John 17:3 does not disprove Jesus is God

[JNelson]

I affirm the above which supports Trinitarianism.

By the way, you never answered the question.

You didn't do so because your heresy was refuted.

Affirming both contradicts Jude 4 as per your own argumentation unless you are saying Jesus is the Father.

 

[Fred]

Affirming both contradicts Jude 4 as per your own argumentation unless you are saying Jesus is the Father.

Nope. Because "only" can encompass other members of the Trinity.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

For those following this thread, there is only One True God and Father and who is our master as God and there is only one human being who God has appointed as his mediator through which he is every thing that he is unto us and that human being is Jesus Christ.

Therefore what Jesus said and based our eternal life upon knowing in John 17:3 still stands firm and get used to it, for it will be in those books that God will open at the Great White Throne Judgment for all who attempted to remove it from the scriptures with their corrupt carnal human reasoning about it.


The Father is the Only True God and Jesus his human Son is the Christ whom he sent period.

Is Jesus a master contrary to The Only True God, or is he instead a master under the order of The Only True God and Father as our only master?

These are the kinds of things that are overlooked by people who make arguments out of their carnal human reasoning like this one is.




Now, is there another "only begotten Son" then also trins and would you accept that if someone was pushing that like they are concerning the Father being called The Only True God by Jesus?


You better think soberly about it, for time is running short.

 

[Yahchristian]

Explain.

There are three basic views promoted on this forum...

A) Unitarian: Jesus is NOT the incarnation of the Godhead
B) Trinitarian: Jesus is the incarnation of a MEMBER of the Godhead
C) Oneness: Jesus is the incarnation of the FULLNESS of the Godhead

Or worded another way...

A) Unitarian: Jesus is NOT the incarnation of YHWH
B) Trinitarian: Jesus is the incarnation of ONE OF THREE who are called YHWH
C) Oneness: Jesus is the incarnation of YHWH

My view is fairly similar to the Oneness except they believe the Son of God refers to YHWH at conception in Mary whereas I believe the Son of God refers to YHWH the instant he created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent as a glorified human. So the Son of God is the one who spoke, walked with Adam, wrestled with Jacob, etc.

Here is a summary of what I believe...

GOD is spirit and is the only one who is eternal. GOD is also in the universe as spirit and as a human. GOD in the universe as spirit is called the Spirit of God, GOD in the universe as a human is called the Son of God, and eternal GOD is called God the Father.

Here is a little more detail of what I believe..

For this creation, GOD (the only one who transcends all creation) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans for his glory where he would reign as a human himself. The Scriptures describe how GOD would accomplish his plan. In an instant, eternal GOD (called God the Father) created the supernatural and spacetime of this universe and also became immanent in the universe as spirit (called the Spirit of God) and as a human with a glorious body (called the Son of God). God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Son of God (whose name is Jesus). But whereas GOD created a spirit and soul for each of us, GOD himself became the spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

 

[JNelson]

Nope. Because "only" can encompass other members of the Trinity.

This is a prime example of trinitarians arbitrarily inventing rules. Note how this arbitrary rule states “can” which just means “I only use it whenever I need it to work in my favor.”

Jude 4 says Jesus is our only master not the trinity, so again, unless you are saying Jesus is the Father this argument works against you.

 

[Fred]

Jude 4 says Jesus is our only master not the trinity, so again, unless you are saying Jesus is the Father this argument works against you.

And yet this also applies to the Father (Acts 4:24).

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[JNelson]

And yet this also applies to the Father (Acts 4:24).

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, according to your own argument Jude lied because Jesus is not our ONLY master.

 

[Fred]

Again, according to your own argument Jude lied because Jesus is not our ONLY master.

Nope. Jude would not contradict Acts 4:24.

The Master in both refers to God...not to the Unitarian false one.

 

[JNelson]

Nope. Jude would not contradict Acts 4:24.

I agree

The Master in both refers to God...not to the Unitarian false one.

Then you are saying Jesus is the Father.

 

[jamesh]

I'm not a Unitarian, but when one claims that there is only one God, and then starts talking as if there are more than one, it becomes confusing to some. So I don't blame them for taking their position.

Your point with regards to contrasting God with idols is interesting in that idols are worshipped as gods, yet when Paul says that Christ is the image of the invisible god, he doesn't use the word "Idol" therefore Christ cannot be worshipped as a god. Instead, he uses the Greek word "eikon" (i.e. "Icon") which means that Christ represents God because that's what icons are. They are representations or representatives. They are like dignitaries or ambassadors from another country and are equivalent to the king, President, etc. in their authority abroad. Their words are the words of the king, President etc. They represent the person.

Jesus Christ represents the person, but God cannot be distilled down to a person. This isn't to say that God cannot be immanently present in a person, or even within all of humanity and this is precisely what happens after Christ returns and along with the elect, returns to the father when all are one.

Paul's insight in 1 Cor.8:6 is the most enlightening to me in that he distinguishes between God, the father who is the origin of all creation, and Christ the son who proceeds from the father and is the means of everything created.

He clearly distinguishes God from Christ, so if we're going to conflate the two, we can conflate all aspects of God as well. We don't do that which spotlights that we're still not being honest with ourselves. We're not any closer to understanding who Christ is than anyone else.

When we look at an image whether it be a painting or our reflection in a mirror, neither the image nor the mirror are who we are. Likewise, the persona that we construct and is identified with a physical body is no more who we are than any of the numerous component parts. Add them all together and we still don't have a complete picture.

When a person dies, we say that they have passed on, yet their body remains, and to a certain extent all of those ideas we associated with them still remain to some degree in our own minds. They are nothing more than ideas, and that is all they ever were.

In the same way, whatever ideas we may come up with for God, Christ, etc. are always going to be just ideas, hence the biblical prohibition against idolatry, or image-making. Our imaginations will never come close to knowing who God is.

The biblical authors simply point out that if you want to see the face of God, you need to look at his image, and that can never be seen unless or until one receives God's spirit.

At that point, it's difficult not to see God everywhere in everyone one comes in contact with, and this is exactly what Jesus taught, e.g. "whatever you do to others, you do to me", and "apart from me, you can do nothing".

So when we deny our persona, or ourself, Christ is revealed, and we begin to see others as God sees them through Christ.

Christ is the Symbol, Metaphor, Icon, mediator, medium, copula, image, means, representative of the transcendent God, but by definition, none of these things are God.


In a nutshell, even though Christ isn't God, for all practical intents and purposes, he might as well be. You can't look at God without looking at his image. There is nowhere else to look. Moreover, one cannot see God unless it is by the power of his spirit dwelling within.

This reveals a trinitarian reality which should never be conflated or confused with a trinitarian god.

Your big problem is what you stated in your very first sentence. "and then starts talking as if there are more than one," Fred is not talking about being more than one god. He's explaining that God chose to manifest Himself as three persons, not 3 gods as your trying to impose on his words.

But you already know this, that Trinitarians are "NOT" teaching 3 gods, which of course is polytheism. So if you want to go ahead and bury you head in the sand, hoping Trinitarianism will go away that's your choice, but don't deliberately say we believe in three gods. It's been explained to you hundreds of times.

And btw, if Jesus Christ is not God, why is He clearly identified as the agent of creation at John 1:3, Colossians 1:15 or at Revelation 3:14 since Isaiah 44:24 says God created everything in the heavens on the earth "By Himself and All alone?" Why would he need Jesus who you say is not God help Him out?

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[Fred]

Then you are saying Jesus is the Father.

No, you are saying that.

 

[JNelson]

No, you are saying that.

Your own argumentation proved you wrong my friend.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Your big problem is what you stated in your very first sentence. "and then starts talking as if there are more than one," Fred is not talking about being more than one god. He's explaining that God chose to manifest Himself as three persons, not 3 gods as your trying to impose on his words.

But you already know this, that Trinitarians are "NOT" teaching 3 gods, which of course is polytheism. So if you want to go ahead and bury you head in the sand, hoping Trinitarianism will go away that's your choice, but don't deliberately say we believe in three gods. It's been explained to you hundreds of times.

And btw, if Jesus Christ is not God, why is He clearly identified as the agent of creation at John 1:3, Colossians 1:15 or at Revelation 3:14 since Isaiah 44:24 says God created everything in the heavens on the earth "By Himself and All alone?" Why would he need Jesus who you say is not God help Him out?

IN GOD THE SON,
james

Sorry but his whole post is based on nothing more than the same usual trin carnal human reasoning that we are accustomed to on this forum.

For everything that God is unto us, he is through his human mediator Jesus Christ and Paul made it clear that the mediator is a man and not a God man and that the man is Christ Jesus.

This is the only reason why both are called the one Master and many other things also and not because Jesus is God, for Jesus is the mediator for God as our master, because God speaks through him unto us and therefore he is not another master with a contrary message.


This goes for every title also like our rock and our lord, for God is what he is unto us through his human agent Jesus Christ and therefore Jesus is the same Master as a human being that the Father is as being The Only True God, but Jesus cannot be included as being The Only True God, for the words of Jesus in John 17:3 made that very clear.

 

[Yahchristian]

And btw, if Jesus Christ is not God, why is He clearly identified as the agent of creation at John 1:3, Colossians 1:15 or at Revelation 3:14 since Isaiah 44:24 says God created everything in the heavens on the earth "By Himself and All alone?" Why would he need Jesus who you say is not God help Him out?

Just to clarify what we each mean when we say “Jesus Christ is God”....

1) Does “Himself” highlighted above refer to God?

2) Does “Himself” highlighted above refer to the one who became incarnate as Jesus Christ?

I say Yes & Yes.

 

[shnarkle]

This argument is one I would expect a Oneness believer to make because it works against you.

Who is the only Master (despotēs) of every Christian?

If a trinitarian affirms the Father is then that would contradict Jude 4.

If a trinitarian affirms the Lord Jesus is then that would contradict Acts 4:24.

If a trinitarian affirms both the Father and the Lord Jesus are then say goodbye to trinitarianism.

I'm not a trinitarian, but I don't know why they couldn't affirm their master's will according to the father, manifested through the son by the power of the spirit.

 

[shnarkle]

God chose to manifest Himself as three persons, not 3 gods as your trying to impose on his words.

I'm not imposing anything on his words. There is no effective difference between three gods and three persons. A person is a personality of persona, and persona is defined as "a mask; what is presented to the world". Nowhere does the bible present the father or the spirit. In fact, the bible points out that it isn't possible to see God and live. One can only see God in the person of Christ. Christ is who is presented to the world, and he enjoins his followers to "deny yourself", i.e. remove the mask or persona itself.

When Jesus denies himself, or removes the mask, there is not yet another mask hiding behind that one. God is not two faced.

But you already know this, that Trinitarians are "NOT" teaching 3 gods, which of course is polytheism. So if you want to go ahead and bury you head in the sand, hoping Trinitarianism will go away that's your choice, but don't deliberately say we believe in three gods. It's been explained to you hundreds of times.

It's incoherent which isn't my problem. Pointing out that there cannot be three persons hasn't been refuted. There is nothing efficient about three persons which is why that articulation makes no sense. However, when the creed states: "one in being with the father" I can see how that makes perfect sense because there is nothing contradictory about it.

And btw, if Jesus Christ is not God, why is He clearly identified as the agent of creation at John 1:3, Colossians 1:15 or at Revelation 3:14 since Isaiah 44:24 says God created everything in the heavens on the earth "By Himself

Christ/the word is God's self. Our language gives it away. The self belongs to God, and is attributed to him. Grammatically speaking, it is the Genitive of Possession rather than the verb to be.

and All alone?" Why would he need Jesus who you say is not God help Him out?

The father is the origin of existence while the son is existence itself. Logically speaking, the origin cannot exist without creating an infinite regression.

The father cannot do anything except in, with, and through Christ, his word. Jesus is the human personification of or from God, and he explicitly points this out. He says that he came from above. He came from the father. He was sent by the father.

The living word manifests the transcendent God just as the spoken word manifest the invisible idea, and this is all accomplished by the power of the breath/spirit.

Hope this helps.

 

[jamesh]

I'm not imposing anything on his words. There is no effective difference between three gods and three persons. A person is a personality of persona, and persona is defined as "a mask; what is presented to the world". Nowhere does the bible present the father or the spirit. In fact, the bible points out that it isn't possible to see God and live. One can only see God in the person of Christ. Christ is who is presented to the world, and he enjoins his followers to "deny yourself", i.e. remove the mask or persona itself.

When Jesus denies himself, or removes the mask, there is not yet another mask hiding behind that one. God is not two faced.

It's incoherent which isn't my problem. Pointing out that there cannot be three persons hasn't been refuted. There is nothing efficient about three persons which is why that articulation makes no sense. However, when the creed states: "one in being with the father" I can see how that makes perfect sense because there is nothing contradictory about it.

Christ/the word is God's self. Our language gives it away. The self belongs to God, and is attributed to him. Grammatically speaking, it is the Genitive of Possession rather than the verb to be.

The father is the origin of existence while the son is existence itself. Logically speaking, the origin cannot exist without creating an infinite regression.

The father cannot do anything except in, with, and through Christ, his word. Jesus is the human personification of or from God, and he explicitly points this out. He says that he came from above. He came from the father. He was sent by the father.

The living word manifests the transcendent God just as the spoken word manifest the invisible idea, and this is all accomplished by the power of the breath/spirit.

Hope this helps.

Yes, you are imposing your own words/understanding of the Trinity, especially when you made this statement: "There is no effective difference between three gods and three persons."

Here is how I will respond to what you stated. What is the one thing you have in common with all other human persons including your parents? It's your "NATURE" your nature is that of human and it is your/our nature that separates us from all that are not human. Your a distinct PERSON from your father, mother and all other human beings.

All animals, birds, fish etc is what separates them from other animals. Dogs are not birds, birds do not have the nature of a fish. There is only one being of God which consist of three distinct persons, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit who share the same exact nature but are presented in the Bible as three distinct persons, not three gods as you "heretically" believe. Can you kindly explain to me why that does not make sense and what is so hard about understanding this? My 10 and 12 year old grandkids get it, why don't you?

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[Yahchristian]

Can you kindly explain to me why that does not make sense and what is so hard about understanding this?

You said...

It's your "NATURE" your nature is that of human and it is your/our nature that separates us from all that are not human. Your a distinct PERSON from your father, mother and all other human beings.

Well the Greeks thought all their gods had the same “NATURE” but weredistinct PERSONS.

What is different about the Trinity view then?

The Greeks would simply say distinct PERSONS of the same NATURE would be distinct BEINGS.

But maybe they are wrong on that point so their view of multiple PERSONS with the same NATURE is really just one BEING just like in Trinitarian view.

P.S. From my many years of studying this, I think you have made an analogy that learned orthodox Trinitarians would not make.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes, you are imposing your own words/understanding of the Trinity, especially when you made this statement: "There is no effective difference between three gods and three persons."

The claim that those who believe in this doctrine are monotheists is incredibly weak. Basically, it's just a claim that we're all supposed to accept even though it's incoherent on the face of it. Whatever.

Here is how I will respond to what you stated. What is the one thing you have in common with all other human persons including your parents? It's your "NATURE" your nature is that of human and it is your/our nature that separates us from all that are not human. Your a distinct PERSON from your father, mother and all other human beings.

Yet another example that lacks any real explanatory power. Just because one claims they're a human being, they can act like a monster, and thus they really don't deserve the title.

The rest of your post simply restates your claims which doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest.

The fact that it then descends into trolling necessarily requires that I ignore you from now on.

Go with God.

Be blessed.

 

[jamesh]

The claim that those who believe in this doctrine are monotheists is incredibly weak. Basically, it's just a claim that we're all supposed to accept even though it's incoherent on the face of it. Whatever.

Yet another example that lacks any real explanatory power. Just because one claims they're a human being, they can act like a monster, and thus they really don't deserve the title.

The rest of your post simply restates your claims which doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest.

The fact that it then descends into trolling necessarily requires that I ignore you from now on.

Go with God.

Be blessed.

In other words you can't refute one word of what I Biblically stated. And btw, I'm not a troll nor am I trolling. I've been on CARM 23 years now and I've heard every antichrist argument you can bring up.

IN GOD THE SON,
james