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 - 921 through 940 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #67167
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To Laurel.

    Quote (Laurel @ Sep. 23 2007,10:36)
    Other Author in Dec. 2007
    at least that's what I could make of it. My file is jazzed up with some wierd editing format. I have to research more to see if this is correct info.


    Oh I see what you are saying.

    You are talking about this page:
    https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08.htm

    It is an HTML document, so it is best viewed through a browser, even when it is saved to your computer.

    The page was written about 5 years ago.

    :)

    #67262
    Laurel
    Participant

    t8,
    Yeah, that's it! That is how I found heaven.net

    Who wrote it? Yhank you for the tip.

    #67263
    Laurel
    Participant

    Check this out!

    Trinity Test

    Here is a simple but effective test.
    Replace the word 'God' in the bible with 'Trinity' (or Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and then read a random collection of verses that have the word God in them.
    E.g., John 14:1
    “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
    OK, so trust in the (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and also in me. That makes 4. Who is 'me', if the son is already mentioned?
    John 3:16
    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
    So the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his son. That makes 4. Given this reasoning there must be 2 sons.
    Colossians 1:3
    We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
    So the Trinity is the Father of Jesus. But wait isn't Jesus part of the Trinity?
    All verses that mention God and his son are rendered meaningless with a Trinitarian understanding. But Trinitarians do actually interpret God in these verses as the Father out of necessity, but not in the verses that do not mention the son.
    E.g., 1 John 2:17
    The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
    A Trinitarian would most likely say that this was the Father, Son, & Spirit.
    But they would also probably say that the following verse is only the Father.
    Revelation 1
    The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
    Isn't that the weirdest thing. God is the Trinity except when the son is also mentioned. Coincidence or simply picking and choosing the meaning depending on what their itching ears want to hear?
    I leave you with the following verse:
    1 John 5
    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

    I found this on the link above.

    #67264
    Laurel
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 30 2007,20:35)
    Thanks Laurel, but can you put it succinctly and in you own words please. I honestly can't be bothered wading my way through this document.

    Peace.


    Is,

    Take my advice, you need a day off and you'll have to learn to swim.

    :) :) :)

    #91583
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (Laurel @ Oct. 02 2007,12:03)
    Check this out!

    Trinity Test

    Here is a simple but effective test.
    Replace the word 'God' in the bible with 'Trinity' (or Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and then read a random collection of verses that have the word God in them.
    E.g., John 14:1
    “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
    OK, so trust in the (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and also in me. That makes 4. Who is 'me', if the son is already mentioned?
    John 3:16
    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
    So the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his son. That makes 4. Given this reasoning there must be 2 sons.
    Colossians 1:3
    We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
    So the Trinity is the Father of Jesus. But wait isn't Jesus part of the Trinity?
    All verses that mention God and his son are rendered meaningless with a Trinitarian understanding. But Trinitarians do actually interpret God in these verses as the Father out of necessity, but not in the verses that do not mention the son.
    E.g., 1 John 2:17
    The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
    A Trinitarian would most likely say that this was the Father, Son, & Spirit.
    But they would also probably say that the following verse is only the Father.
    Revelation 1
    The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
    Isn't that the weirdest thing. God is the Trinity except when the son is also mentioned. Coincidence or simply picking and choosing the meaning depending on what their itching ears want to hear?
    I leave you with the following verse:
    1 John 5
    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

    I found this on the link above.


    Hi Larel,
    What a funny narration it is?

    #97853
    Hanoch
    Participant

    Wow, so many posts.

    #104132
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Yes, and here is another.

    #109475
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    WJ

    From the start of this debate :

    Quote

    Quote
    Make up your mind.

    Everything is everything. All power is All power and Jesus has it. You ever think of how much power that is?

    **********

    WJ – obviously you cannot grasp my point. Do me the honor of pondering it for a while and see if anything comes to you? And I will ponder “how much power” Jesus has. :)

    All power is all power? – look up that word in the Greek you will find it denotes authority (exousia) as opposed to actual dynamic power (dounomus)
    Jesus has the authority as Joseph had authority to govern on behalf of and in the name of Pharoah. The power is not of himself but is given (granted) as the scriptures declare. So everything is not necessarily everything and all power is not necessarily all power.
    Context and therefore true meaning is only accessible through understanding and by the help of the Holy Spirit.
    IMO

    #109536
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Thanks malcolm.

    #109904

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 03 2008,10:10)

    WJ

    From the start of this debate :

    Quote

    Quote
    Make up your mind.

    Everything is everything. All power is All power and Jesus has it. You ever think of how much power that is?

    **********

    WJ – obviously you cannot grasp my point.  Do me the honor of pondering it for a while and see if anything comes to you?  And I will ponder “how much power” Jesus has.  :)


    Hi MF

    malcolm wrote:

    All power is all power? – look up that word in the Greek you will find it denotes authority (exousia) as opposed to actual dynamic power (dounomus)


    True, but maybe yoiu can explain to me how one can have all power and not all authority.

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 03 2008,10:10)

    Jesus has the authority as Joseph had authority to govern on behalf of and in the name of Pharoah.


    But if Joseph had “all authority” then he would be equal to the Pharoah. But we know that Joseph didnt have all authority for the throne was reserved for the pharoah. However Yeshua has “all authority” and sits in the throne with the Father.

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 03 2008,10:10)
    The power is not of himself but is given (granted) as the scriptures declare.


    The power is given post incarnation. Yeshau who was in the form of God, “the Word that was God” emptied himself according to Phil 2 and came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known John 1:18

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 03 2008,10:10)

    So everything is not necessarily everything and all power is not necessarily all power.


    Really? Where I come from “all” means “all” and “everything” means “everything”.

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 03 2008,10:10)
    Context and therefore true meaning is only accessible through understanding and by the help of the Holy Spirit.
    IMO

    This is a true statement…

    He himself is before all things and “all things are held together in him“. Col 1:14

    To hold all things together takes all authority and all power.

    The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and “he sustains all things by his powerful word Heb 1:3

    If he “by his word” sustains all things then that takes all power and all authority.

    WJ

    #109914
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    Do you think your constant use of inference produces foundational truths that you can teach from?
    Why not just let scripture teach you as it is sacred?

    #109918

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,12:54)
    Hi WJ,
    Do you think your constant use of inference produces foundational truths that you can teach from?
    Why not just let scripture teach you as it is sacred?


    NH

    Heckle, Heckle, Heckle.

    It would help if you presented some dialogue here rather than just act like a badger.

    Or maybe you do not have a response.

    WJ

    #109920
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    Your towers of earthly babel do not stand much wind.

    #110048
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Hi WJ

    Quote
    But if Joseph had “all authority” then he would be equal to the Pharoah. But we know that Joseph didnt have all authority for the throne was reserved for the pharoah. However Yeshua has “all authority” and sits in the throne with the Father.


    Jesus presently sits upon the throne of GOD for one very good reason, as the propitiation sacrifice he represents the blood upon the Mercy seat. When that blood is removed from the Mercy seat it becomes God’s Judgment seat. It is his blood that presently intercedes for us.
    Another thing to notice concerning Jesus present seating position is that he himself states that it presently is not his throne but rather His Fathers’


    REVELATION 3:21
    To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

    Jesus will sit with us upon his throne (the throne of David as the Son of David) in the Millennial reign (imo) with us as King and Queen – husband and bride.  
    Also based upon your logic the verse above would then indicate that we also must receive all power and all authority as it clearly says we will sit with him in his throne. If that is the same throne as his Father and his sitting upon it proves his absolute power and authority then are we not also included? I don’t think so.

    #110049
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Quote

    Hi MF

    malcolm wrote:

    All power is all power? – look up that word in the Greek you will find it denotes authority (exousia) as opposed to actual dynamic power (dounomus)

    Quote
    True, but maybe you can explain to me how one can have all power and not all authority.

    In context to your original comment I believe (forgive me if I am mistaken) that you were referring to the place in scripture where Jesus tells his disciples that ‘all power’ is given to him.

    My reply was in this context to point out the fact that the word power there should actually read as ‘authority’.

    In this context he does not have all power and not all authority rather he has all authority but the power belongs to God.

    By way of poor illustration –
    The officer who directs traffic in a situation where the lights have failed or whatever, has the authority of the city, as his badge and uniform indicates – to direct the traffic. When he puts up his hand to stop an oncoming truck – he has full authority to do so in the name of the city. If the truck’s brakes are shot however he had better get out of the way quick or he will be flattened. In other words he does not have the dynamic power to stop the truck.
    Poor illustration but hopefully it delivers the point…

    #110089
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Good posts Malcolm.

    #110090
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,13:33)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,12:54)
    Hi WJ,
    Do you think your constant use of inference produces foundational truths that you can teach from?
    Why not just let scripture teach you as it is sacred?


    NH

    Heckle, Heckle, Heckle.

    It would help if you presented some dialogue here rather than just act like a badger.

    Or maybe you do not have a response.

    WJ


    Actually Nick has a good point and there is no good reason to reject what he said.

    #111098
    Laurel
    Participant

    Wow,
    You people haven't grown a bit since months ago when I last popped in. If you want to know the important matters, first you need the milk of the Word. Afterward you can have meat. Milk refers to learning and keeping the commandments.

    So from this perspective, there aren't any people here keeping them huh?

    Yes, the 4th one too!

    I get dizzy when I come here and read the circles you all make with your man-made doctrine and imagined wisdom.

    When are you all gonna wake up? Who are you helping? Step back and listen to yourselves.

    The trinity is the basis for all christain faith. Your mother would be proud of your defiance. Her forhead reveals the truth. It reads, WHORE OF BABYLON!!!!

    Really there as so many doctrines that differ fromone christian to another, but they all agree that the trinity is real, they just can't proove it and say it is because of their faith.

    They base their faith on a fairytale that goes bact to Nimrod, Sumramis and Tammuz! He is the sun you worship. He is the sun of the trinity!!!!

    Scripture reveals it and you are all to blind to see it because you can't even keep the commandments!

    Nimrod and his high places are still in the world today. YHWH Elohim will destroy all false worship.

    Quit bickering and listen to Jeremiah.

    WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

    #111122
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Hey Laurel,

    It doesn't appear that you have changed at all either. Still mocking and critizing…..still thinking that you are better than all of us “people” who can only digest milk (spare me).

    James 3:17
    But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

    It doesn't appear that you have any heavenly wisdom to share with us. Maybe next time you pop-in to visit us you will have a grown a little more in the Lord, huh? Stick with the milk.

    Milk is good for all of us. In fact, pass the jug – I'll take a tall tumbler full. Mmmmm!

    Mandy

    #111134
    942767
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 27 2008,06:59)
    Hey Laurel,

    It doesn't appear that you have changed at all either.  Still mocking and critizing…..still thinking that you are better than all of us “people” who can only digest milk (spare me).

    James 3:17
    But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

    It doesn't appear that you have any heavenly wisdom to share with us.  Maybe next time you pop-in to visit us you will have a grown a little more in the Lord, huh?  Stick with the milk.

    Milk is good for all of us.  In fact, pass the jug – I'll take a tall tumbler full.  Mmmmm!

    Mandy


    Amen. I agree.

Viewing 20 posts - 921 through 940 (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