scriptures ignored by Trinitarians.

redcliffesalvo · Jul 8, 2009

A large majority of the arguments unitarians make are basically all the same. They go something like this:

1. The Father is God.
2. Jesus is not the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Several scriptures are cited in order to prove the same point--that Jesus is not the Father, and is therefore not God. The problem with all of these arguments is that they all beg the question. That is, they assume in the premises what they are trying to prove. The first premise (that the Father is God) is really meant to say that only the Father is God, which is the issue under dispute.

You can answer each of these arguments the same way--by showing that the scriptures are consistent with the Trinity. Here are some examples of how removing the unitarian assumption renders the Trinity logically consistent:

I. Jesus prays to the Father, not to himself, so Jesus is not God. One example might be Matthew 27:46 (Psalm 22:1) where Jesus says, "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" Since Jesus didn't mean, "Myself, myself, why have I forsaken myself?" he's obviously talking to somebody else. Jesus, then, is being distinguished from God, and this supposedly means that Jesus is not God. But that argument only works if you assume God is one person. If God is one person, and Jesus is distinguished from God, then Jesus is not God. But whether God is one person is the issue under dispute. It can be shown that this scripture is consistent with the Trinity by removing the unitarian assumption like so:

1. Both the Father and the Son are God (trinitarian assumption).
2. The Son prays to the Father.
3. Therefore, the Son prays to God.

II. Jesus is the son of God, not God himself. Again, this argument only works if you assume God is one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus is not God. Here's how you show that it's consistent for Jesus to be both God and the son of God.

1. Both the Father and the Son are God.
2. Jesus is the Son of the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God.

III. Jesus is the mediator between God and man, so Jesus is not God himself (1 Timothy 2:5). The same thing applies here. Since Jesus is mediator, he is distinguished from God, and is therefore not God. But this argument only works if you beg the question by assuming that God is only one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus mediates between the Father and man, then Jesus is not the Father, and is therefore not God. But remove the unitarian assumption, and the passage is consistent with the Trinity.

1. Both the Father and the Son are God.
2. Jesus is the mediator between man and the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the mediator between man and God.

IV. The Father is the only true God, so Jesus is not God (John 17:3). unitarians often just don't read this passage carefully enough. The passage says that the Father is the only true God. It does not say that only the Father is God. Witnesses beg the question by assuming that since the Father is the only true God, that only the Father is the true God.

1. There is only one true God.
2. Both the Father and the Son are God.
3. Therefore, the Father is the only true God, and the Son is also the only true God.

Once you see the pattern, this takes care a the majority of arguments against the Trinity that unitarians raise. They all assume that only the Father is God (and therefore beg the question) in order to prove that the Son is not God. All these passages show is that the Father and the Son are not the same person, which is consistent with the Trinity.

k2svpete · Jul 8, 2009

But woefully out of step with scripture. Now, you should know that Yaweh (God) and Yeshua (Jesus) are two different names, with different meanings. Meanings of names being considered quite important in scripture.

Since I'm short on time I'll point out the really big flaw in your point 3. Read the rest of that verse - 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

A distinction clearly made and clear statement that Jesus Christ (Yeshus) is a man. Bearing in mind that this is also writen post resurrection so it means that Yeshua is still a man, despite being resurrected. That should not be a surprise to anyone since Yeshua is the first of the new creation and the first of the resurrection. It doesn't give one much hope if you have to be God to fulfill the law and as God cannot die, once again, Yeshua cannot be God.

So many statements about the nature of God and His holiness, characteristcs etc. that cannot be used for Yeshua. Things such as no man has seen God (people saw Yeshua), Matt, Mark & Luke record this conversation - 'So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.' Here we have Yeshua making a distinction between himself and God.

It isn't rocket science. Go have a chat to an Orthodox Jew about monotheism and what they mean by this -

Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

2ducklow · Jul 8, 2009

redcliff said:
A large majority of the arguments unitarians make are basically all the same. They go something like this:

1. The Father is God.
2. Jesus is not the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Several scriptures are cited in order to prove the same point--that Jesus is not the Father, and is therefore not God. The problem with all of these arguments is that they all beg the question. That is, they assume in the premises what they are trying to prove. The first premise (that the Father is God) is really meant to say that only the Father is God, which is the issue under dispute.

You can answer each of these arguments the same way--by showing that the scriptures are consistent with the Trinity. Here are some examples of how removing the unitarian assumption renders the Trinity logically consistent:

I. Jesus prays to the Father, not to himself, so Jesus is not God. One example might be Matthew 27:46 (Psalm 22:1) where Jesus says, "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" Since Jesus didn't mean, "Myself, myself, why have I forsaken myself?" he's obviously talking to somebody else. Jesus, then, is being distinguished from God, and this supposedly means that Jesus is not God. But that argument only works if you assume God is one person.

No verse says God is one person or 3 persons or any number of persons, no verse says God is a person. So we both assume something here, I assume that one God is one person, and you assume that one god is 3 persons. One has to decide if 3 is one or one is one makes more sense. furthermore, I assume god says logical sensical things and you assume that he doesn't make sense and says things that are illogical like 3 is one. furthermore, I assume that there is no such thing as a person of god, and you assume there is, since no verse anywhere says 'person of god." it's all fantasy.

redcliff said:
If God is one person, and Jesus is distinguished from God, then Jesus is not God. But whether God is one person is the issue under dispute. It can be shown that this scripture is consistent with the Trinity by removing the unitarian assumption like so:

1. Both the Father and the Son are God (trinitarian assumption).
2. The Son prays to the Father.
3. Therefore, the Son prays to God.

II. Jesus is the son of God, not God himself. Again, this argument only works if you assume God is one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father, then Jesus is not God. Here's how you show that it's consistent for Jesus to be both God and the son of God.

1. Both the Father and the Son are God.
2. Jesus is the Son of the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God.

III. Jesus is the mediator between God and man, so Jesus is not God himself (1 Timothy 2:5). The same thing applies here. Since Jesus is mediator, he is distinguished from God, and is therefore not God. But this argument only works if you beg the question by assuming that God is only one person. If only the Father is God, and Jesus mediates between the Father and man, then Jesus is not the Father, and is therefore not God. But remove the unitarian assumption, and the passage is consistent with the Trinity.

1. Both the Father and the Son are God.
2. Jesus is the mediator between man and the Father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is the mediator between man and God.

IV. The Father is the only true God, so Jesus is not God (John 17:3). unitarians often just don't read this passage carefully enough. The passage says that the Father is the only true God. It does not say that only the Father is God. Witnesses beg the question by assuming that since the Father is the only true God, that only the Father is the true God.

1. There is only one true God.
2. Both the Father and the Son are God.
3. Therefore, the Father is the only true God, and the Son is also the only true God.

Once you see the pattern, this takes care a the majority of arguments against the Trinity that unitarians raise. They all assume that only the Father is God (and therefore beg the question) in order to prove that the Son is not God. All these passages show is that the Father and the Son are not the same person, which is consistent with the Trinity.

.

you assume that 3 is one, I assume that one is one. to say "I have 3 god" isn't even possible grammatically. we can't even talk to trinitarians because you guys have steped outside the rules of language by naming 3 gods and refusing to allow anyone to say you have 3 gods, we have t o use nonsensical grammar to talk to you and say "you have 3 god."

.

only Sussie is a girl = Sussie is the only girl.

You don't have to say Only sussie is the only girl, one of the only's is redundant.

your argument defies common sense and an understanding of language. your whole post is based on the false assumption that "only god the father is the only true god" and "god the father is the only true god" are different ., They aren't. Saying "only god the father is the only true god" is poor grammar, and God doesn't use poor illogical nonsensical grammar. people do,.

A sign says "George is the only one on the boat". Red cliff says (hypothetically)

" Gee I wonder who else is on the boat since it doesn't say 'only george is the only one on the boat.? There must be at least a hundred other people on the boat cause it says "George is the only one on the boat", so lets go look for um."

I don't know how someone could function in life with the above kind of reasoning, which is the reasoning you are using.

Zebra1552 · Jul 8, 2009

2ducklow said:
] Because God stated through John that he wrote the book of John to prove that Jesus is the son of god, he didn't write it to prove that Jesus is god. therefore john 20.28 proves that Jesus is the son of god, and not god. therefore, john chapter one proves that Jesus is the son of god. it doesn't prove that Jesus is god as trinitarians claim those verses do.IF it did then John would have said under the inspiration of the holy spirit that he worte the book of john so that we might know that Jesus is god, but he didn't, he wrote it to show us that Jesus is the son of god.

God didn't state anything of the sort for the book of John, John has multiple themes in it. If what you are saying is true, then John contradicted himself in John 10:30 and chapter 8.

Your argument that Jesus is god because he is the son of god results in two gods for I presume you are of the opinion that god who is spirit begat flesh, but scripture says flesh is born of flesh and spirit is born of spirit.

And you are putting God in a box and taking Scripture out of context... and giving a straw man argument. I'm saying Jesus is God because Jesus said He is God and because the other books of the NT say Jesus is God, not simply because He is the Son of God.

spirit doesn't begat flesh.

Then how was Jesus born? Did Mary have sex with her husband before they were married? If so, Jesus was a bastard and you have just blasphemed Christianity in public forum. If not, you need to explain what happened.

so your doctrine contradicts scriptuire in having spirit begat flesh, and calling it incarnation also denys the meaning of begat. Begat doesn't mean incarnation. your doctrine has more holes in it than a collander.

My doctrine doesn't contradict anything. Your reference to John 3 is not talking literally, it's a metaphorical reference to the acts of a man, similar to how Romans 6 isn't talking about literally dying and actually being brought back from the dead.

it takes different versions depending upon the speaker, some say 'these three are one" some say, 'three are in one,' some say as you do "three persons, one god." the point is you have 3 beings ( a person is a being despite trinitarian denials.) that are one being (god is a spirit being). 3 beings are one being is a contradiction. therefore your doctrine is a contradiction, as everyone except trinitarians plainly know.

One God, three persons. This means there is one God embodied in three different personalities and is the same God embodied in them. One God, three beings. You don't label one 'the Holy Spirit' and deny that it's YHWH, that's not Trinitarian theology.

then explain it. how is Jesus god because of "I and my father are one' when Jesus said the church is one the same way he and his father are one. you haven't explained it,.

Jesus is the Son of God... Mary was with child via the HS- God. Does that mean God had sex with Mary? Probably not. Does that mean that God influenced what was in Mary and that Jesus would not have been born otherwise? Yes. Jesus is one in substance with God, explained above. Same God, different manifestation, different role, and different function.

2ducklow · Jul 8, 2009

Godschild87 said:
God didn't state anything of the sort for the book of John, John has multiple themes in it. If what you are saying is true, then John contradicted himself in John 10:30 and chapter 8.

And you are putting God in a box and taking Scripture out of context... and giving a straw man argument. I'm saying Jesus is God because Jesus said He is God and because the other books of the NT say Jesus is God, not simply because He is the Son of God.

Then how was Jesus born? Did Mary have sex with her husband before they were married? If so, Jesus was a bastard and you have just blasphemed Christianity in public forum. If not, you need to explain what happened.

My doctrine doesn't contradict anything. Your reference to John 3 is not talking literally, it's a metaphorical reference to the acts of a man, similar to how Romans 6 isn't talking about literally dying and actually being brought back from the dead.

One God, three persons. This means there is one God embodied in three different personalities and is the same God embodied in them. One God, three beings. You don't label one 'the Holy Spirit' and deny that it's YHWH, that's not Trinitarian theology.

Jesus is the Son of God... Mary was with child via the HS- God. Does that mean God had sex with Mary? Probably not. Does that mean that God influenced what was in Mary and that Jesus would not have been born otherwise? Yes. Jesus is one in substance with God, explained above. Same God, different manifestation, different role, and different function.

what kind of substance do Jesus and god have in common? God substance right?

god is in 3 personalities and god the father whom the b ible explicitly states is the one and only true god is merely a personality that god inhabits? Jesus never prayed to god he always prayed to the god the father personality of god, according to you.
and you are serious right?

Zebra1552 · Jul 8, 2009

2ducklow said:
what kind of substance do Jesus and god have in common? God substance right?

god is in 3 personalities and god the father whom the b ible explicitly states is the one and only true god is merely a personality that god inhabits? and you are serious right?

Where does the Bible specifically say that God the Father is the one true God? Reference the place.

2ducklow · Jul 8, 2009

Godschild87 said:
Where does the Bible specifically say that God the Father is the one true God? Reference the place.

John 17:1-3 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

Zebra1552 · Jul 8, 2009

2ducklow said:
John 17:1-3 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

First of all, that's not saying that the Father is the only true God. More accurately (see here, then here and here), it's saying that the Father is the only full representation of God. The Son and Spirit have manifestations of this, but they are not complete. This is fully in accordance with Trinitarian doctrine: there are some things that only the Father knows, and there are things Jesus and the HS don't know.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

If God is manifested in 3 ways through 3 persons, and there is only one God, of course this is true.

Denying the Trinity raises more issues with the coherence of the Bible than the doctrine itself. Namely, you have to deal with all of the different statements found throughout namely the Gospels. For example, Peter calls Jesus 'My Lord and my God', and Jesus does not correct him, thereby, under your understanding of no Trinity, condoning idolatry. Which means Jesus isn't perfect which means what he taught may not be perfect (there's no way to know). A slippery slope. Another example is where Jesus says that 'I and the Father are one' and the Jews try to stone him for claiming to be God. Was John a liar?

2ducklow · Jul 8, 2009

Godschild87 said:
First of all, that's not saying that the Father is the only true God. More accurately (see here, then here and here), it's saying that the Father is the only full representation of God. The Son and Spirit have manifestations of this, but they are not complete. This is fully in accordance with Trinitarian doctrine: there are some things that only the Father knows, and there are things Jesus and the HS don't know.

If God is manifested in 3 ways through 3 persons, and there is only one God, of course this is true.

Denying the Trinity raises more issues with the coherence of the Bible than the doctrine itself. Namely, you have to deal with all of the different statements found throughout namely the Gospels. For example, Peter calls Jesus 'My Lord and my God', and Jesus does not correct him, thereby, under your understanding of no Trinity, condoning idolatry. Which means Jesus isn't perfect which means what he taught may not be perfect (there's no way to know). A slippery slope. Another example is where Jesus says that 'I and the Father are one' and the Jews try to stone him for claiming to be God. Was John a liar?

so you believe that Jesus calling God the Father the only true god doesn't mean God the Father is the only true god.

Paul saying that unto him there is but one god the Father means trinity, according to you.

Needless to say I don't agree with you.

Zebra1552 · Jul 8, 2009

2ducklow said:
so you believe that Jesus calling God the Father the only true god doesn't mean God the Father is the only true god.

...because that's not what the Greek is saying.

Paul saying that unto him there is but one god the Father means trinity, according to you.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Needless to say I don't agree with you.

I don't care if you agree or not, I care whether or not you can come up with a reason why I'm wrong.

2ducklow · Jul 8, 2009

Godschild87 said:
...because that's not what the Greek is saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I don't care if you agree or not, I care whether or not you can come up with a reason why I'm wrong.

well I don't care to explain the obvious to you, so lets leave it at that. ytou don't care what I think so I don't care to explain how 'one and only true god' means 'on e and only true god." so we are even neither one of us cares 2 cents about the others logic.

Zebra1552 · Jul 8, 2009

2ducklow said:
well I don't care to explain the obvious to you, so lets leave it at that. ytou don't care what I think so I don't care to explain how 'one and only true god' means 'on e and only true god." so we are even neither one of us cares 2 cents about the others logic.

I don't care what you think if all you're going to do is sit there and say 'you're wrong'. That's not a discussion, and it doesn't give me reasons why I should reconsider my viewpoint. A discussion is where you tell me why I'm wrong rather than just gaping at me.

redcliffesalvo · Jul 9, 2009

many people who do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity and the correlative teaching on the Deity or Godhood of Jesus have come up with weak and faulty arguments which they think refute these teachings. Some of these arguments appear stronger and more valid than others. Many of them are riddled with logical and theological flaws that are very easy to expose if you know Scripture and logic well.

Bare in mind, however, that the primary flaw in most arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity is the fact that the people trying to refute it do not truly understand it but yet try to argue from their misunderstanding. I will begin with a prime example.

Weak Argument # 1:

Anti-trinitarian: There is only ONE God Read Deuteronomy 6:4 which says: Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Trinitarian response: Amen! The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is only ONE God. Using Deut. 6:4 exposes the fact that you do not understand what we teach. We teach that God is ONE God, but that He eternally self-exists in nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures (Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; Philippians 2:11; John 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1 [in Greek and more accurate translations], Acts 5:3,4). This is by no means an exhaustive list.

The three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are all called "God" and have ONE (singular) name according to Matthew 28:19, and that name is Yahweh. Thus we have the term Trinity, which simply means tri-unity, or three in ONE.

In historical context, Deuteronomy 6:4 is not an indictment against trinitarianism but against polytheism, since that is what Israel was surrounded by. Their God was just "one" as opposed to the many gods that the other nations worshipped. Using Deuteronomy 6:4 proves that although you may know of the doctrine of the Trinity, you apparently do not accurately understand what this doctrine teaches. It is the height of folly trying to disprove something that you don't even understand to begin with. Begin again with a better understanding and THEN try to refute the doctrine.

Now, a cousin to this faulty argument goes like this: "Deuteronomy 6:4 does not say that God is one God in three persons, therefore the Trinity doctrine must be false." The problem with arguing this way is that you make the illegitimate assumption that if one text does not explain all there is to know about the nature of God, then that aspect of God's nature must be untrue. This is clearly a non sequitur logical fallacy, as well as an example of flawed Biblical interpretation (i.e., bad hermeneutics).

But when you apply that same reasoning to the other attributes of God, you find a curious problem. You find out that the reasoning is fatally flawed quickly because we can also argue that because Deuteronomy 6:4 does not tell us that God is merciful, just, forgiving, longsuffering, kind, and loving, then that must mean He is not all those things.

Like many doctrines found in the Bible about the nature and attributes of God, the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the logical implications of a number of passages found from Genesis to Revelation. If it can be called a "construct," as I have heard it called, then it is a wholly Biblical construct that takes much rationalization and misreading to attempt to disprove, since the evidence in Scripture for the doctrine is manifold and not taken from one or two verses barely understood and taken out of context.

This next one is my all-time favorite weak argument used against the Deity of Jesus. Keep in mind that most who deny the Deity of Jesus will also deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the two doctrines are interrelated.

Weak Argument # 2:

Anti-trinitarian: "God says He is not a man in Numbers 23:19. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus cannot be God."

Trinitarian response: This is a classic example of the fallacy of taking a verse out of context. This is like someone trying to teach atheism from Psalm 14:1 by saying "See, even the Bible says 'There is no God.'" Numbers 23:19 is not about God saying He's not a man. God is saying, in context, that He is not a liar like humans and He stands by His spoken word. But people still try to use this verse out of context, pretending that the verse stops at "God is not a man," when it continues on to say "...that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent." Your argument started out wrong and therefore ends wrong. You cannot use Numbers 23:19 taken out of context to prove Jesus is not God, just like you cannot prove the Bible teaches atheism by misquoting Psalm 14:1. Take a course in Biblical hermeneutics...that should help.

This next one is my second favorite weak argument used against the Deity of Jesus.

Weak Argument # 3:

Anti-trinitarian: "Scripture says no man has seen God (John 1:18). People saw Jesus the man. Therefore Jesus cannot be God."

Trinitarian response: You fail to understand John 1:18 and what it means within the context of a holistic view of the Bible. Moses did see God's "back" according to Scripture (Exodus 33:20-23). Others have "seen" God in the Old Testament times (Exodus 24:11). Therefore, this passage cannot mean God was never seen at all or in any sense.

But the main point that is overlooked is the fact that this passage does not say "no one has seen God in human flesh at any time." The first premise of the anti-trinitarian argument is based on a misinterpretation of the verse and an addition to the verse, i.e., the idea that the passage refers to "God in human flesh." Jesus is revealed as God manifested in the flesh in John 1:1, 14 and 1 Timothy 3:16. John 1:18 simply means no one has seen God in the totality of His being as a Spirit, or His "face," if you will. You need to clearly understand a text before trying to quote it to disprove the Deity of Jesus. Your argument fails logically and theologically.

This next one gets the prestigious "weakest argument in the universe" award for being so logically fallacious that it boggles the mind that people still try to use it as if it proved anything:

Weak Argument # 4:

Anti-trinitarian: "The word 'Trinity' isn't even in the Bible. Therefore, the doctrine cannot be true or biblical."

Trinitarian response: By that same faulty logic the doctrine of monotheism cannot be true or biblical either, since that specific English word does not appear in the Bible. The English word "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible either. The word "ethics" doesn't appear in the Bible either. But doesn't the Bible teach ethics? The word "morals" isn't in the Bible. But doesn't the Bible teach morals? There are many more examples to prove this point, but I think this is enough.

When people use this argument they are committing the classic logical fallacy known as the non sequitur, which simply means that their conclusion does not logically follow from their premise. Just because the term "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, this, in and of itself, does not prove that the doctrine is not systematically laid out in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It clearly is, and that's why the doctrine exists.

And actually, if I wanted to get technical and a little bit semantical, the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, just not in combined form. The Greek word we get our English "tri" from is found in the Bible many times in the New Testament (Matthew 26:34; Acts 11:10). And the word "unity" can also be found in Ephesians 4:13, translated from the Greek "henoteta." But I digress...

scriptures · Jul 9, 2009

redcliffesalvo said:
many people who do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity and the correlative teaching on the Deity or Godhood of Jesus

Many people do not understand trinity including those extremely and obsessively devoted to it.

k2svpete · Jul 9, 2009

hahahahahaha.

Salvo, your lack of understanding in your post above is truely astonishing.

I'll keep it really brief.

#1
Deut - The word used there is the Hebrew for one, as in the numeral. It is the same as if you have 1 apple. This alone excludes the inclusion of seperate persons and then calling them god.

#2
God is Spirit, Jesus is man. Need anything more be said?

#3
You fail to understand that angels are referred to as god in the passages from Exodus, consistent with the judges being referred to as sons of God. They are representatives of God and as such carry His authority and title with them while performing those duties. The same thing happens today with office bearers.

Your understanding of John 1, in its entirety is flawed.

#4
What the? I've never heard that one ever used, must be a straw man of the trinitarian.

redcliffesalvo · Jul 9, 2009

Hey cheers for your response KV2spete

I will simply reiterate form my last post

Bare in mind, however, that the primary flaw in most arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity is the fact that the people trying to refute it do not truly understand it but yet try to argue from their misunderstanding.

I need say no more in light of your post

2ducklow · Jul 9, 2009

Godschild87 said:
I don't care what you think if all you're going to do is sit there and say 'you're wrong'. That's not a discussion, and it doesn't give me reasons why I should reconsider my viewpoint. A discussion is where you tell me why I'm wrong rather than just gaping at me.

Ok i'll give it a shot.

2dl said:
so you believe that Jesus calling God the Father the only true god doesn't mean God the Father is the only true god.

god's said:
...because that's not what the Greek is saying.

you say that john 17.,3 doesn't say 'only true god Now you say that the word of god doesn't really say 'only true god' in the Greek. you are wrong . It is what the Greek is saying. so you are wrong. read it and weap.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 17:3 auth <3778> de <1161> {AND THIS} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} h <3588> {THE} aiwnioV <166> {ETERNAL} zwh <2222> {LIFE,} ina <2443> {THAT} ginwskwsin <1097> (5725) {THEY SHOULD KNOW} se <4571> {THEE} ton <3588> {THE} monon <3441> {ONLY} alhqinon <228> {TRUE} qeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} on <3739> {WHOM} apesteilaV <649> (5656) {THOU DIDST SEND} ihsoun <2424> {JESUS} criston <5547> {CHRIST.}

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

John 17:1-3 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

godschild said:
First of all, that's not saying that the Father is the only true God. More accurately (see here, then here and here), it's saying that the Father is the only full representation of God.

John 17.3 does not say the father is the only full representation of God, it says 'thee the only true god'. so you are wrong because you deny what john 17.3 says what it says.
I also do not believe it means 'full representation of god' i believe 'only true god' means 'only true god'. At best 'full repreentation of god" would be a figurative interpretation of what John 17.3 says. I take the literal word for word interpretation of john 17.3, namely 'the only true god." But I don't believe you think it is an interpretation somehow in your mind you believe it actually says 'full representation fo god." well it doesn't.
you are definitely in denial. Come out of your denial and face what john 17.3 says which is "thee the only true god". (thee refering to god the father.) That is why you are wrong, because you are dnying that John 17.3 says what it says.

I don't know which is worse the 'only the father is the only true god" defense or your denial that john 17.3 says what it says, but both reponses i've gotten point to desperation to avoid at all costs what john 17.3 says.

Zebra1552 · Jul 10, 2009

2ducklow said:
Ok i'll give it a shot.

you say that john 17.,3 doesn't say 'only true god Now you say that the word of god doesn't really say 'only true god' in the Greek. you are wrong . It is what the Greek is saying. so you are wrong. read it and weap.

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

I say that and I can back it with more than just a simple minded interlinear. With your interpretation, the Bible contradicts itself. Would you like it to contradict itself and have a flawed Bible?

Originally Posted by 2ducklow

John 17:1-3 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

John 17.3 does not say the father is the only full representation of God, it says 'thee the only true god'. so you are wrong because you deny what john 17.3 says what it says.

I deny the simple-minded English translation of a much more complex Greek word, not the Bible.

I also do not believe it means 'full representation of god' i believe 'only true god' means 'only true god'.

Again, you're ignoring the Greek for a translation.

At best 'full repreentation of god" would be a figurative interpretation of what John 17.3 says. I take the literal word for word interpretation of john 17.3, namely 'the only true god." But I don't believe you think it is an interpretation somehow in your mind you believe it actually says 'full representation fo god." well it doesn't.

I believe what the Greek says, not what I want it to say. I don't rely on the English like a crutch because many times the English translation is woefully inadequate.

you are definitely in denial. Come out of your denial and face what john 17.3 says which is "thee the only true god". (thee refering to god the father.) That is why you are wrong, because you are dnying that John 17.3 says what it says.

I'm wrong because I'm in denial and I'm in denial because I'm wrong. Nice circular argument you've got going on.

I don't know which is worse the 'only the father is the only true god" defense or your denial that john 17.3 says what it says, but both reponses i've gotten point to desperation to avoid at all costs what john 17.3 says.

Then go and address the rest of what I said about the other issues your anti-trinitarian mindset brings to the Bible.

nhisname · Jul 10, 2009

2ducklow said:
Let's make a list of scriptures trinitarians ignore, and have to ignore to keep their doctrine, I can think of 2 biggies that universally get ignored by trinitarians.

John 20:31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

so much of the book of John is used by trinitarians to prove that Jesus is god, yet John says he wrote the book to prove that Jesus is the son of god and the christ.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Seldom do trinitarians deal with the fact that Jesus and the father are one the same way we the church are one, because it destroys their belief that "I and my father are one" means Jesus and the father are god.

anyboy else got some scriptures they feel trinitarians will not deal with? please add them. And trinitarians now is your chance to deal with very troubling scriptures for you.

Isa. 9:6
For unto us a child is born , to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders , And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,Mighty Go, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,.

2ducklow · Jul 10, 2009

Godschild87 said:
I say that and I can back it with more than just a simple minded interlinear. With your interpretation, the Bible contradicts itself. Would you like it to contradict itself and have a flawed Bible?

I deny the simple-minded English translation of a much more complex Greek word, not the Bible.

Again, you're ignoring the Greek for a translation.

I believe what the Greek says, not what I want it to say. I don't rely on the English like a crutch because many times the English translation is woefully inadequate.

I'm wrong because I'm in denial and I'm in denial because I'm wrong. Nice circular argument you've got going on.

Then go and address the rest of what I said about the other issues your anti-trinitarian mindset brings to the Bible.

so you are saying the greek word means full representation of not true.

strongs said:
[SIZE=+1]ajlhqinovß [/SIZE]Alethinos (al-ay-thee-nos');
Word Origin: Greek, Adjective, Strong #: 228

that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine

opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended

it contrasts realities with their semblances

opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain

true, veracious, sincere

KJV Word Usage and Counttrue 27 true

So the greek word alethnos is translated true 27 times in the NT and you say they are all wrong it should be 'full representation of."

who besides you says alethnos means 'full represention of."? and how come nobody translates like what you made it up to mean? I can't possibly debate with someone who rejects definitions of greek words and invents his own like you do here. If I prove you worng you just change the def of words and invent your own private definitions of greek words to fit your doctrine.

scriptures ignored by Trinitarians.

Member

Senior Member

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

Member

angel duck

Urban Nomad. Literally.

nhisname

Guest

angel duck

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency