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 - 101 through 120 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46690
    NickHassan
    Participant

    amen

    #46691
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 27 2007,05:13)
    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.


    Not3in1,
    You seem to be equating the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God. Just so I understand you correctly can you answer this question for me? Is the “Spirit of Christ” the personal spirit of the Yeshua?

    Tell me what you think.

    #46692
    Not3in1
    Participant

    In the physical sense – within me – no.

    Jesus said we could be one with the Father as he was. If Jesus is the second person in a Trinity, that would be ridiculous for him to pray such a thing, wouldn't it? He prayed that we could be one with his Father the same way that he is one with him……through a spirit of union – a spirit of brotherhood – a spirit of “one for all, and all for one,” ——-

    John 17:23
    “I in them, and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

    #46693

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 27 2007,04:58)
    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.


    not3in1

    Tacking the name of Jesus on the end of a prayer means nothing iif we are not abiding in him.

    Men have been taught that simply throwing the name of Jesus around as some magical formula that they are gonna be heard.

    Example:

    Acts 19:13
    Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you *by Jesus* whom Paul preacheth.

    And as we have already seen…

    2 Cor 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.

    There is no secret formula for living in the Spirit or God living in us.

    Jesus said…

    Jn 15:7
    If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it “shall” be done unto you.

    We abide in him by his Spirit, which is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit which is God who abides in us and fills us.

    Having the Spirit of the Son in us means that we can come boldly into his throne room through the veil of his flesh.

    Heb 4:16
    Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    There is no mention of in the Name of Jesus here, because we are in his name, because we are in him and he is in us.

    If you want to tack Jesus on the end of the prayer, fine.
    I see nothing wrong with it, but dont think you will recieve anything from him just because you use his name.

    Search and see if there is a prayer in the scriptures where an Apostle uses “in Jesus name” at the end of a prayer.

    As I said before, you willl see Apostles or believers do many mighty works in his name, because they were in him and his words abided in them.

    Matt 18:
    19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
    20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    This is why its so important to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.

    There is strength in numbers, not to mention we grow in the Word and Spirit.

    1 Jn 5:14
    And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
    Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Living Word of God.

    James 1:
    5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
    7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord (kurios).

    This kind of faith comes from abiding in him and his words abiding in us.

    But who is the wisdom of God? Jesus.

    Then shall we ask God for wisdom in faith so that we may recieve from the Lord Jesus!

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

    Blessings
    :)

    #46694
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote
    In the physical sense – within me – no.


    Then how would you explain these NT statements?:

    John 14:20
    20In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

    Romans 8:10
    10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

    Galatians 4:6
    6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

    2 Corinthians 3:16-18
    16but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

    2 Corinthians 13:5
    5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

    Ephesians 3:17
    17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

    Colossians 1:27
    27to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

    Colossians 3:11
    11a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

    #46696
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi w,
    You say
    “Having the Spirit of the Son in us means that we can come boldly into his throne room through the veil of his flesh.

    Heb 4:16
    Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    There is no mention of in the Name of Jesus here, because we are in his name, because we are in him and he is in us.”

    True.

    But the throne of Grace is that of the Father.

    As also Christ tore the temple curtain of his flesh that we might access the Holy of Holies-where God dwelled.
    He is not Almighty God but the priest and mediator for God.

    #46695
    Not3in1
    Participant

    I asked these questions of you, because I have been in services where they begin with prayer to the Father, then somewhere in the middle they are addressing Jesus, and at the end they say, “In the name of Jesus.”” So they were praying to Jesus and then also tacked on the “In the name of Jesus” at the end. Confusing. I sometimes wonder to myself if they have lost track of who they are praying to? Because why would you pray to Jesus and then say, “In Jesus name, Amen.” That just doesn't sound right, ya know?

    #46697

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2007,06:06)
    Hi w,
    You say
    “Having the Spirit of the Son in us means that we can come boldly into his throne room through the veil of his flesh.

    Heb 4:16
    Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    There is no mention of in the Name of Jesus here, because we are in his name, because we are in him and he is in us.”

    True.

    But the throne of Grace is that of the Father.

    As also Christ tore the temple curtain of his flesh that we might access the Holy of Holies-where God dwelled.
    He is not Almighty God but the priest and mediator for God.


    NH

    Look at the context…

    Heb 4:14
    14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, *Jesus the Son of God*, let us hold fast our profession.
    15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
    16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need

    Jesus is still our King and Priest!

    And yes he is in his Fathers throne…

    Rev 7:17
    For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

    There is none other but God that can sit in this throne.

    :)

    #46698
    Not3in1
    Participant

    If Jesus were physically IN us, and the Father were physically IN us……….wouldn't that be two that are in us? Or are you of the mind that God and Jesus are the same “spirit.”

    Besides, we cannot be “one” as God and Jesus are (according to the Trinity). So obviously, Jesus was praying in John 17 for a “oneness” and unity that we COULD enjoy with both of them.

    There is only One Spririt, and that is God.

    #46699

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 27 2007,06:16)
    I asked these questions of you, because I have been in services where they begin with prayer to the Father, then somewhere in the middle they are addressing Jesus, and at the end they say, “In the name of Jesus.””  So they were praying to Jesus and then also tacked on the “In the name of Jesus” at the end.  Confusing.  I sometimes wonder to myself if they have lost track of who they are praying to?  Because why would you pray to Jesus and then say, “In Jesus name, Amen.”  That just doesn't sound right, ya know?


    Not3in1

    I suppose if you were praying to the Father and tacked “in Fathers Name” on the end, it wouldnt sound right either would it?

    :)

    #46700
    Not3in1
    Participant

    No, it wouldn't. But what do you mean?

    #46701
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Romans 8:9-11
    9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
    10 if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
    11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

    Paul certainly equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ. He used the terminology interchangably in this text….

    :)

    #46702
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Do you mean to say that if we are praying to the Father we tack on, “In Jesus name.” If we are praying to the Son we tack on, “In the name of the Father.” And if we are praying to the Holy Spirit we tack on, “?”

    #46703
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,

    I agree that we need to study context.

    ” 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, *Jesus the Son of God*, let us hold fast our profession.
    15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
    16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need”

    So if Jesus in this verse is shown to be the priest TO GOD
    how likely is it that he was also the GOD to Whom he was priest?

    #46704
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 27 2007,06:21)
    If Jesus were physically IN us, and the Father were physically IN us……….wouldn't that be two that are in us?


    well now that you mention it….Yes!

    John 14:23
    23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

    Two persons, one divine Spirit…

    Unless you have a better explanation.

    #46705
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2007,20:33)
    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.


    Yay, the answer was in there.

    So as I said earlier, you pray to God using singular language because you are praying to the substance which is the one part of God according to the Trinity doctrine.

    You pray to the one substance and then are at liberty to address any of the persons within the substance.

    Thank you for clarifying that and I just want everyone who reads this to see how ridiculous the Trinity doctrine is that they pray to the 1 substance and address any of the 3 persons that are spawned or within the substance.

    This is not meant to be demeaning to anyone's prayer life for God certainly hears his children and I am not saying you are not his child, the point is to show how silly the Trinity doctrine really is.

    Feel free to take this further if you wish WorshippingJesus, but it is my turn to answer you and I will when I have a reasonable amount of time to do so.

    Thanks.

    #46706
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Dwelling in you. Yes. But think about this logically for a moment. If you are a Trinitarian, you cannot say that both God and Jesus “dwell” in you physically. Does also the Holy Ghost “dwell” in you physically? Are you to mean that we have a Triune God dwelling in us physically?

    Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and his Father are one. If you are a Trinitarian, do you mean to say that you think Jesus was praying that we also could become God or Gods? Do you see where this leads? It cannot be a physical dwelling, but rather a figure of speech. Of course we are “in” Christ. Of course God “dwells” in us. But physically?

    #46707

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 27 2007,06:26)
    Do you mean to say that if we are praying to the Father we tack on, “In Jesus name.”  If we are praying to the Son we tack on, “In the name of the Father.”  And if we are praying to the Holy Spirit we tack on, “?”


    not3in1

    Im saying that simply tacking on a name in prayer means nothing if we are not in him.

    :)

    #46708
    Not3in1
    Participant

    If only TWO in us……..why not THREE? I tell ya, the Holy Ghost always gets what Patty shot at! :)

    #46709
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ – gotcha, thanks.

Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (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