John 17:3 does not disprove Jesus is God

[Our Lord's God]

Either one you are still sunk.
Big time!

there are more than two variants.

And what went on in your corrupt mind that you were trying to argue that "ONLY" doesn't mean "ONLY" at John 17:3? Who in their right mind would argue that the Father is not the ONLY true God? Were you wanting to persuade us in your John 17:3 OP that there is more than one true God?

 

[Yahweh will increase]

But they are not the despotēs of every Christian.

Your point utterly fails.

ROFLOL, that doesn't even enter into the problem you have with it, for it proves that when God is called the only despotas, it means that he is the only despotas as being The Only True God that all others are subject to including Christ Jesus also and just like Paul says enough times for us to know it by now also.

1 Corinthians 11:3, I will have you to know that the head of every woman is the man and the head of the man is Christ and THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD"

Did you even happen to notice that Paul used the word "God" in the above and not the Father?

Oh that is right, you believe that Jesus is his own head don't you dude?


Here is another from 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Fred]

ROFLOL, that doesn't even enter into the problem you have with it, for it proves that when God is called the only despotas, it means that he is the only despotas as being The Only True God that all others are subject to

And yet all Christians are to also view Jesus as their despotēs (2 Peter 2:1).

 

[Our Lord's God]

And yet all Christians are to also view Jesus as their despotēs (2 Peter 2:1).

You don't even know what the word means do you?

 

[JNelson]

Tell that to those who referred to the Father as their Master in Acts 4:24.
Next time think before you post such an absurdity.

I’m just showing you how your own argumentation refutes your position. I haven’t given my answer yet because you have yet to realize how you contradict yourself

 

[Yahweh will increase]

And yet all Christians are to also view Jesus as their despotēs (2 Peter 2:1).

And I have proven that this doesn't make Jesus God but rather the human being that God has made Lord just under himself and just like Paul's words again in the passage below prove.


1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Very clearly in the above passage, Paul is revealing that Jesus is a despotas under that of God himself and there is no way around this for you either, for it is the scriptures dude and just like John 17:3 is also the scriptures.

John 17:3 "This is eternal life that they might know you (Father) The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent".

Tell me, if Jesus can be included as the Only True God along with the Father, who is to say that Ala can't be included also and what then would be the point or purpose in Jesus even saying this?


Furthermore, if Jesus is God and wanted us to know that he was God, why would he have even said that we must know The Father as The Only True God and himself as the Christ whom he sent"?

I don't give a rats rump about what your bias trin scholars say about this, for it makes no sense for Jesus to have said this unless he meant exactly what he said period.

 

[Fred]

You don't even know what the word means do you?

Here's something you should like:

1. When defining 'despotēs' Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament reads, "Cf. Trench." (page 130)
Strong's Greek: 1203. δεσπ?της (despotés) -- lord, master (biblehub.com)


2. This is from Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard C. Trench concerning the use of 'despotēs' in 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4:
it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. (kyrios, despotēs, 3rd paragraph)
Trench's New Testament Synonyms :: xxviii. κ?ριος, δεσπ?της. (blueletterbible.org)


3. Thus a "destructive heresy" which is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1 is one in which denies the Lord Jesus is God.

 

[Fred]

I’m just showing you how your own argumentation refutes your position.

Quite the opposite. Both the Father and the Lord Jesus are the despotēs of every believer.

 

[Fred]

And I have proven that this doesn't make Jesus God

See post 67.

 

[Yahchristian]

Quite the opposite. Both the Father and the Lord Jesus are the despotēs of every believer.

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is the Holy Spirit the despotēs of every believer?

 

[Our Lord's God]

Here's something you should like:

1. When defining 'despotēs' Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament reads, "Cf. Trench." (page 130)
Strong's Greek: 1203. δεσπ?της (despotés) -- lord, master (biblehub.com)


2. This is from Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard C. Trench concerning the use of 'despotēs' in 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4:
it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. (kyrios, despotēs, 3rd paragraph)
Trench's New Testament Synonyms :: xxviii. κ?ριος, δεσπ?της. (blueletterbible.org)


3. Thus a "destructive heresy" which is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1 is one in which denies the Lord Jesus is God.

The word refers to that he owns the bond slave.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

See post 67.

Sorry, already done that once and once is enough and I am not doing it again.

For why should I read every word that you give me, when you are to afraid to read mine, lest I influence you away from your very weak faith and which is what it is being you are afraid to read what I post in replies to your posts.

If you are that weak than I would say that it proves that your doctrines are false and didn't come from the rhema of God, for Paul said this in Romans 10 below.


Romans 10:17, "Now faith comes by hearing and hearing by the rhema of God" and he is speaking of true faith and confidence like a rock and which is what Peter received himself from that Rock of Revelation that Jesus said he would build his true church upon in Matthew 16.

That isn't obtained through human effort of reading and studying the Bible but it is something that God gives when he speaks the truth from the written scriptures into the heart by the Holy Spirit and which is what he means by "hearing and hearing by the rhema of God".

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Here's something you should like:

1. When defining 'despotēs' Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament reads, "Cf. Trench." (page 130)
Strong's Greek: 1203. δεσπ?της (despotés) -- lord, master (biblehub.com)


2. This is from Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard C. Trench concerning the use of 'despotēs' in 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4:
it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. (kyrios, despotēs, 3rd paragraph)
Trench's New Testament Synonyms :: xxviii. κ?ριος, δεσπ?της. (blueletterbible.org)


3. Thus a "destructive heresy" which is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1 is one in which denies the Lord Jesus is God.

Sorry but what Peter is speaking of in 2 Peter 2:1 is not a denial of Jesus as God but rather a denial of Jesus as being the sovereign "despotas" over the doctrine taught in the church and which is the context, for these men were creeping into the church with false doctrines that deny what Jesus taught.

That is the context and not that Jesus is being denied as God.

For these men as per 2 Peter 1:20-21 had private interpretations of the scriptures not given to any inspired writers of the NT by the Holy Spirit and therefore they and their doctrines were in denial of Jesus being the sovereign over the doctrines of the church and by it attempting to make themselves the sovereign over it in place of Jesus.

The Trinity and Jesus as God doctrines fit into what Peter was warning about and also the other doctrines that come out of it like the prosperity doctrines and the greedy trinitarian false teachers who teach that as well.

 

[Fred]

The word refers to that he owns the bond slave.

You have a destructive herey in that you deny the Lord Jesus is God.

 

[Fred]

Sorry, already done that once and once is enough and I am not doing it again.

See post 74.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

See post 74.

Sorry but the context is about false teachers with various false doctrines from their various private interpretations not given by the Holy Spirit to any inspired by God writer of scriptures and which brings us to the trinity, for where did any inspired writer ever actually teach God as being a trinity of persons?

I am asking for teachings by the inspired writers of scriptures and not a verse taken from a context here and there to fabricate the doctrine by and which is exactly how the trinity was fabricated also.

For it was actually never taught by the inspired writers themselves but rather from the Johnny come after's who were not appointed by God to write scriptures and who are fallaciously called the "Early Church Father's".

 

[Fred]

Sorry but the context is about false teachers with various false doctrines from their various private interpretations

Thus proving a false teaching denies Jesus is God.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Thus proving a false teaching denies Jesus is God.

Sorry but just your saying it doesn't make it so and it cannot be proven from the context that this had anything to do with the denial that Peter was speaking of.

For he was talking about the Doctrines that God gave to Christ to give to the church and that because these men were teaching falsely, they were denying God through Christ as the despotas of the doctrines for the church.


So unless you have something substantial to prove what you are saying from the actual scriptures instead of your carnal human reasoning, we have exhausted this point.

 

[Fred]

Sorry but just your saying it doesn't make it so

You should be sorry, because I already cited support for my assertion.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

You should be sorry, because I already cited support for my assertion.

No you didn't but what you cited was your bias opinion and private interpretation of that text instead and therefore we have exhausted this point and therefore I am not going to keep wasting my time going around in circles with you on this.