Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Trinity Text

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brave New World
    Posts
    603

    Default Trinity Text

    John 17 (KJV)
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:


    This is one person (individual) speaking to another person (individual) reciprocating glory / glorification. This is not two phases of the same individual (person). To glorify one another means there has to be another (more than one). This is not spiritual Marco Polo.


    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


    Here Jesus speaks in the third person but still refers to the Father as a distinct individual other than the third party he is speaking in. This is not a "let us create in our image and our likeness" statement. He maintains the Father's distinctiveness... if he Jesus were the Father he would have stepped into the role of the Father in speech at this point.


    3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


    Jesus here is not undeifying himself. He is further establishing the distinction between himself and the Father; especially in nature since Jesus has two natures (physical and spiritual). His Spirit is divine (Colossians 2:9). He is saying that there is more to Jesus than simply being God the Word (John 1:1, John 1:14, Philippians 2:6 in Greek: morphe theos huparchon never ceasing to be God he became a man...)



    4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.


    He did not say I glorified myself or myself in another form

    He did not say I have finished my work or my work in another form
    He did say that it was given him to do... by another individual than himself


    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


    He did not call upon a past form of himself to make the present form of himself like the past form of himself who was with that past form of himself somehow... Clearly Oneness theology makes not sense and conflicts with scripture.


    6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.


    The name YHVH... YHVH Shua (Salvation of YHVH) which is Jesus' name. But Jesus name is YHVH Saves.


    7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.



    Everything about this prayer is distinction between two individuals of deity (one of which is also human).



    8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.


    ibid


    9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
    10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

    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.


    Here is the biblical example and definition of plurality in the Godhead because we individuals in then Church are more than one person...


    12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

    13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
    14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

    15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

    16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

    17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

    18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

    19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.


    Christian sanc***y / justification to enable us to do the works of God once we are saved (procured that sanctification).


    20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

    21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

    23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

    25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.


    Curious statement if Oneness modalism is true.


    26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
    The Bible is its own best commentary.
    Prophecy is the word of God
    which sometimes speaks of future... sometimes of the present... sometimes of the past.
    A prophet is the tool God uses.
    It's not about the prophet, but about the God who uses the prophet to speak his word...

  2. #2
    nothead
    Guest

    Default

    John 17 (KJV)
    1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:


    This is one person (individual) speaking to another person (individual) reciprocating glory / glorification. This is not two phases of the same individual (person). To glorify one another means there has to be another (more than one). This is not spiritual Marco Polo.
    Two individuals do not mean they are both God.


    2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.


    Here Jesus speaks in the third person but still refers to the Father as a distinct individual other than the third party he is speaking in. This is not a "let us create in our image and our likeness" statement. He maintains the Father's distinctiveness... if he Jesus were the Father he would have stepped into the role of the Father in speech at this point.
    You are correct, Jesus never speaks as IF he is the Father OR the same person as the Father. This is obvious when you find out he is NOT GOD.

    The proof text of the OP's mainly center here on Jn 10 "I and my Father are one." As you will prove later, the same HEN of unity is in Jn 17 WITH BELIEVERS.
    Which makes their 'one' not a 'one' of inherent nature or divinity at all. Except in the sense of the Holy Spirit relationship.


    3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


    Jesus here is not undeifying himself. He is further establishing the distinction between himself and the Father; especially in nature since Jesus has two natures (physical and spiritual). His Spirit is divine (Colossians 2:9). He is saying that there is more to Jesus than simply being God the Word (John 1:1, John 1:14, Philippians 2:6 in Greek: morphe theos huparchon never ceasing to be God he became a man...)
    You started out here by quoting the most unitarian of ALL verses...that they may know YOU the ONLY TRUE GOD means just that....the Father is the Only True God period. This leaves out ME, (Jesus) as the Only True God, dude. I ***ume you are a dude, since you name is John excuse if wrong.



    4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.


    He did not say I glorified myself or myself in another form
    And in fact all glory COMES from the Father of Lights.

    He did not say I have finished my work or my work in another form
    He did say that it was given him to do... by another individual than himself
    He did say by the Father of Spirits the Only True God.

    5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


    He did not call upon a past form of himself to make the present form of himself like the past form of himself who was with that past form of himself somehow... Clearly Oneness theology makes not sense and conflicts with scripture.
    This is in reference to the promise of YHWH to 'give him glory' or the Holy Spirit WHEREWITHAL to withstand his greatest upcoming test. See the Cross ain't come yet, so 'the work' accomplished is his ministry on earth...and he asks now for the STRENGTH from God for him a man to end his race.

    Takes a little re-routing of old paradigm here, but I don't make the Truth, it just is.


    6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

    The name YHVH... YHVH Shua (Salvation of YHVH) which is Jesus' name. But Jesus name is YHVH Saves.
    Here is 'Jesus name' oddball theory, and it don't stand up. By some accounts "Jesus" was like the 5th most common name among men, and they ALL cannot be God Saving, eh?

    JESUS too was never called 'Emmanuel' so that sense of LITERALNESS is too oddball. Get this through your head. Jesus is not YHWH and never said he was.


    7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.



    Everything about this prayer is distinction between two individuals of deity (one of which is also human).
    ...one of which is also human my patooty. Never said, only inferred by your errant fathers in the faith.

    8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
    Only says Jesus is ABSOLUTELY subordinate to God.
    ibid


    9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
    10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

    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.


    Here is the biblical example and definition of plurality in the Godhead because we individuals in then Church are more than one person...
    God is not PLURAL, PERIOD. Gosh may I remind you of the GREAT COMMAND which says so?

    I am losing patience, sorry. You ACT as if you know all, and you don't know the FIRST THING about your religion, son. Again, what is Shema for Jesus and the Jew, and the Jew converted?

    SHEMA. Mk 12.

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brave New World
    Posts
    603

    Default

    shma yisro'el YHVH eloheynu YHVH ekhad

    eloheynu not elohenu (plural not singular)

    ekhad (as in the two will become one flesh in Genesis 2:24) which is also ekhad and is used in compound unities like one (ekhad) volume of books (plural)

    RAMBAM tried to slide yakhid in for ekhad in the shema but was caught by his own people and rebuked for it.

    Why?

    Because ekhad elohiym presents the Trinity no problems at all.

    And if you knew what you think you knew about the shema you would know you had no business taking that tone or at***ude with me, Nothead.
    The Bible is its own best commentary.
    Prophecy is the word of God
    which sometimes speaks of future... sometimes of the present... sometimes of the past.
    A prophet is the tool God uses.
    It's not about the prophet, but about the God who uses the prophet to speak his word...

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brave New World
    Posts
    603

    Default

    John 1:1-3 (NIV)
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 He was with God in the beginning.
    3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


    Colossians 1:13-16 (NIV)
    13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
    14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
    16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.


    Isaiah 44:24 (NIV)
    24 “This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

    LORD = YHVH / YAHWEH / Jehovah

    Jesus is Yahweh / Jehovah.

    No thanks about getting lies and false doctrines "through my thick head" Nothead. I'll put scripture in there instead.
    The Bible is its own best commentary.
    Prophecy is the word of God
    which sometimes speaks of future... sometimes of the present... sometimes of the past.
    A prophet is the tool God uses.
    It's not about the prophet, but about the God who uses the prophet to speak his word...

  5. #5
    reinart
    Guest

    Default

    Funny the Jews rejected this idea totally and can be found in and on about everything they write on the p***age.
    elohienu was plural for the Majesty, Power, knowledge of God, not for a plurality of persons, for other than some liberal Kabbalist types, the Hebrews denied what you are stating.

    Now Echad must not be a word you have researched, but by Trinitarian writers who seem to have blinders on, as the word is not ONLY a word that is pluralized, but that some approx. 903 times(per Oneness author Keith Morehead of Fictional Foundations of Trinitarian Thought)Echad was used in O.T. is singular one in describing whatever it is modifying and for the majority is only singular and by far the most and only a handful of words plural.
    Again, the Jews did not hold what you are stating and if you are only relying on gentile Trinity scholars you will be following a errant view from people who had this book and knowledge of those words contrary to their own thinking and what God entrusted to them.


    One must ask, DT. 6:4 SPEAKS OF ONE WHAT?, it is One God. And Jesus in the N.T. MK. 12:29-32 is speaking of 'one' heis God Theos, and that by Grammar means God is , one person. one personality, one man. {God is not a man, but used for single being).
    Whether a late comer tried to insert yachid into the p***age or not it wasn't actually needed, as the following show.
    The following usages for example Gen. 2:21, Gen. 22:2,Num. 13:23.

  6. #6
    Senior Member johnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brave New World
    Posts
    603

    Default

    What the Jews got right they got so right. And what the Jews got wrong they got so wrong.

    They did not fully consider the evidence they had before them in the Tanakh in matters regarding the resurrection of the Messiah (forging the false Messiah ben David / Messiah ben Joseph interpretations) for some p***ages spoke of his reigning forever and others of his sacrificial death for the many... neglecting to consider *** 19:23-28 putting the two apparent impossibilities into one possibility they'd not considered.

    My point in the posting you refer to is that if what you say about the Jewish interpretation of the shma were actually true... then why would RAMBAM ever see the need to tamper with the text in the first place?


    Quote Originally Posted by reinart View Post
    Funny the Jews rejected this idea totally and can be found in and on about everything they write on the p***age.
    elohienu was plural for the Majesty, Power, knowledge of God, not for a plurality of persons, for other than some liberal Kabbalist types, the Hebrews denied what you are stating.

    Now Echad must not be a word you have researched, but by Trinitarian writers who seem to have blinders on, as the word is not ONLY a word that is pluralized, but that some approx. 903 times(per Oneness author Keith Morehead of Fictional Foundations of Trinitarian Thought)Echad was used in O.T. is singular one in describing whatever it is modifying and for the majority is only singular and by far the most and only a handful of words plural.
    Again, the Jews did not hold what you are stating and if you are only relying on gentile Trinity scholars you will be following a errant view from people who had this book and knowledge of those words contrary to their own thinking and what God entrusted to them.


    One must ask, DT. 6:4 SPEAKS OF ONE WHAT?, it is One God. And Jesus in the N.T. MK. 12:29-32 is speaking of 'one' heis God Theos, and that by Grammar means God is , one person. one personality, one man. {God is not a man, but used for single being).
    Whether a late comer tried to insert yachid into the p***age or not it wasn't actually needed, as the following show.
    The following usages for example Gen. 2:21, Gen. 22:2,Num. 13:23.
    The Bible is its own best commentary.
    Prophecy is the word of God
    which sometimes speaks of future... sometimes of the present... sometimes of the past.
    A prophet is the tool God uses.
    It's not about the prophet, but about the God who uses the prophet to speak his word...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •