That is what is called one-verse unitarianism. The verse has to be misunderstood by virtue of taking it apart from its context. That is a rookie error in attempts to interpret scripture. It is the way Christadelphians create their doctrine independent of the full counsel of scripture. The problem here is that the deity of Christ is treated as less relevant or something to be totally ignored when interpreting from Joh 17:3 alone.
Jesus denied being God
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
You don't know who God is so people like you and @Ladodgers6 get spoon-fed small, easily digestible, single verses or two at a time to make the context trinitarian proof. There really isn't a better remedy for your several misunderstanding than keeping it simple and irrefutable. The issue is, none of you agree with them. So it's just going to be years of repetition I guess.
Until you have a good argument against the testimony of scripture of the deity of and preexistence of Christ, it will go around in circles. I like to remind others of the errors of unitarian interpretation methods though.
The unitarian loves to accumulate scriptures to cancel out critical ones about the Son of God. That is hardly an argument but is like the joke where an engineer is asked if all odd numbers are prime -- he goes 1, 3, 5, 7 and says yes they are all prime. That is the unitarian approach. The mathematician simply says "no."
Runningman
Active Member
The trinity is a strawman argument. You have not even got your foot in the door showing a single example of God being defined as a trinity in Scripture.
Like I keep on reminding you (as if that even helps), all you have to do is prove the passages about the preexisting One becoming flesh as Jesus are wrong. You have failed that effort.
If you want to identify a better description of Jesus as the one who became flesh but is not a separate god, then go ahead and do that.
Runningman
Active Member
Another strawman argument and we have went over this already. I am referring to the entire old testament where there isn't a single example of a pre-existent Jesus. Remember that? You started ranting about angels, 3 men, a burning bush, scrambling everywhere to establish credibility and could not do it. Then you went to the new testament and the result was the same.
okay. you are pure first-century BC Jewish. You have not yet heard about the NT that clearly reveals the preexisting One that becomes flesh. I get it. You create a false argument and cry at me for not meeting the parameters of that argument.
Runningman
Active Member
You mean first century Jews like the people who wrote the original documents of the New Testament? You really didn't make a good point with that. I am quoting people from the time and era of Jesus, often Jesus himself, and even God at times, plainly stating that God is one person. The mountain you are up against is you cannot make it go away that God is called a He, Him, His, I, You from cover to cover, but never once a Us, We, They, or Them. I think you would make a fine Catholic. At least they fully embrace their traditions and creeds, but you just try to attach them to the Bible in ways they will not attempt to.
It is those Christians who note the deity of Christ. That is such a glaring error on your part
you skip the passages of the preexisting One that becomes flesh. duh. How many times do you have to deny those passages? that is where the debate is. The debate does not surround passages that note God the Father.
You sound like the dedicated JW in speaking of "catholic" view as if it were the Roman Catholic doctrine instead of the common Christian teaching. You make strawman opponents. Worse. Your arguments are from a non-Christian group.
Awe, thank you. For your edification, Jesus does not deny He is God. You are the one reading that into the passage. Why? because you do not understand the dynamics of the Holy Spirit. What I mean by this so people like you do not caricature my position. The God-Head are 3 persons in one essence and the one essence is 3 persons. You are the one faced with the dilemma of Scripture stating it so.
You don't understand the Aseity of Son (Homoousion), and the Eternal Generation of Son. To confess Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God---not primarily because of His incarnation or anointing with the Spirit without measure at Baptist or his resurrection or any other legitimate aspect of his human sonship, but because before all these he is the unique Son and Word of the Father, who is always with God and is God! God the Son was not created with creation but was before the foundation of creation.
He is in Eternity, not created as you believe to be. Some mere man who according to you in quoting those passages that even you believe Jesus is not good, then by saying that, you are saying He is a true sinner, just like us! Who then needs to be saved from His sins.
So, can you now see that your interpretation doesn't make any sense????
You don't understand the Aseity of Son (Homoousion), and the Eternal Generation of Son. To confess Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God---not primarily because of His incarnation or anointing with the Spirit without measure at Baptist or his resurrection or any other legitimate aspect of his human sonship, but because before all these he is the unique Son and Word of the Father, who is always with God and is God! God the Son was not created with creation but was before the foundation of creation.
He is in Eternity, not created as you believe to be. Some mere man who according to you in quoting those passages that even you believe Jesus is not good, then by saying that, you are saying He is a true sinner, just like us! Who then needs to be saved from His sins.
So, can you now see that your interpretation doesn't make any sense????
Runningman
Active Member
This is exactly why I said you would make a fine Catholic. You forget that the Bible actually shows concerning God that the Father is that one and only true God alone (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6) but you are spouting Catholic dogma found in creeds and traditions.
You have provided no such evidence. People who spoke of Jesus before and after his death spoke of him as a man born from a woman, a man who God took to heaven, and commanded to take a temporary seat beside Him.
Let's see who is of the non-Christian group. Do you want to discuss the Bible using only biblical terminology? Last time I asked, you dodged that fast. I'm going to make a list of words that you automatically lose:
1. Trinity
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit
4. Co-equal
5. Eternally begotten
6. Triune being
7. Incarnate
The list is a lot longer, but you're going to lose 99% of your talking points the moment you get Biblical with me.
we do not need to follow the unitarian pocket dictionary here. I'm not a Christadelphian and thus am not constrained in the language I use in discussions.
you just have to show that the passages about the preexistence of Jesus were incorrectly included in the scriptures. We do not have to discuss trinitarian explanation. Sorry I cannot do more to guide you out of your confusion.
Runningman
Active Member
There's the issue. You actually take what the Bible says and say it is from a Unitarian pocket dictionary or part of Christadelphian theology. This tactic is called "poisoning the well." You hate the truth and want to portray it as something false. There are many tactics you use. I have you figured out pretty well at this point, but it doesn't really matter what you say because the verses that explicitly stated the Father is alone the true God are still there. You will wear yourself out arguing, but those verses aren't going anywhere; they make the Unitarian argument for us.
Runningman
Active Member
Read your comment again. Do you see you just introduced a lot of non-Biblical phrases and terminology? That's the issue. You have your head filled with doctrines and philosophy to describe the things you believe, but you don't really have the Scripture to back it up. There is no trinity mentioned or described in the Bible, right? How could the Father being alone the true God be an interpretation? What do you think Jesus was interpreting when he defined God as the Father? Just trying to figure your perspective out.
Similar threads
