John 20:28 and the Trinity
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Hogwash.
You are a pretender.
This is a classic example of just how desperate you are to manufacture evidence.
In a way, it's understandable .... you've ONLY got inferences .. and not one single clear, simple and direct statement of your theory, while the Scripture is unanimously unitarian.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
Apple7
New member
Look at how you want to move past your own example!
Look at how you want to move past your own example!
So eager, all the sudden, to move past YOUR very own hand-picked example in John 17?
Why the hurry?
We have plenty of time to watch you back-hand slap yourself silly....why rush it?
Now...
Try to google the CORRECT word for the THIRD time...
:guitar:
Look at how you want to move past your own example!
So eager, all the sudden, to move past YOUR very own hand-picked example in John 17?
Why the hurry?
We have plenty of time to watch you back-hand slap yourself silly....why rush it?
Now...
Try to google the CORRECT word for the THIRD time...
:guitar:
You didn't see John 17 in my post???
No wonder you are confused ..... you "don't read good" (Zoolander)
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
In John 17:3, WHICH of these is the direct statement of Jesus?
- That God the Father is "the only true God"
- That God the Father is "the only person Who is the only true God"
Where, in Scripture, do you find a direct statement that Jesus is NOT YHWH?
Please cite, from Scripture, one or more places where Jesus refers to, or addresses God the Father as "my Lord". Why can't you do that?
Oh, and, why do you never reply to my posts in which I quote you, and why did you put me on "Ignore"?
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
Once again, just answer the question and stop answering questions with questions. Was Jesus death as mentioned in Romans 6:10 talking about the ransom?
I've nowhere suggested that Romans 6:10 mentions the word "ransom", I'm asking if there verse is talking in reference to the ransom.
NWL said:
Deal with the question and stop evading.
Are you now suggesting that God in times past has only provided the ransom and you no longer are arguing that God was the ransom?
NWL said:
Deal with the question and stop evading, were the men/mankind being spoken of in Psalms 49 referring to sinful man/mankind or sinless man/mankind?
NWL
Active member
An unreasonable request, and yet again your ignore what I say and ask.
Once again, the translation you conveniently used states "[Jesus] gave Himself on our behalf, that He might ransom us". Tell me, who was the ransom according to scripture, Jesus or us, if Jesus is your answer explain why your translation of the text expresses that Jesus was not the ransom but rather he ransomed "us"?
Instead of you demanding me to provide the exegetical reasoning of the scholars who do not understand Titus 2:14 the way you do, why don't you simply show why all of them are incorrect with their understanding and provide your exegesis of the verse and word, a much more reasonable request.
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
Thanks for actually answering. My question does have a purpose.
NWL said:
I know you find this difficult but actually read my question and try answer it specifically. Again, according to the verse why can man not pay the ransom to God?
Here is the verse again, answer according to the verse, we can speak about any other scriptural context later but at the moment we're focusing on this verses context:
(Psalm 49:7, 8) "..None of them can ever yip̄-deh a brother Or give to God a ransom for him, 8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach.."
NWL said:
So the verses states in effect says "None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him that he should live forever and not see the decay", what does it mean when it states "that he should live forever and not see the decay" according to the context?
Was the said statement not an inference based on the wording of the immediate context?.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
I'm aware Deut 15:15 was a scripture I provided, but my question is in regards to reasoning and a principle you set forth, if it does not apply to Deut 15:15 then your argument does not apply to Psalms 49. So deal with what I've presented.
Did God ever hold Israel to ransom? If not then explain how Israel were ransomed as you would insist the verse to be understood."YHWH thy God ransomed thee" (Deut 15:15).
Is the word "redeem" in Deut 15:15 an accurate translation and understanding of the text when placed within it?
This is a strawman, why would I need to show how Yahweh ransomed His people? What does this have to do with the argument? Nothing.
NWL
Active member
You tell me Bowman, I've answered this question multiple times previously, you inform us.
NWL
Active member
I see you can't help but use the same poor arguments on others as well as me
You've assumed trinitarianism when reading John 17:3. The verse states the Father is the "only true God", thus that is what Dartman and others beliefs. This is not adding or assuming anything but simply taking scripture for how it reads. You are assuming the verse applied to others despite is saying the Father is the "ONLY true God", in no other verse does it refer to Jesus or the HS in such a way.
This is an argument from silence and not proof of anything.
Where does it say God isn't a giant spaghetti monster who lives on the moon and eats cheese for breakfast? Show me the verse, if you can't show us the verse does it add any value if anyone was actually trying to make such an argument? No. Likewise you saying "scripture doesn't say Jesus is NOT YHWH" is not proof that Jesus is YHWH anymore than me saying "scripture doesn't say YHWH is NOT a giant spaghetti monster" is proof that YHWH is a giant spaghetti monster.
Stop using the same lame arguments that have no weight.
You can check my latest post to you where I show that the Father is spoken of as Lord.
Lets not talk about others ignoring you when you've been ignoring me for over a week now:
1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?
(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."
2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?
Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)
3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?
4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
You've assumed trinitarianism when reading John 17:3. The verse states the Father is the "only true God", thus that is what Dartman and others beliefs. This is not adding or assuming anything but simply taking scripture for how it reads. You are assuming the verse applied to others despite is saying the Father is the "ONLY true God", in no other verse does it refer to Jesus or the HS in such a way.
This is an argument from silence and not proof of anything.
Where does it say God isn't a giant spaghetti monster who lives on the moon and eats cheese for breakfast? Show me the verse, if you can't show us the verse does it add any value if anyone was actually trying to make such an argument? No. Likewise you saying "scripture doesn't say Jesus is NOT YHWH" is not proof that Jesus is YHWH anymore than me saying "scripture doesn't say YHWH is NOT a giant spaghetti monster" is proof that YHWH is a giant spaghetti monster.
Stop using the same lame arguments that have no weight.
You can check my latest post to you where I show that the Father is spoken of as Lord.
Oh, and, why do you never reply to my posts in which I quote you, and why did you put me on "Ignore"?
Lets not talk about others ignoring you when you've been ignoring me for over a week now:
1. Is glorifying Jesus by bending the knee to him "to the glory of God the Father" as Phil 2:11 says?
(Phil 2:10-11) "..that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."
2. Who is "Abraham's seed" through, the ones "heirs with reference to a promise" as mentioned in Gal 3:29?
Abraham's seed through Isaac - "..For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s seed; rather, “What will be called your seed will be through Isaac.” (Romans 9:7, 8)
3. Is the word trinity in the bible, if not, do you believe in the trinity? Have you ever used the word trinity before? If you have then why are you using a word not found in the bible?
4. Since Jesus stated "no one come to the father except through me", if we want approach the Father in anything who do we need to direct actions/thoughts through according to John 14:6?
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
#691
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I believe that God the Father is (as per Jesus' words in John 17:3) the one true God; in believing that God the Father is the one true God, how, exactly, do you imagine I am ASSUMING TRINITARIANISM?
You are correct that Jesus, in John 17:3, states that God the Father is the only true God. And that means that He does NOT state, in John 17:3, that ONLY God the Father is the only true God.
Jesus said "thee the only true God".
Jesus did NOT say "thee the only person who is the only true God"
Are you really such an abject idiot that you cannot tell the difference between these two statements?
- God the Father is the only true God.
- ONLY God the Father is the only true God.
In statement 2, not just one proposition is expressed, but, rather, TWO propositions are expressed:
A. God the Father is the only true God, and
B. Everyone who is NOT God the Father is someone who is NOT the only true God.
B. Everyone who is NOT God the Father is someone who is NOT the only true God.
Now, proposition A is Scriptural, and so proposition A is true. It is proposition B that is the offending matter, here. Proposition B is NOWHERE stated in the Bible; not in John 17:3, nor anywhere else. Proposition B is what YOU believe; it is NOT what the Bible teaches. You do not get proposition B from Scripture, and thus, you get it from somewhere other than Scripture.
See, I believe that God the Father is the only true God, because, clearly, the Bible teaches that God the Father is the only true God.
I do NOT believe, with you, that everyone who is NOT God the Father is someone who is NOT the only true God, since the Bible not only does not teach that, but the Bible contradicts that.
I really don't know, here, if you are simply lying, and just playing stupid (perhaps begging for attention?), or if, on the contrary, you really are just as stupid as you sound, but, the bottom line is, it is nothing but sheer stupidity to not be able to differentiate between these two propositions:
A. [God the Father] is [the only true God]
B. [Everyone who is NOT God the Father] is [someone who is NOT the only true God].
B. [Everyone who is NOT God the Father] is [someone who is NOT the only true God].
The Bible affirms proposition A. The Bible never affirms proposition B.
Could you post a link to a Watchtower Society website where your Russellite programmers/handlers present the basics of logic?
Since you and I both agree that Jesus, in John 17:3, does NOT state that ONLY God the Father is the only true God, WHY do you believe that ONLY God the Father is the only true God?
Apple7
New member
Answering a question with a follow-up question was standard discourse in Jesus' time.
But...you would not know anything about that...
Your example of Rom 6.10, actually completely answers ALL your questions.
But, you are not smart enough to comprehend it.
Rom 6.10 declares that Jesus' death was dedicated to arthrous 'The Sin', which is an epithet for Satan.
Jesus himself makes it clear, Jesus is NOT the SOURCE of the commandments, sayings, logos he was speaking. His Father IS the source. .... Just like his Father promised in
Deut 18:17-19 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth His works.
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words (logos): and the word (logos) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.
Jesus cannot be Jehovah.... Jesus' Father is Jehovah.
Deut 18:17-19 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth His works.
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words (logos): and the word (logos) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.
Jesus cannot be Jehovah.... Jesus' Father is Jehovah.
glorydaz
Well-known member
The Bible is full of verses.
Psalm 98:1 O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.
John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application. You simply cannot separate the Father from the Son or from the Spirit...try as you might.
NWL
Active member
He kinda does, thats liteally what he says 7djengo7:
(John 17:1-3) "..[Jesus] said: “Father, the hour has come...This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.."
What you are attempting to demand as evidence is a double confirmation. For example if I said "Queen Elizabeth is the only true Queen of Great Britain" would this leave anyone with any confusion as to what I've stated, would you djengo expect me to have to double up my statement by saying "ONLY Queen Elizabeth is the only true queen", what added meaning does this give? None! You've assumed trinitarian in your explanation, you said Jesus "does NOT state, in John 17:3, that ONLY God the Father is the only true God", when you say "only God the Father" you are using the term with the understanding that God the Father is one part of a whole, namely the trinity. Only someone who believe that God is one third of the trinity would need Jesus to be so explicitly clear by stating "ONLY God the Father is the only true God" for it to mean that the Father is God alone. This is what I mean when I say you've assumed the trinity when you read John 17:3, take the scripture for what it says, not what you want it to say.
Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "imply". If scripture states "Jesus saves those who obey him" we can deduce by the way of implication that Jesus does not save those who do not obey him, if scripture says "Gods loves a happy giver" we can deduce by the way of implication that God does not like a giver who gives begrudgingly. What you are doing is getting a statement, namely "Father.. the only true God" and claiming that what is implied by that statement is not true since scripture does not state the implication explicitly. If you deny that then you must deny every implication of every statement made in the scriptures, its absurd reasoning. When it stated Abraham was Gods friend to you that might mean that Abraham could have been Gods enemy at the same time as being his friend, since the opposite of the friendship, namely an enemy cannot be assumed by the implication of the said friendship, right?
When Jesus said the word only in John 17:3 did he not mean "only" and that the HS and himself could be included?
Again this is bad reasoning and you've assumed trinitarism in your response, no one writes or speaks in the way that you demand the scriptures to speak for my position to be correct.
Let's be real, if a fellow trinitarian came up to you and said "I've come to a realization, I now understand that the Father is the only true God" you wouldn't take that to mean he still believes in the trinity since he did't say "only" twice, but rather, that he simply understands the Father as being God alone. Anyone can try and make the scriptures seem to say wild and twisted things, what you should be aiming for is believability, your reasoning and demands are not realistic.