settled 100s of years ago.
    Certain scriptures were translated unanimously the way they were by all the translators in the many translations (with a few stragglers here and there that most of the time have no credibility), for a specific reason. And I believe the reasons were not bias, for that would be a stretch to say that all the 100s of translators were biased on a scripture that is translated the same over a period of hundreds of years. I trust that all the works by the 100s of scholars, many having access to the very best of information available to them especially the modern translations today have done the work to bring us the very best and purist form of the scriptures. Now, while it may seem to you that the scriptures may have a Trinitarian bias, I don’t thinks so. Besides admitting that the scriptures have a Trinitarian bias is an admission that maybe it can be found in scriptures. Of course I believe if there seems to be a bias towards the trinity, then it is because the trinity is true, and the best way to reconcile all of scriptures without contradictions is the Trinitarian view. So the translation bias theory is not something that can be proven, even the modern translations still leave certain Trinitarian verses unambiguous.

    So again, if one is to have a healthy dialogue about scriptures, then it does no good if the parties involved are attacking the scriptures as being tampered with when it doesn’t agree with them. The debate is useless then. If a text as you have mentioned is ambiguous then it should be pointed out and then move on. But if there is no proof or ambiguity to be found, then it shouldn’t be questioned. It should be accepted as it is. For instance, the famous  Jn 1:1 scripture. If the “Word was God” is translated this way by the overwhelming majority of the translators, and not translated as “Word was a god” or “Word is divine”, then I believe there are good reasons for this. Since I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar then I will not try to reinvent the wheel. If that makes the Bible a Trinitarian Bible, Oh well! Then, not trying to be rude, go join the JWs and use theirs or write your own.

    For me if I don’t like a passage, not that I have any I don’t like, I will check it out and compare it with other scriptures and I will either believe it or not, but I will not attack it and accuse the translators of bias. Believe me when you have brought up certain scriptures and translated them a certain way I didn’t like, I have been tempted to say, “Well how do we know the translators were not biased”.

    I don’t always like some of the translations either. It’s not always to my favor. For instance Rev 1:11. Some of the older translations making use of the received text or Byzantine text renders Rev 1:11 with Jesus being the Alpha and Omega. But I don’t whine that the text has been tampered with, because it is ambiguous. So I just don’t quote the verse.

    I believe the majority of the translators had good intentions and were more than qualified. And the differences are few as you pointed out. I read your sight and am not a big fan of the translations that he mentions. However, I noted that in the end he said this…

    “But in the last analysis, whichever version one prefers, the important thing is to read it and to respond to its message. As Johannes Albrecht Bengel put it succinctly in the preface to his 1734 edition of the Greek New Testament, “Te totum applica ad textum: rem totam applica ad te” (“Apply yourself wholly to the text: apply the whole matter to yourself”).

    Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators
    Bruce M. Metzger
    Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 273-284.
    [Reproduced by permission]
    http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_trans_metzger4.html

    There is one thing for sure kejonn. There will it seems until the Lord returns, be divisions in the body. However, it behooves us as believers in “The Son of God”, Yeshua to endeavor to keep unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

    I appreciate your tenacity and the fact that you pushed me even closer to my God.

    Blessings

    August 15, 2007 at 6:55 am#64083
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 15 2007,18:45)
    KJ and WJ – wow brother's you gave this debate a good ride!  It has been interesting following your posts.  Thanks to both of you.
    :)


    not3

    Thanks!

    :)

    August 15, 2007 at 7:14 am#64084
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 15 2007,16:15)
    Kejonn….>well stated, maybe some of the things you brought out will cause WJ to reconcider his position some day, I hope so……….gene


    GB

    To late for me my friend. I have not forgotten the one who came into my life in the spring of 1974.

    Without any help or coercion of man the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and intoduced me to Jesus. I cried out and asked Jesus to come into my life and forgive me, and he has been my Lord and God ever since. It was a drastic change for me! Then Jesus introduced me to my Father, and since that day my love for Jesus and the Father has deepened, and the Holy Spirit has been my guide.

    The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit lives in me as one God.

    :)

    August 15, 2007 at 7:15 am#64085
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2007,18:54)
    and the best way to reconcile all of scriptures without contradictions is the Trinitarian view.


    WJ,
    Can you elaborate on this for me? Thanks.

    P.S…….I don't think anyone is a “hero” on this site! :)

    August 15, 2007 at 7:20 am#64086
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2007,19:14)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 15 2007,16:15)
    Kejonn….>well stated, maybe some of the things you brought out will cause WJ to reconcider his position some day, I hope so……….gene


    GB

    To late for me my friend. I have not forgotten the one who came into my life in the spring of 1974.

    Without any help or coercion of man the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and intoduced me to Jesus. I cried out and asked Jesus to come into my life and forgive me, and he has been my Lord and God ever since. It was a drastic change for me! Then Jesus introduced me to my Father, and since that day my love for Jesus and the Father has deepened, and the Holy Spirit has been my guide.

    The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit lives in me as one God.

    :)


    You say, “Without any help….from man….” does this mean that noone lead you to Christ? Did someone witness to you? How did you come to know Jesus? I'm assuming someone told you the gospel?

    Did you then join a church?

    How did you come to know that Jesus/Holy Spirit/Father made one God? Did you just figure this out by reading the Bible yourself? I'm sincerely curious about these questions……

    August 15, 2007 at 9:43 am#64087
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 14 2007,23:33)
    The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God, a Person.


    As usual you are stumped and then you just change the subject.

    What has this got to do with the conversation.

    I also believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

    God is a Spirit is he not?

    CultB, you are funny.

    :)

    August 15, 2007 at 11:18 am#64091
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2007,01:54)
    kejonn

    Thanks for your response.

    First of all I assure you I am not trying to make you look bad. He He. You are a hero on this sight and even if I could make you look bad it wouldn’t matter here.


    I don't want to be a hero! There should only be one hero, and he gave his life for us. That is my own hero. In any case, it just seemed that way because even looking back, I didn't see anything out of line in my statements. But that doesn't mean there wasn't. In any case, whatever may have offended I ask for forgiveness in and I hope that you will pray for me in correction of such things.

    Quote
    Secondly, I think you misunderstand me about the scriptures. Its not that I blindly accept every word that I read. I test the words with the many translations on biblegateway and blueletter.com as well as check Greek and Hebrew text and Lexicons and what ever source I can find. The difference I suppose between us is I don’t have a mission to disprove the scriptures that in my opinion are unambiguous. What I mean by that is if the majority has translated the scripture or scriptures the same and there is no credible reason for not accepting it, then I accept it for what it says. Not that the majority is always right, but there has to be credible evidence to sway me away from the majority of the translations. There is safety in numbers. And I agree that my faith also is bigger than the book, however I believe that the scriptures are there to make us wise and as a plumb line to guide us in our faith, and with the help and guidance of the Spirit of truth we can build a sure foundation. The Word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.


    I apologize for this too. It may have seemed to have been an attack on scripture, but I assure you it is not. If anything my attack is on any who have changed the words of the Bible since they were written. The RCC has done some pretty detestable things in its history, and from what I understand, they made sure that the scriptures were exclusively theirs for years. It appears that they did their best to destroy any other works that did not agree with theirs either but that cannot be definitively proven.

    One thing that bothers me is that most of the early writers beyond the NT were by students of John, or even students of students of John. Why did more of Paul's students not have any writings? Or Peter's? Or James'? Mark and Luke may have been friends or students of Paul, but we hear of no others. I wonder if Timothy wrote anything?

    Of the early church father's, here's how it broke down

    • Clement – with Paul at Philippi, and possibly with St. Luke.

    • Mathetes – uncertain but seems to have a Pauline flair

    • Polycarp – student of St. John but oddly made no mention of Yahshua being the Word

    • Ignatius – student of St. John

    • Barnabas – unknown, but could be Barnabas of Acts, but likely anonymous

    • Papias – friend of Polycarp, may have known St. John. Like Polycarp, he does not relate Yahshua as the Word.

    • Justin Martyr – no known association, but appears to have been a student of Socrates and Plato before his conversion (that explains much!)

    • Irenaeus – student of Polycarp. Irenaeus toyed with the idea of theosis a bit; that is, that those who are adopted will become part of the Godhead

    Seems Peter or James did not have any students who wrote or that their writings did not survive for some reason. Likely James was killed early on, but who can say about Peter?

    Quote
    While you may not agree, it seems to me that these things were settled 100s of years ago.


    I agree mostly. The KJV did not have the best manuscripts according to most scholars. But the KJV was the best on the block for a long time.

    Quote
    Certain scriptures were translated unanimously the way they were by all the translators in the many translations (with a few stragglers here and there that most of the time have no credibility), for a specific reason. And I believe the reasons were not bias, for that would be a stretch to say that all the 100s of translators were biased on a scripture that is translated the same over a period of hundreds of years. I trust that all the works by the 100s of scholars, many having access to the very best of information available to them especially the modern translations today have done the work to bring us the very best and purist form of the scriptures. Now, while it may seem to you that the scriptures may have a Trinitarian bias, I don’t thinks so. Besides admitting that the scriptures have a Trinitarian bias is an admission that maybe it can be found in scriptures. Of course I believe if there seems to be a bias towards the trinity, then it is because the trinity is true, and the best way to reconcile all of scriptures without contradictions is the Trinitarian view. So the translation bias theory is not something that can be proven, even the modern translations still leave certain Trinitarian verses unambiguous.


    Well, you know you and I disagree with this. But that is neither here nor there. To me, the Trinitarian view clouds because a true application where you see “God” without “Father” and Yahshua together, it just doesn't work well. I say this because your view is that God is all three, and not just the Father. Even verses like John 3:16 take on an odd meaning with a Trinitarian view because we only have “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son”. Thus, if God is all three, how can Yahshua be his own Son? It is stuff like this that makes the Trinity less likley to reconcile the scriptures.

    Quote
    So again, if one is to have a healthy dialogue about scriptures, then it does no good if the parties involved are attacking the scriptures as being tampered with when it doesn’t agree with them. The debate is useless then. If a text as you have mentioned is ambiguous then it should be pointed out and then move on. But if there is no proof or ambiguity to be found, then it shouldn’t be questioned. It should be accepted as it is. For instance, the famous Jn 1:1 scripture. If the “Word was God” is translated this way by the overwhelming majority of the translators, and not translated as “Word was a god” or “Word is divine”, then I believe there are good reasons for this. Since I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar then I will not try to reinvent the wheel. If that makes the Bible a Trinitarian Bible, Oh well! Then, not trying to be rude, go join the JWs and use theirs or write your own.


    That is a sad statement and one I have seen you use before. It seems that you and CB are bigoted or even have hatred for JWs. That is not a Christian attitude IMO.

    But as far as John 1:1 goes, I have presented much evidence that refutes what modern scholars may have agreed on. One is Philo of Alexandria, who wrote in Koine and specifically addressed th
    e structure of a verse he knew nothing about! And then there is the Coptic version of John which would also be translated as “Word was a god” because it does have the structure that leaves little room for doubt.

    Quote
    For me if I don’t like a passage, not that I have any I don’t like, I will check it out and compare it with other scriptures and I will either believe it or not, but I will not attack it and accuse the translators of bias. Believe me when you have brought up certain scriptures and translated them a certain way I didn’t like, I have been tempted to say, “Well how do we know the translators were not biased”.


    Sadly, whether you want to believe so or not, all humans have bias. We just hope they balance each other out. And I do not care for your constant accusation of “attacking” the scripture because I question them. Questioning is not attacking, and certainly not when I can show variants that are not my own.

    The reason I do this is because I feel that developing a theology based on questionable verses is a dangerous thing.

    And in the end, I do what I do because I despise one popular belief that many Trinitarians share: that one must believe in it for salvation. That is 100% unscriptural and is based fully on man-made doctrine. I want to be able to serve my God without others saying I am lost because I do not believe Yahshua is part of a 3-in-1 God. If this is the case, according to what Yahshua himself taught, he left behind many lost people.

    Quote
    I don’t always like some of the translations either. It’s not always to my favor. For instance Rev 1:11. Some of the older translations making use of the received text or Byzantine text renders Rev 1:11 with Jesus being the Alpha and Omega. But I don’t whine that the text has been tampered with, because it is ambiguous. So I just don’t quote the verse.


    As it should be. You have plenty of others to work with.

    Quote
    I believe the majority of the translators had good intentions and were more than qualified. And the differences are few as you pointed out. I read your sight and am not a big fan of the translations that he mentions. However, I noted that in the end he said this…

    “But in the last analysis, whichever version one prefers, the important thing is to read it and to respond to its message. As Johannes Albrecht Bengel put it succinctly in the preface to his 1734 edition of the Greek New Testament, “Te totum applica ad textum: rem totam applica ad te” (“Apply yourself wholly to the text: apply the whole matter to yourself”).

    Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators
    Bruce M. Metzger
    Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 273-284.
    [Reproduced by permission]
    http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_trans_metzger4.html


    Bruce said the right thing. But remember, no version has Trinity in it. It is read into the scriptures, not read from them.

    Quote
    There is one thing for sure kejonn. There will it seems until the Lord returns, be divisions in the body. However, it behooves us as believers in “The Son of God”, Yeshua to endeavor to keep unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.


    And that is my true intention. It may not seem so, but I would like to see a time when people stop looking at non-trinitarians as cultists and heretics. That is my goal. I cannot disprove the Trinity to a strong believer in it, but hopefully I can show them that to not believe in it is scriptural and has a strong basis. The majority of non-trinitarians do not use anything but scripture to develop their beliefs, and do not rely on doctrines that came out years later. They use the Bible. And that is what to me makes the case so strong.

    Quote
    I appreciate your tenacity and the fact that you pushed me even closer to my God.

    Blessings


    Haha, it seemed it worked in a similar fashion for both of us! When I started on this site, I had some doubts but now I'm thoroughly convinced that the Trinity is erroneous. But in the meantime, I have now redeveloped the true order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This enables me to never forget the Father who sent His only begotten Son.

    August 15, 2007 at 11:29 am#64092
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 15 2007,01:45)
    KJ and WJ – wow brother's you gave this debate a good ride! It has been interesting following your posts. Thanks to both of you.
    :)


    Thanks! It has been an great time too. I'll admit that we both said some things we shouldn't have but we both seemed to have recognized that and made amends. This can happen when someone has a strong passion about something. But fortunately for us, the Spirit shows us our error and helps us to seek and give forgiveness.

    August 15, 2007 at 11:34 am#64094
    kejonn
    Participant

    Gene,
    That was never my real intention. I can only reveal what I have been shown. My intention in debating the Trinity is too show that the lack of belief in the dogma is indeed scripturally and spiritually valid. And to show that those who disbelieve in it are not cultists and heretics, but true seekers. That is why my posts do not use the words “harlot” or “Babylon”.

    In the end, I just hope and pray that all will open their hearts and minds to Christ and His Father so the truth will become clear to them and that they can serve God without doubt in their heart.

    August 15, 2007 at 11:46 am#64096
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    t8

    Quote
    I also believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

    t8. You're so funny :D

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 881 through 900 (of 945 total)
123…4445464748
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account