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 - 81 through 100 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46633

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 24 2007,01:01)
    Who did Paul pray to in 2 Corinthians 12:8?


    Is 1:18

    Amen!

    :)

    #46634

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 24 2007,01:01)
    Who did Paul pray to in 2 Corinthians 12:8?


    Is 1:18

    Of course you and I know that to pray to any person other than God is Idolatry.

    Go tell it to Paul! He knew who his Lord and God was, he and Thomas must have had a talk. :)

    #46672
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    Jesus is the Gate.
    If you stand in the gateway you do not allow access to the other sheep going in and out and finding pasture.

    #46673
    Kyle
    Participant

    What are you talking about, Nick?

    I think they raise a good point that should at least be delt with fairly. Jesus seems to be prayed to in 2nd Corinthians. What exactly are the implications of this?

    #46674
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Prayer

    When in doubt….do what Jesus did. Jesus prayed to the Father – “…..forgive us ….”

    #46675
    Not3in1
    Participant

    In the 2 Cor. passage it says that Paul “pleaded” with the Lord. Not “prayed” to the Lord. But at any rate, the Lord answers him!

    Jesus told us to pray to the Father. That is what I do. However, I also pray to Jesus sometimes, too. I don't see any scripture that prohibts this? Is there?

    #46676
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi kyle,
    It is essential that the toe is in direct communication with the head and if you are led by the Spirit it will happen anyway. We fellowship with the Father and the Son.

    #46677
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,20:39)

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

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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    True.

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

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

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

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

    How does that sound?

    :)


    t8

    This was the questions..

    have a couple of questions for you.

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

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

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

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

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

    ???


    Like I said WorhippingJesus, if you give me an answer then I will answer you. I think that is fair enough. Otherwise I just don't see the benefit to diversionary tactics.

    I look forward to your answer and will be happy to give you one.

    My questions are:

    1. Why don't you pray to them (Father, Son, Spirit) by using the correct plural language?
    2. If you pray to God with singular grammar, then you must pray to the Trinity substance which is the part of God that is one according to most Trinity doctrines. So why pray to the substance instead of the persons? Seems strange to me.

    #46678
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Nick

    Quote
    Hi kyle,
    It is essential that the toe is in direct communication with the head and if you are led by the Spirit it will happen anyway. We fellowship with the Father and the Son.

    Nick. Don't you fellowship with the Holy Ghost? Is your toe and head in direct communication?

    2Co 13:14  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen

    #46679
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi CB,
    JUst as the finger of God is one with God.

    #46680

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2007,02:43)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2007,20:39)

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

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


    To WorshippingJesus.

    True.

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

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

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

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

    How does that sound?

    :)


    t8

    This was the questions..

    have a couple of questions for you.

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

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

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

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

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

    ???


    Like I said WorhippingJesus, if you give me an answer then I will answer you. I think that is fair enough. Otherwise I just don't see the benefit to diversionary tactics.

    I look forward to your answer and will be happy to give you one.

    My questions are:

    1. Why don't you pray to them (Father, Son, Spirit) by using the correct plural language?
    2. If you pray to God with singular grammar, then you must pray to the Trinity substance which is the part of God that is one according to most Trinity doctrines. So why pray to the substance instead of the persons? Seems strange to me.


    t8

    The questions was put to you first my friend.

    But thats fine you play your little game.

    I have answered your questions if you read my post.

    Yes I do have fellowship with the Father and the Son and the Spirit.

    You try and create a diversion by the foolish statement of praying to Gods substance.

    A Smoke screen to avoid answering the questions I have put to you first.

    In fact I have put the question to you about the writings of yours on the Holy Spirit on this forum many times.

    Where are they? You have never answered that question.

    You are not being true here t8 you post two attachments leaving the one out that shows you did not have a question when you started this, and then when I posed questions to you wouldnt answer but accused me of not answering you and thats why you wont answer me.

    Here it is again, Thiis is your quote that you started this whole thing, look there is no question.

    You said…

    Quote

    To WorshippingJesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Do you see a question in your words t8? No just sarcasm.

    Then you create a smoke screen after I give you questions because you didnt want to or couldnt answer and even accuse me of not answering your questions and make this the reason why you didnt answer mine.

    After I had already posted questions you said…

    Quote

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

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

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

    How does that sound?

    Whatever t8.

    :O

    #46681
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To WorshippingJesus.

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2007,02:43)
    t8

    The questions was put to you first my friend.


    Your questions were a response to something I wrote. The thing was you never replied to what I wrote. You just asked questions that took the focus away from my challenge.

    I usually view this as diversionary and I have seen too much of this kind of thing. It is quite a convenient way to avoid answering something challenging and it is the main weapon that Trinitarians have used against scriptures that are contradictory to the Trinity.

    However in saying that I will admit that lately there has been a bit more facing up to such scriptures, although the reasoning usually fails, at least some are looking more closely at some of the hundreds of scriptures that contradict the Trinity doctrine.

    The usual line of defense I have witnessed over the years from posting here was to ignore those hundred or so scriptures and concentrate on 10 or so that could be swayed their way due to the multiple ways in which they could be interpreted.

    It is amazing when a new Trinity guy comes here with the same 10 scriptures and they think that this blows away the hundreds of scriptures that cannot be reconciled with the Trinity doctrine.

    I have always said that a true doctrine doesn't contradict any scripture.

    Anyway let's see if you answered my post (my little game as you call it).

    #46682
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2007,02:43)
    You said…
    Quote

    To WorshippingJesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Do you see a question in your words t8? No just sarcasm.


    To WorshippingJesus.

    I see a challenge and I also see that you ran away from it by posting questions that gave no answer to what I wrote.

    #46683
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2007,02:43)
    Yes I do have fellowship with the Father and the Son and the Spirit.

    You try and create a diversion by the foolish statement of praying to Gods substance.


    OK as I thought.

    You haven't given an answer to the challenge in how does a Trinitarian use singular language when praying to a triune god.

    So I will ask the question again which I have asked before and implied in the original post that unfortunately offended you because you thought I was making a mockery of your prayer life.

    If you fellowship with 3 members of the Trinity, why is it that you do not use plural language when praying to THEM.

    If you would answer that question it would be a great start.

    The substance thing I wrote about was pure speculation due to trying to figure out how a Trinitarian can pray to HIM, yet knowingly praying to a Triune God made of of 3 persons. This is a logical conclusion and not a smoke screen because the one part of the Trinity god is the substance.

    My challenge remains but if prefer to run away or try to divert the challenge and questions, then I will assume that you put your head in the sand.

    Are you willing to pop your head above the sand and give me an answer? In other words, do you have an answer as to what you believe. Because if you do not, then why should anyone listen to you?

    #46684

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2007,10:17)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2007,02:43)
    Yes I do have fellowship with the Father and the Son and the Spirit.

    You try and create a diversion by the foolish statement of praying to Gods substance.


    OK as I thought.

    You haven't given an answer to the challenge in how does a Trinitarian use singular language when praying to a triune god.

    So I will ask the question again which I have asked before and implied in the original post that unfortunately offended you because you thought I was making a mockery of your prayer life.

    If you fellowship with 3 members of the Trinity, why is it that you do not use plural language when praying to THEM.

    If you would answer that question it would be a great start.

    The substance thing I write is pure speculation when trying to understand how a Trinitarian can pray to HIM, yet knowingly praying to a Triune God made of of 3 persons. This is a logical conclusion and not a smoke screen because the one part of the Trinity god is the substance.

    My challenge remains but if prefer to run away or try to divert the challenge and questions, then I will assume that you put your head in the sand.

    Are you willing to pop your head above the sand and give me an answer? In other words, do you have an answer as to what you believe. Because if you do not, then why should anyone listen to you?


    t8

    There was no challenge. All it was is sarcasm and inflamatory language about my prayer life.

    Here it is again…

    Quote
    To WorshippingJesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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


    I have answered your questions go back over the post and see.

    You dont like my answer fine, but dont cast the shadow on me when you are the one that hasnt even attempted to answer my questions which I posed to you first.

    Especially the question about Holy Spirit writtings on this BB or forum.

    Where is the Holy Spirit writings t8? Everbody is listening.

    Isnt the work of the Holy Spirit a huge part of our Christion faith?

    ???

    #46685
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi WorhippingJesus.

    Here is the question that came from my post.
    I repeat that I am not ridiculing your prayer life, but I admit to ridiculing the Trinity doctrine.

    Q: If you fellowship with 3 members of the Trinity, why is it that you do not use plural language when praying to THEM.

    I couldn't find the answer to that question, but you say you have posted the answer. Could I ask you to repost just the answer to that question in a following post. That way I (and others) won't have to wade through mountains of text to find it.

    Thanks.

    #46686

    Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2007,22:18)
    Hi WorhippingJesus.

    Here is the question that came from my post.
    I repeat that I am not ridiculing your prayer life, but I admit to ridiculing the Trinity doctrine.

    Q: If you fellowship with 3 members of the Trinity, why is it that you do not use plural language when praying to THEM.

    I couldn't find the answer to that question, but you say you have posted the answer. Could I ask you to repost just the answer to that question in a following post. That way I (and others) won't have to wade through mountains of text to find it.

    Thanks.


    t8

    You didnt look very hard.

    But just to show that I have nothing to hide and that you are being illusive.

    I will clarify what I have already said though to me it is clear.

    Of course I fully expect you to answer my questions afterward.

    I said in the previous post

    “Couple of scriptures”…

    Mk 10:14
    But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

    Would you forbid little children to come to Christ “through prayer” ?

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

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

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

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

    Do the above scriptures still apply for all men today?

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

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

    As far as the Spirit…

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

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

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

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

    t8.

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

    It might have something to do with “substance”!”

    End of Post.

    Now your question is

    Quote

    If you fellowship with 3 members of the Trinity, why is it that you do not use plural language when praying to THEM.

    In answer to your question I will clarify the scriptures above as follows…

    If I use the word “God” in my prayer, I am refering to One God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Supporting Scriptures:

    Rom 10:1
    Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

    Heb 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    I may pray…
    Father thank you for sending Jesus, and Father I ask that you bring my friend to a saving knowledge of who Jesus is, in the name of Jesus , Amen.

    I may pray…
    Jesus thank you for giving your body as a living sacrifice for our sins, and showing us who the Father is.

    Supporting Sciptures:

    Acts 7:59
    And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

    2 Cor 12:8
    For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

    Matt 6:6
    But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

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

    Or I may pray…
    Holy Spirit, Strengthen me, and fill me, you are my teacher and guide, lead me in the way I should go.

    But mostly it is the Spirit praying through me. For the Spirit is the teacher and the Parakletos.

    So the Holy Spirit may do the praying through me by speaking in tongues according to…

    Sopporting scriptures:

    Jude 1:20
    But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

    And…

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

    And…

    1 Cor 14:2
    For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

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

    Summary:

    2 Cor 13:14
    The grace of the “Lord Jesus Christ”, and the “love of God”, and the “communion ( koinonia), of the Holy Ghost”, be with you all. Amen.

    Three persons, ONE Spirit, ONE GOD!

    So t8.

    Do you have fellowship with the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

    Is there One “Spirit”?

    And where can we find your writtings on the Holy Spirit?

    ???

    #46687
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You quote,
    2 Cor 13:14
    The grace of the “Lord Jesus Christ”, and the “love of God”, and the “communion ( koinonia), of the Holy Ghost”, be with you all. Amen.

    God in heaven showers his love and His Spirit
    on His children on earth
    in Christ.

    #46688
    Not3in1
    Participant

    When you pray to the Father, you say at the end, “In Jesus name.” When you pray to Jesus, what do you say at the end? When you pray to the Holy Spirit, what do you say at the end?

    So is it only when you pray to the Father that you are “praying in Jesus' name?” And if so, why?

    I'm confused.

    #46689
    Not3in1
    Participant

    I have fellowship with God THROUGH his spirit! I have fellowship with Jesus THROUGH the spirit of Jesus that is within me, by which I call out, “Abba, Father.” I don't have the spirit of God AND the spirit of Christ within me. For there is only One spirit, right? It's a bonding thing with Christ. Not another person that he is giving us.

    If I don't have the spirit of Christ in me – I have no fellowship with him. This is not “another person” that I am fellowshiping with. This is the oneness that Jesus and the Father have as well. This is the oneness of spirit that Jesus prayed about in John 17. He wanted everyone to be “one” with his Father the way he was! How can that be accomplished? By the spirit. Spirit of God within each of us.

    Otherwise, there would be more than ONE spirit. We would have three SPIRITS: the Holy Ghost, the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ…..

    Either we have One spirit or we don't. The Father and Jesus do not share the SAME SPIRIT. There are no scriptures to support that view. At least I have read them.

Viewing 20 posts - 81 through 100 (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