Kangaroo Jack versus t8 on christ's divinity

[KangarooJack]

t8 said:

Quote

OK, I see that. But I disagree that it is appropriate or right in this case. It is easy to see that Jesus is revealing the true one and we know that Jesus didn't come to reveal himself or to talk on his own behalf, but that he came to reveal his Father to us and his Father is his God and the true God. We know this from other verses. I can see that grammatically speaking that both positions are possible given that there is no grammar in the base text and that translators are free to add grammar to render it the way they think it is meant to be rendered. But the text itself demands that the true God is the Father because Jesus came to reveal the true God. He didn't come to reveal himself. If you take your view, this verse misses out the Father completely and I think that in your honest moment you know that the Father is not being missed out here.

t8,

We know from other texts that Jesus came to reveal the Father. But that is not what this text is saying. This text does not say that Jesus came to reveal Him who is true. It literally says that He came to reveal that which is true and that we are in that which is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ.

The word “even” means “that is.”

“We know that He was manifested to reveal that which is true, and we are in that which is true, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. THIS is the true God and eternal life.”

Why should the text “demand” that the true God be the Father when the true God is also called the “eternal life?” The “eternal life” is explicitly identified as the Word (Jesus) which was with the Father (1:2).

The Father is never called the “eternal life.”

Quote

There is no instance in the writings of John, inwhich the appellation LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase 'the true God' and 'eternal life,' should be applied to him. Barnes Notes p. 353-354

t8:

Quote

I can see that grammatically speaking that both positions are possible….

It has become impossible for you to prove your case now that you have said that my position is grammatically “possible.”

the Roo

[Proclaimer]

Wrong. Without commas you can prove it either way. But context for the whole of scripture easily shows which interpretation is correct. “For there is one God the Father”. “I pray that they will know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”.

If something can have multiple meanings, then in context you know the true meaning.

If I said that I was the president, then you could argue that I was the leader of the USA, when in reality, I might be the president of a social committee. Context determines what is being said.

So let us apply context by quoting a similar verse. One that also mentions the true God.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:3 gives you a key in unlocking the true meaning of

1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

In both examples, they are talking of 2.

[Ed J]

Hi T8,

Many places in “the Bible” the Scripture writers are talking about God being in Jesus.
Why does WJ and Jack continually overlook this all important “Biblical doctrine”?

1 John 5:20 20: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we
may know him(YHVH) that is true(John 17:3), and we are in him(YHVH) that is true(John 17:22),
even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God(YHVH), and eternal life(John 17:3).

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Proclaimer]

Ed J.

They are full of their own understanding and have given no room for scripture to speak in this matter.

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 23 2011,10:30)

Ed J. They are full of their own understanding and have given no room for scripture to speak in this matter.

Hi T8,

This is the point I continually make,
Glad to see you were able to pick this “Bible Truth” out!
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James(Mk.6:3),
to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

ED J said:

Quote

Many places in “the Bible” the Scripture writers are talking about God being in Jesus. Why does WJ and Jack continually overlook this all important “Biblical doctrine”?

You speak a half truth and a half truth is a lie. It says also that Jesus is IN the Father.

KJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

t8 said:

Quote

We are in him who is true, (God) by being in his son Jesus Christ. This sorts your misconception out. You also have to admit that this way of reading it is true in principle.

I have already given you the literal reading

The is no personal pronoun “him” in the text. So your argument is inconclusive at best. It is assumed that the definite article functions as the personal pronoun “him.” But the article may just as accurately read as it is written: “That we may know that which is true, and that we are in that which is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God AND eternal life.”

John said that we know that which is true; we are also in that which is true, [namely], in His Son Jesus Christ. Then he says, “He is the true God and eternal life.”

The definite article is treated as it is written in 1:1 which says, “That which was from the beginning….” Then it goes on to describe “the Word of Life.” There is no doubt here that the article translated “that which“ refers to Jesus.

Back to 5:20: The “true God” is also identified as the “eternal life.” It says, “He is the true God AND eternal life.” In 1:2 Jesus is expressly called the “eternal life.” Therefore, He is the “true God and eternal life” in 5:20.

t8:

Quote

You also have to admit that this way of reading it is true in principle.

Where did I say this? I said that there is no personal “him” in the text. It is the definite article which some translations treat as the personal pronoun. But the same article is used in 1:1 which says “That (not him) which was from the beginning….”

You're taking us around in circles.

Roo

[Ed J]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 24 2011,06:44)

ED J said: Quote Many places in “the Bible” the Scripture writers are talking about God being in Jesus. Why does WJ and Jack continually overlook this all important “Biblical doctrine”? You speak a half truth and a half truth is a lie. It says also that Jesus is IN the Father. KJ

Hi Jack,

If I tell you I'm going to take you to the store,
and I plan on also taking you to see a movie.
Does that mean I lied to you, because I did
not tell you everything at the beginning?
Your logic is “FLAWED”; Mr. Kangaroo!

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH! (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org   …(Eccl.9:12-16)

[Worshipping Jesus]

ED

Why are you interupting this debate?

WJ

[Ed J]

Hi WJ,

Sorry, I just read the “Title Bar”!
I did not realize it was closed;
again I apologize to all.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 24 2011,17:24)

Hi WJ, Sorry, I just read the “Title Bar”! I did not realize it was closed; again I apologize to all. Your brother in Christ, Jesus! Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Cool!

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Roo, let's entertain your view, that Jesus is the true God.

1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

OK, now for your interpretation:

We know Jesus Christ has come, and given us understanding that we may know him who is true, namely Jesus Christ, who is the true God.

OK, that paragraph is a fair assumption of how you view this text. If you disagree, please let me know.

Now I am going to do 2 things with your understanding to prove why it is wrong.

1) I am going to demonstrate why it is wrong in this verse using this verse.
2) I am going to demonstrate how this concept is wrong using other verses.

I will give you the first part in the next post and the second in another post just to break this up a bit.

[Proclaimer]

First off Roo, your interpretation completely ignores the Father. He is not mentioned at all this verse according to your view.

Yet I can prove very easily that the Father is indeed mentioned and that he is the one who is true.

Read this part slowly KJ.

“And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ.”

Who ever is the true one mentioned in this verse, he has to be the father of the son because it clearly says, We are in HIM who is true, by being in HIS son.

Who is the son mentioned here?
We both know it is Jesus Christ.

Who is the one who is true that has a son?
We both know deep down that this is the Father and not the son, because Jesus never had a son did he?

So by this very simple, clear, and reasonable reading of the text, we can see that the Father is the one who is true and we are in the Father because we are in HIS son.

So all your Greek justification for your view just flew out the window once you see that the one who is true has a son.

Do I hear an amen KJ?

[Proclaimer]

Do I hear an amen KJ?

[Proclaimer]

KJ, at this stage do I even need to demonstrate how this concept is wrong using other verses?
I mean if you have no come back on my first point, then the debate is surely over.
Do you have a come back? If so, I am happy to wait for it.

[Proclaimer]

KJ, I noticed that you are posting around the place and adding in those laughing icons etc.

So why haven't you posted here?

Is this tantamount to admitting that you are wrong with your interepetation of 1 John 5:20?

I just need an answer as to whether you are defeated here or if you have a come-back and I just need to wait a bit longer.

Please reply.

[Proclaimer]

So I won this debate KJ.

1 John 5:20 is not saying that Jesus is the true God. On the contrary, it is saying that the Father is the true God.

Debate over.

1 John 5:20 is no longer a Trinity proof verse and cannot be used by KJ as such.

20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Once this debate is closed, I will challenge you to another so-called Trinity proof verse.

You have one last chance to reply for the debate is closed.

[Admin]

This debate is closed.

Kangaroo Jack lost this debate.

A summary is recorded in the Debate Log.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3829

[Admin]

This debate has been reopened at Kangaroo Jack's request.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3836

If the outcome of the debate changes, the Debate Log will be updated to reflect that.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

t8 said:

Quote

“I pray that they will know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”.

Jesus said this BEFORE He had returned to the glory He had with the Father before the world began.

t8:

Quote

If something can have multiple meanings, then in context you know the true meaning.

But the denomination “the eternal life” in 5:20 does NOT have multiple meanings. John NEVER applied this expression to the Father.

Quote

There is no instance in the writings of John, inwhich the appellation LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase 'the true God' and 'eternal life,' should be applied to him. Barnes Notes p. 353-354

Why are you making me repeat this stuff t8? The “laws of exegesis” require that the appellations “the true God” and “the eternal life” be applied to Christ because (1) There is only ONE person who is called by both appellations and (2) it was Jesus Christ John had just mentioned and (3) the second appellation is applied only to Christ throughout John's writings.

Come on! I am tired of repeating this stuff. We are not moving forward at all.

t8:

Quote

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3 gives you a key in unlocking the true meaning of 1 John 5:20

John 17:3 is NOT the “key” to unlocking 1 John 5:20. The “key” is Philippians 2. Paul essentially said that Jesus was God who became servant who became God (Lord) again. Paul said that the bowing of the knee to Christ and the confession of the tongue that Christ is Lord was according to what is “written” that every knee would bow and every tongue would confess YHWH (Isaiah 45). Therefore, Christ is YHWH.

t8:

Quote

You have contradiction if you see Jesus as the true God because there is the true God AND Jesus Christ. It is very clear in John 17:3 and is clear in 1 John 5:20 with certain translations and not so clear with others.

John 17:3 clearly speaks about TWO persons and makes a functional distinction between God and the Christ. But 1 John 5:20 speaks of only ONE person with the TWO appellations which are “the true God and the eternal life.” ONLY Jesus Christ is called “the eternal life.” Therefore, He is the true God also.

t8:

Quote

Now read carefully the NIV 1 John 5:20 20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. We are in him who is true, (God) by being in his son Jesus Christ. This sorts your misconception out. You also have to admit that this way of reading it is true in principle.

1. I have already shown that John did not use personal pronouns. He used articles and they may be translated “that which is true.” The article is found in 1:1 in the same construction, “That which was from the beginning….”

The “true” way of translating 5:20 is thus:

Quote

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know that which is true. And we are in that which is true that is, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Again you are making me repeat myself.

2. John had just stated his purpose for writing this section. He said that he wrote this section in order that we might believe in the name of the Son of God and that by believing we might have life. He said that he wrote this section that we might have the confidence to petition HIM knowing that if we ask anything according to HIS will HE hears us and will grant our requests.  

IT SURE LOOKS LIKE HE FUNCTIONS AS GOD TO ME!

I have asked you several times to answer verses 13-15. Do you plan to get around to it soon? Don't accuse me of not answering you when I have had to pull teeth from you to get an answer on verses 13-15.

KJ

[Author]

Posts