He kinda does, thats liteally what he says 7djengo7:
False. Again, what Jesus LITERALLY says is "Thee, the only true God". What Jesus does NOT say, either literally, or otherwise, is "Thee ONLY ARE the only true God". YOU don't take what Jesus says LITERALLY; you impose your unitarianism onto Jesus' words, which is eisegesis.
What you are attempting to demand as evidence is a double confirmation.
That's gobbledygook.
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!
False.
These are two different statements:
- "Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England"
- "ONLY Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England"
In statement #1, the
single proposition, 'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England', alone, is stated.
In statement #2,
two, distinct propositions--'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England' AND 'No one who is not Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England'--are stated, and no less.
The proposition, 'No one who is not Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England', is what is ADDED when you insert that extra word, 'only'. THAT is NOT the same proposition as 'Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England'. And, there is no doubling up, here, in the sense of saying the same thing twice; not at all. In stating that "ONLY Elizabeth II is the only true Queen of England", you are stating two, distinct propositions, once apiece. You are NOT stating one, single proposition, twice. This is BASIC, TEXTBOOK LOGIC. Your programmers/handlers at the Watchtower Society have done a
masterful job at directing your attention away from it.
you said Jesus "does NOT state, in John 17:3, that ONLY God the Father is the only true God"
Yes. I said that. Because it's TRUE.
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.
Here, you embarrass yourself, by denying, in agreement with me, that Jesus, in John 17:3, was stating "ONLY God the Father is the only true God".
Your statement, "the Father is God alone", is a statement of TWO propositions, and not merely of ONE proposition:
- 'The Father is God'
- 'Whatever is not the Father is not God'
These are two, distinct propositions. They do not mean the same thing.
Over and over, you're just presupposing your cherished unitarianism, and imposing it upon the Scriptures.
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.
I do no assume Trinitarianism; it is the teaching of the Bible. You assume your unitarianism, and impose it upon John 17:3. Not only that, but then, when you are asked whence you get your unitarianism (since it is extra-Biblical), you claim John 17:3 as the place whence you get your unitarianism. The place you claim you
derive your unitarianism
from is the very place where you have
already imposed your unitarianism, by
eisegesis. You're going in a circle.
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
False.
From your statement, "Jesus saves those who obey him", we CANNOT deduce that Jesus does not save those who do not obey him. The proposition, 'Jesus saves those who obey him', in fact, DOES NOT IMPLY the proposition, 'Jesus does not save those who do not obey him'. This is an elementary fact of basic logic. Now, from the statement, "Jesus saves ONLY those who obey him", we can deduce 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.
Again, that is false. The proposition, 'God loves a happy giver', does NOT imply the proposition 'God does not love an unhappy giver'.
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.
The proposition, 'God the Father is the only true God', does NOT imply the proposition, 'Whatever is not God the Father is not the only true God'. As a unitarian, you PRESUPPOSE the latter proposition; you presuppose that whatever is not God the Father is not the only true God.
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?
If, by the term 'friend', God connotes 'person who is not God's enemy', then, indeed, when God states that Abraham is His friend, God is stating that Abraham is a person who is not God's enemy. If, by the term 'friend', God does not connote 'person who is not God's enemy', then, when God states that Abraham is His friend, God is not stating that Abraham is a person who is not God's enemy.
When Jesus said the word only in John 17:3 did he not mean "only" and that the HS and himself could be included?
By the phrase, 'the only true God', Jesus was referring to the only true God. What's the problem?
Again this is bad reasoning
My reasoning is reasoning. No reasoning is bad. What YOU are doing is not reasoning at all.
and you've assumed trinitarism in your response
False. But YOU assume your cherished unitarianism at every step, and that makes you a hypocrite.
no one writes or speaks in the way that you demand the scriptures to speak for my position to be correct.
It is impossible for your "position to be correct", for it is in gross opposition to the Bible, and it is internally incoherent. Your ideology is an anti-Christ, anti-Bible heap of dung that you've happily received from the slimey hands of your programmers/handlers at the Watchtower Society.
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.
Let's be real: Anyone who comes up to me and claims that the Father, alone, is God, is not a fellow Trinitarian, for he is not a Trinitarian at all.
Believe me, I understand why heretics such as yourself don't go around loudly reciting the phrase, "ONLY the Father is the only true God", and why you opt, instead, to recite the phrase, "The Father is the only true God". I get it, I really do. It is done out of
calculation, on your part. You are trying to avoid the embarrassment of sounding as though you are imposing your unitarianism upon Scripture--that extra "ONLY". But, when you recite the phrase, "The Father is the only true God", you are reciting it in accordance with your false assumption that it means the same thing as the phrase "ONLY the Father is the only true God" means. But, again, for Jesus to say that the Father is the only true God is NOT for Jesus to say that ONLY the Father is the only true God.
If Jesus wanted to say that ONLY the Father is the only true God, why did He NOT say that ONLY the Father is the only true God?
Anyone can try and make the scriptures seem to say wild and twisted things
Anyone who hates truth and logic can, indeed, do just that; which is why YOU, indeed, do just that.
what you should be aiming for is believability, your reasoning and demands are not realistic.
What you should be aiming for is learning to respect the laws of logic, because, until you do so, you will continue to make a dismal clown of yourself in your war against God's Truth. Or, better, your programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society will continue to coax you into making a dismal clown of yourself.
