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 - 161 through 180 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46750

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 28 2007,16:57)
    WJ wrote:

    Is it two Spirits that we have. The Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of God?
    ***********************

    The Father and his Son have (each) their own spirits; that is, WHO they are.  Just like you have a spirit, and I have a spirit.  

    The Father's spirit is “the Holy Spirit of God,” which is talked about in scriptures.  It is the spirit that fills us, and by whom we live and have our being.  When we speak of the One Spirit – this is the spirit of which we speak.

    The Son's spirit is “the spirit of Christ,” which is given to us by the Father when he “qualified” us to share in the inheritence of his son.  God says this:

    Col. 1:12, 13

    “…..giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of th Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

    How are we “qualified” to share in the kingdom of his Son?

    Gal 4:4-7 in part
    “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a women…under law….to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.  Because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, the spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”  SO YOU ARE NO LONGER A SLAVE, but a son……”

    We are “qualified” by God to be a son (and not a slave), BECAUSE God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts.  God did not send us “another” spirit other than his own.  Oh!  What did I just say?  It sounds lke I'm contradicting myself.  But, wait.  Hear me out.  What “spirit” did Jesus have “in” him?  Answer:  God's Holy spirit.  What spirit of Jesus annointed with?  Answer:  God's Holy Spirit.  For me, that does not mean the third person of God.  It means the Father only – just for clarification there.

    So if Jesus had God's Holy spirit inside of him, that is the spirit that I have inside of me.  Jesus was sharing the spirit of SONSHIP with us.  Not actually another “spirit.”  Does this make sense?  I believe that is what the verses in Galations are trying to show us.


    Not3in1

    No. I am still confused. It dosnt make sense.

    If you say that Jesus has a Spirit and God has a Spirit then that is 2 Spirits. So if the Spirit of the Son is in you or as the scriptures say Jesus is in you and yet you say Gods Spirit is in you then that means you have both Jesus Spirit and Gods Spirit in you.

    So is this what you mean?

    Does Jesus live in you and does God live in you?

    Please explain these verses…

    Rom 8:
    9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
    10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

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

    2 Cor 6:16
    And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    ???

    #46751
    Not3in1
    Participant

    By asking you this question, it may help me answer you better:

    Do you believe that God has a spirit, and Jesus has a different spirit? Or do they SHARE the One spirit?

    #46752

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 28 2007,22:22)
    By asking you this question, it may help me answer you better:

    Do you believe that God has a spirit, and Jesus has a different spirit?  Or do they SHARE the One spirit?


    Not3in1

    I am not shure how me answering your question will help you answer mine but, I have said many times…

    God is Spirit. There is One Spirit, Three persons, One God.

    This is scriptural.

    Jesus spoke of the three…

    Matt 28:19
    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    One Name, Three persons, all with the definate article.

    :)

    #46753
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    “Three persons,”
    Where is this written?

    #46754
    Phoenix
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 28 2007,16:57)
    WJ wrote:

    Is it two Spirits that we have. The Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of God?
    ***********************

    The Father and his Son have (each) their own spirits; that is, WHO they are.  Just like you have a spirit, and I have a spirit.  

    The Father's spirit is “the Holy Spirit of God,” which is talked about in scriptures.  It is the spirit that fills us, and by whom we live and have our being.  When we speak of the One Spirit – this is the spirit of which we speak.

    The Son's spirit is “the spirit of Christ,” which is given to us by the Father when he “qualified” us to share in the inheritence of his son.  God says this:

    Col. 1:12, 13

    “…..giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.  For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of th Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

    How are we “qualified” to share in the kingdom of his Son?

    Gal 4:4-7 in part
    “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a women…under law….to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.  Because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, the spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”  SO YOU ARE NO LONGER A SLAVE, but a son……”

    We are “qualified” by God to be a son (and not a slave), BECAUSE God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts.  God did not send us “another” spirit other than his own.  Oh!  What did I just say?  It sounds lke I'm contradicting myself.  But, wait.  Hear me out.  What “spirit” did Jesus have “in” him?  Answer:  God's Holy spirit.  What spirit of Jesus annointed with?  Answer:  God's Holy Spirit.  For me, that does not mean the third person of God.  It means the Father only – just for clarification there.

    So if Jesus had God's Holy spirit inside of him, that is the spirit that I have inside of me.  Jesus was sharing the spirit of SONSHIP with us.  Not actually another “spirit.”  Does this make sense?  I believe that is what the verses in Galations are trying to show us.


    Hi Not3in1

    Either you made perfect sense to me there or our minds are thinking alike. And I would like to say the same to Tim as well.

    However, though, the scripture John 1:1 throws this concept out of proportion. I must read some more into this.

    But first I must mention. Last night I explained to the elders of SDA my feelings about the Trinity. Although they explained their understanding of it I had to let them know that is the same understanding I have. So I explained them what some Trinitarians believe the Trinity means… that 1) God came down to be Jesus. Or 2) that God separated a portion of himself to come down and become Jesus. They disagreed with both notions but still agree with the Trinity. So, obviously there are heaps of ways in seeing this trinity LOL. Anyway, the subject got changed. And when this happens it tells me they dont want to discuss the matter anymore. Fair enough.

    We are studying the book of Mark at the moment and we were up to Chapter 10 last night. And we came across the verse…18″Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

    I just sat there and kept my mouth shut and waited to see if anyone in the group wouldnt mention anything about that. But no one did! So, yeah… as much as i love these people the Trinity is the only thing that separates me from them. And that is exactly how i felt last night.

    Another story i was told by a woman (whom isnt an SDA) and she was explaining to me about the Trinity, was that there was a bee in her house and she didnt want to kill it but try and shoo it out the window or door. She said that whatever she did was not working and at that instance she thought to herself…'if only I could become a bee to be able to guide it out the door'. I have read another story pretty much similar to this before as well.

    So can you imagine how my head feels? LOL. No wonder it is screaming WTF?

    But…my heart just wont let me accept the Trinity. And I dont understand why other peoples hearts dont feel the same. Which is why i wanted to discuss this with the elders to find out if their hearts had the same. One of them said that she had a hard time understanding it herself when she was younger. But now she understands. She is in her 60's now I think and she was raised with the church. So… maybe they all had doubts in their hearts years ago but maybe years of constantly being told there is a Trinity (brainwashing?) has now been set in their minds.

    I dont know. I dont want to speculate or accuse. They really are wonderful people. Just a shame that one little separation comes between us.

    And I have waffled on enough

    Hugs
    Phoenix

    Edit: I forgot to mention too that the elders pointed out the John 1:1 scripture to me. So yeah, as usual i was a bit lost for words.

    #46755
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Thanks for sharing your heart P,
    Once you are entangled by trinity as I was it seems it has some clinging tentacles around your feet and legs. Your mindset is trained to use it as a basis of everything so changing that mindset seems to challenge everything else of faith.

    #46756
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Actually, you didn't answer my question. But I understand why you cannot. These two questions, asked side-by-side, force you to look at Jesus as a seperate person from God, and that you cannot do, and still be a Trinitarian. If God has a spirit, and Jesus has a spirit, that makes “them” two individuals (not One God). Do you see?

    If not, then it is impossible for me to explain to you any further than I already have what I believe about the spirit of Jesus and the spirit of God. It seems to be clear to others, so I apologize that it has not been made clear to you. I doubt that either one of us will abandoned our faith, but there is always hope that one of us may be able to explain something to the other one and clarify a topic. That is what I was hoping would happen. But, at last we have come to this again. You cannot see my belief, and I cannot see yours. We both tried, didn't we? :)

    #46757
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Phoenix – hang in there, sister! It was hard for me, too, when I denounced the so-called triune God. But remember that Jesus told us we would be persecuted. We would be hated. All because he was hated first. We are in Christ, and so we can go directly to the Father and ask for wisdom, and comfort.

    What is an “SDA?”

    #46758
    Phoenix
    Participant

    Hi Not3in1

    Seventh Day Adventist *looks at Nick* :p

    Just a quick note too Not.. im am still going to get this editting thing done for you. Just havent got around to it yet.

    Hugs

    #46759

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 28 2007,23:15)
    Actually, you didn't answer my question.  But I understand why you cannot.  These two questions, asked side-by-side, force you to look at Jesus as a seperate person from God, and that you cannot do, and still be a Trinitarian.  If God has a spirit, and Jesus has a spirit, that makes “them” two individuals (not One God).  Do you see?

    If not, then it is impossible for me to explain to you any further than I already have what I believe about the spirit of Jesus and the spirit of God.  It seems to be clear to others, so I apologize that it has not been made clear to you.  I doubt that either one of us will abandoned our faith, but there is always hope that one of us may be able to explain something to the other one and clarify a topic.  That is what I was hoping would happen.  But, at last we have come to this again.  You cannot see my belief, and I cannot see yours.  We both tried, didn't we?  :)


    not3in1

    Thats ok you have ansered my question. You believe there is two Spirits that live in you and not one, because you believe that the Word/God yeshua is not God, One with the Father and the Spirit.

    To you Jesus is a man. But not deity. Therefore Gods Spirit is in you and Jesus the mans spirit is in you. Is that right?

    BTW Jesus is a seperate person from the Father but not seperate in his nature or class of being.

    Thanks

    :)

    #46760
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    You say
    “BTW Jesus is a seperate person from the Father but not seperate in his nature or class of being.”
    Not UNIQUE then?
    So when did this separate PERSON become ONE with GOD?

    #46761

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 29 2007,00:11)
    Hi W,
    You say
    “BTW Jesus is a seperate person from the Father but not seperate in his nature or class of being.”
    Not UNIQUE then?
    So when did this separate PERSON become ONE with GOD?


    NH

    He became “Unique” when he took on the likeness of flesh and was born the “Unique” Son of God!

    The second person the Word/God is from eternity.

    He has always been the Word/God who was with God!

    Therefore he has always been one with the Father!

    :)

    Some choose not to believe “all” of the scriptures, they must carry whiteout with them when they go to their Bibles.

    I choose to believe them all.

    How about you?   ???

    #46762
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi W,
    So being from eternity to you means he had no origins
    and there were always two…or is it three?

    #46763
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ wrote:
    BTW Jesus is a seperate person from the Father but not seperate in his nature or class of being.

    ****************************

    Even when I was a Trinitarian, this explaination of Jesus was always lacking for me. The reason is this: Jesus is a man. In fact, he is so much of a man that he called himself my brother! But God is NOT a man. How can the two be one, then? How can they share the same “being?”

    #46764
    Not3in1
    Participant

    WJ wrote:
    To you Jesus is a man. But not deity. Therefore Gods Spirit is in you and Jesus the mans spirit is in you. Is that right?

    ****************************************************

    Jesus is a divine man. Because of Christ, we can also partake of this divine nature.

    We must remember that the spirit that lives in Christ is of God. Christ is of God, and we are of Christ. We all (including Christ) share the same, One spirit (which is God the Father).

    So, no – I do not have two spirits in me.

    Thanks for this great discussion. I have seriously pondered some new things through this thread.

    #46765
    kenrch
    Participant

    When we receive the holy spirit we become part of the body. Jesus is the head of the body. If we are part of the body then we have Jesus as our head.

    #46766
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Good point, Ken.

    I always ask my husband to pray for things I need a quick answer to……..he only has to go through one head…..I have to go through two! :)

    Man is the head of women – Christ is the head of man – God is the head of Christ

    #46767
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 29 2007,23:32)
    So, no – I do not have two spirits in me.


    Romans 8:16
    The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

    Aside from God's Spirit that dwells in his children, do we not have our own spirit?

    What do others think?

    #46768
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 29 2007,17:47)
    Hi Not3in1

    Either you made perfect sense to me there or our minds are thinking alike. And I would like to say the same to Tim as well.

    However, though, the scripture John 1:1 throws this concept out of proportion. I must read some more into this.

    But first I must mention. Last night I explained to the elders of SDA my feelings about the Trinity. Although they explained their understanding of it I had to let them know that is the same understanding I have. So I explained them what some Trinitarians believe the Trinity means… that 1) God came down to be Jesus. Or 2) that God separated a portion of himself to come down and become Jesus. They disagreed with both notions but still agree with the Trinity. So, obviously there are heaps of ways in seeing this trinity LOL. Anyway, the subject got changed. And when this happens it tells me they dont want to discuss the matter anymore. Fair enough.

    We are studying the book of Mark at the moment and we were up to Chapter 10 last night. And we came across the verse…18″Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

    I just sat there and kept my mouth shut and waited to see if anyone in the group wouldnt mention anything about that. But no one did! So, yeah… as much as i love these people the Trinity is the only thing that separates me from them. And that is exactly how i felt last night.

    Another story i was told by a woman (whom isnt an SDA) and she was explaining to me about the Trinity, was that there was a bee in her house and she didnt want to kill it but try and shoo it out the window or door. She said that whatever she did was not working and at that instance she thought to herself…'if only I could become a bee to be able to guide it out the door'. I have read another story pretty much similar to this before as well.

    So can you imagine how my head feels? LOL. No wonder it is screaming WTF?

    But…my heart just wont let me accept the Trinity. And I dont understand why other peoples hearts dont feel the same. Which is why i wanted to discuss this with the elders to find out if their hearts had the same. One of them said that she had a hard time understanding it herself when she was younger. But now she understands. She is in her 60's now I think and she was raised with the church. So… maybe they all had doubts in their hearts years ago but maybe years of constantly being told there is a Trinity (brainwashing?) has now been set in their minds.

    I dont know. I dont want to speculate or accuse. They really are wonderful people. Just a shame that one little separation comes between us.

    And I have waffled on enough

    Hugs
    Phoenix

    Edit: I forgot to mention too that the elders pointed out the John 1:1 scripture to me. So yeah, as usual i was a bit lost for words.


    Hi Phoenix.

    The Trinity doctrine is probably what started or got denominations going in the first place, so it is highly unlikely that the true answer would be found in the system that it spawned.

    Once Rome made that doctrine the official one, it was then enforced and it created one of the first (if not the first) denomination. From there many people broke away from that Roman Church afterward, but kept the Trinity foundation and those churches became the daughters of the mother by reason of the same foundation. That is not to say that truth wasn't discovered on the way, but the foundation remained.

    So if we go to a denomination that is founded on this foundation, it would be extremely unlikely that you would be able to challenge that doctrine with them because in doing so you would be questioning their very foundation and such an act would be frowned upon and seen as an attack, even an act of treason.

    Therefore if people like us do not challenge the doctrine it probably will never be challenged.

    #46769
    Phoenix
    Participant

    Hi T8

    I agree. And that is sad. However, I have seen some reasonable arguments on both sides.

    Hugs
    Phoenix

Viewing 20 posts - 161 through 180 (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