The misuse and abuse of John 17:3 by Unitarians to promote Unitarianism.

[synergy]

Jesus is not God and it seems you still think he is even after all I posted showing there's never been a teaching on the trinity anywhere in the bible. Bits and pieces of words and half verses scattered all over the Bible are not a teaching. A teaching would be a couple of paragraphs or a chapter or two and there's nothing like that anywhere in the entire Bible.

Huh? The proof of Jesus' Deity is on every page of your New Testament. The name Lord comes directly from κυριος as written in the Greek OT (Septuagint), and that in turn comes directly from YHWH/Jehovah and Adonai as written in the Hebrew text. That proves that Jesus is YHWH/Jehovah/Adonai (God of the OT).

The Apostles followed the Septuagint and called Jesus κυριος (Lord) which is the Greek name for YHWH and Adonai. They did not use the name "Lord" (κυριος) for anyone besides Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament. While κυριος could be used culturally as a term of respect or authority, the Apostles specifically used "Lord" (κυριος) to indicate divine authority, reverence, or worship when referring to Jesus or God the Father.

For example, Peter addresses Jesus as "Lord" (κυριος) with the understanding of His divine nature, particularly after Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:36). Similarly, "Lord"(κυριος) is also used in prayers addressed to God the Father (as in Acts 4:24). The Apostles reserve this title, in its spiritual sense, for the divine alone, and there is no record of them calling any other human "Lord" in the same way as they did for Jesus and the Father.

As if that wasn't enough, Jesus explicitly declared himself "I Am" (John 8:58), the very name of the OT God (Ex 3:14). Also, John declared the Word (the Preincarnate Jesus) in John 1:1 as being God, translated from θεὸς in Greek and from Elohim in Hebrew.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

He is the one all Muslim Unitarians pray to daily with the Shahada even though he is dust trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs.

Unitarianism is the subject here and all unitarians (Muslims, JWs, Judaizers, etc...) are open targets for discussion.
Notice how you are so afraid of telling us who manifests the Father the best, Jesus or Muhammad.
Islam is one more form of Pharisaic Judaizing Unitarianism.

Jesus was our Exemplar on Earth. Now in Heaven, Jesus who sits on His Father's Throne and along with the Father receives prayers and worship from the entire Heaven. As for Muhammad, he is dust trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs.

He is the one all Muslim Unitarians pray to daily with the Shahada even though he is dust trampled upon and pooped on by pigs and dogs.

Unitarianism is the subject here and all unitarians (Muslims, JWs, Judaizers, etc...) are open targets for discussion.

Dear readers

No Unitarian is open target in this thread, or across the Forum.
Therefore, the statements made above by our brother @synergy are inadmissible.

His insults to Prophet Muhammad are totally out of context.
We are discussing specific passages of the gospel on John to examine if Jesus made any claim to be God.
We are NOT discussing Muhammed nor Islam.

 

[Peterlag]

Huh? The proof of Jesus' Deity is on every page of your New Testament. The name Lord comes directly from κυριος as written in the Greek OT (Septuagint), and that in turn comes directly from YHWH/Jehovah and Adonai as written in the Hebrew text. That proves that Jesus is YHWH/Jehovah/Adonai (God of the OT).

The Apostles followed the Septuagint and called Jesus κυριος (Lord) which is the Greek name for YHWH and Adonai. They did not use the name "Lord" (κυριος) for anyone besides Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament. While κυριος could be used culturally as a term of respect or authority, the Apostles specifically used "Lord" (κυριος) to indicate divine authority, reverence, or worship when referring to Jesus or God the Father.

For example, Peter addresses Jesus as "Lord" (κυριος) with the understanding of His divine nature, particularly after Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:36). Similarly, "Lord"(κυριος) is also used in prayers addressed to God the Father (as in Acts 4:24). The Apostles reserve this title, in its spiritual sense, for the divine alone, and there is no record of them calling any other human "Lord" in the same way as they did for Jesus and the Father.

As if that wasn't enough, Jesus explicitly declared himself "I Am" (John 8:58), the very name of the OT God (Ex 3:14). Also, John declared the Word (the Preincarnate Jesus) in John 1:1 as being God, translated from θεὸς in Greek and from Elohim in Hebrew.

God was also referred to as the Lord in the Old Testament. He gave the position of the title Lord to Jesus Christ when he raised him from the dead. So we have two Lords. One in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament. What you do is see the word Lord in the Old Testament and you see the word Lord in the New Testament and then you (Not God) make this jump to say both Lords are the same living being.

 

[synergy]

God was also referred to as the Lord in the Old Testament. He gave the position of the title Lord to Jesus Christ when he raised him from the dead. So we have two Lords. One in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament. What you do is see the word Lord in the Old Testament and you see the word Lord in the New Testament and then you (Not God) make this jump to say both Lords are the same living being.

I just proved to you that Jesus' Deity is in every page of the New Testament. The Apostles followed the Septuagint (LXX) in translating YHWH/Adonai to κυριος which is Lord in English. Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, in other words.

So what are you going to do about these facts? First you said: "Bits and pieces of words and half verses scattered all over the Bible are not a teaching". Now you know better. It's in every page of the NT. What are you going to do about it?

 

[Peterlag]

I just proved to you that Jesus' Deity is in every page of the New Testament. The Apostles followed the Septuagint (LXX) in translating YHWH/Adonai to κυριος which is Lord in English. Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, in other words.

So what are you going to do about these facts? First you said: "Bits and pieces of words and half verses scattered all over the Bible are not a teaching". Now you know better. It's in every page of the NT. What are you going to do about it?

The Lord of the New Testament is the resurrected Christ.
The Lord of the Old Testament is God.

Now what did you prove?

 

[synergy]

The Lord of the New Testament is the resurrected Christ.
The Lord of the Old Testament is God.

Now what did you prove?

I proved that Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, the God of the OT. Do you still believe that "Jesus is not God", as you wrote in Post 80?

 

[synergy]

Dear readers

No Unitarian is open target in this thread, or across the Forum.
Therefore, the statements made above by our brother @synergy are inadmissible.

His insults to Prophet Muhammad are totally out of context.
We are discussing specific passages of the gospel on John to examine if Jesus made any claim to be God.
We are NOT discussing Muhammed nor Islam.

Unitarianism is the subject here and it comes in multiple forms (JWs, Judaizers, Muslims, Pharisees, etc...). Once Unitarians are cornered by the Bible they will resort to any means possible to save face other than addressing the subject matter at hand which is Unitarianism. If they continue to run away from unitarian slaying phrases like "the Word was God" and "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!" then we all know they're doing that to save face.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The Lord of the New Testament is the resurrected Christ.
The Lord of the Old Testament is God.

Now what did you prove?

You’re right, Peterlag. @synergy is wrong and clings to his error against all evidence that the apostles did not use Kurios as equivalent as the Old Testament Adonai when referring to Jesus.
If Kurios refered to God, then several verses in the NT would be nonsense.

“After the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19​

If Lord referred to God, how God would sit at the right hand of Himself?​

​

She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” John 11:27​

If Lord referred to God, how God could be the Anointed of God? How God could be the Son of God?​

​

Therefore, let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Act 2:36​

If Lord referred to God. How God could have made God God?​

And then we have the 50 instances, in which the Father and Jesus appear in the same verse, and in shich God is a tile given exclusively to the Father while Lord is given to Jesus.

In conclusion, Synergy’s claim that the lordship of Jesus meant deity is incorrect.
The fact that the apostles used the Septuagint does not mean that they were using Theos and Kurios as interchangeable terms. Their writings prove ghe opposite. In the time of the apostles “Lord” was a Leader, a Master, a high ranked official in the army or government, a big landowner with servants… any person with authority who deserved great respect, fear, or loyalty.

Cornelius prayed to the One and True God. God accepted him and would not have praised him if he was an idolater. However, he called “Lord” the angel who appeared to him (Acts 10:4). Why?
Saul didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah…let alone God! However, in the vision in his way to Damascus, he IMEDIATELY reacts to Jesus calling him “Lord”. Why?

 

[Peterlag]

You’re right, Peterlag. @synergy is wrong and clings to his error against all evidence that the apostles did not use Kurios as equivalent as the Old Testament Adonai when referring to Jesus.
If Kurios refered to God, then several verses in the NT would be nonsense.

“After the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19​

If Lord referred to God, how God would sit at the right hand of Himself?​

​

She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” John 11:27​

If Lord referred to God, how God could be the Anointed of God? How God could be the Son of God?​

​

Therefore, let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Act 2:36​

If Lord referred to God. How God could have made God God?​

And then we have the 50 instances, in which the Father and Jesus appear in the same verse, and in shich God is a tile given exclusively to the Father while Lord is given to Jesus.

In conclusion, Synergy’s claim that the lordship of Jesus meant deity is incorrect.
The fact that the apostles used the Septuagint does not mean that they were using Theos and Kurios as interchangeable terms. Their writings prove ghe opposite. In the time of the apostles “Lord” was a Leader, a Master, a high ranked official in the army or government, a big landowner with servants… any person with authority who deserved great respect, fear, or loyalty.

Cornelius prayed to the One and True God. God accepted him and would not have praised him if he was an idolater. However, he called “Lord” the angel who appeared to him (Acts 10:4). Why?
Saul didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah…let alone God! However, in the vision in his way to Damascus, he IMEDIATELY reacts to Jesus calling him “Lord”. Why?

Boy you're right about folks on here clinging to their error even after I have given so much evidence. That post I put up on the data of John 1:1 should have been more than enough.

 

[Peterlag]

I proved that Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, the God of the OT. Do you still believe that "Jesus is not God", as you wrote in Post 80?

You proved nothing. You just keep saying you did over and over. But you proved nothing. All you have done is found the word Lord in the Old Testament and the word Lord in the New Testament and then you say they must be the same one God. That is not proving anything. It's just you saying it over and over.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Unitarianism is the subject here and it comes in multiple forms (JWs, Judaizers, Muslims, Pharisees, etc...).

If Unitarism is the subject, do not insult Unitarians.
When Trinitarism is the subject, I do not insult Trinitarians.
You are an intelligent and noble man. So behave accordingly.

Once Unitarians are cornered by the Bible they will resort to any means possible to save face other than addressing the subject matter at hand which is Unitarianism.

I am addressing the matter.
You are the one cornered and resorting to insults to Muhammad out of any context.
You are the one acting in despair.

I insist: I have no problem with The doctrine of Trinity.
I have a problem, though, with arrogance. I have a BIG BIG problem with that.

People are neither stupid nor dishonest for believing the Trinity… they are stupid and dishonest but treating non-Trinitarians as stupid or dishonest.

 

[Peterlag]

If Unitarism is the subject, do not insult Unitarians.
When Trinitarism is the subject, I do not insult Trinitarians.
You are an intelligent and noble man. So behave accordingly.


I am addressing the matter.
You are the one cornered and resorting to insults to Muhammad out of any context.
You are the one acting in despair.

I insist: I have no problem with The doctrine of Trinity.
I have a problem, though, with arrogance. I have a BIG BIG problem with that.

People are neither stupid nor dishonest for believing the Trinity… they are stupid and dishonest but treating non-Trinitarians as stupid or dishonest.

I have been told since I first became a Christian that we accept the trinity folks as Christian. But they do not accept us. From my first day being a Christian until now I'm often referred to as following a cult, or being a heretic, or not born again, or that I'm the antichrist, or that I'm doing the work of my father the devil. I think the trinity is evil, but I don't refer to those Christians who believe it as being evil.

 

[mikesw]

Boy you're right about folks on here clinging to their error even after I have given so much evidence. That post I put up on the data of John 1:1 should have been more than enough.

It did not make a sufficient argument to deny Christ's divinity in the Godhead. But if that is your best, then you gotta stick with it.

 

[mikesw]

I have been told since I first became a Christian that we accept the trinity folks as Christian. But they do not accept us. From my first day being a Christian until now I'm often referred to as following a cult, or being a heretic, or not born again, or that I'm the antichrist, or that I'm doing the work of my father the devil. I think the trinity is evil, but I don't refer to those Christians who believe it as being evil.

It does make sense to recognize the orthodox Christians in their trinitarian view to be Christians. It may be possible that unorthodox unitarian people may also become Christians. It just seems a risky way to try to follow God.
You also have weird views of discounting people for following typical Christian practices. Sure it might help to remind people that the motions of such practices do not get one justified, but it is not sensible to just reject those practices outright. Then you have a weird view of "spirit" or "spiritual" of what you call "believers." Your doctrine therefore veers not only in your denial of the divinity of Christ but also in your conception of the Spirit in the Godhead.
One comment you gave is that Christ cannot be the image of God since he is divine himself. But that misses the fact that God the Son is not normally incarnate. What we have is that we get the image of God the Father through humanity. Jesus, as the Logos, gave the people the image possible through this limited means. So all your doctrine does is put obstacles in your way so that you cannot comprehend who Christ is.

 

[Johann]

Hi, Johann

Good to interact with you again. Let me put in the shoes of a Pharisee replying to your arguments.
To make my reply more fun, let's say I am Nicodemus.


I can understand that the Messiah will "embody" and "reveal" Yahweh's power, as He will be the Anointed of Yahweh. That's natural.
But being Yahweh Himself? Which prophet says that? The sole thought sounds blasphemous to me!

In regard to the name in Isaiah, isn't it true that most babies in Israel, since the time of Our Fathers, get dozens of names that display Jah or El, the name of God? That doesn't make them Adonai! In addition, this Jesus speaks of His Father as a separate being, so Jesus could not be the "Father". Finally, this term "Father" in Hebrew is more "Chief", "Leader", than "Father".


The name of this Rabbi from Nazareth is Yeshua, not Immanuel. Have you ever heard someone calling him Immanuel?
Besides, as I have explained, most babies in Israel get names with the name of God in them (Jah- El-). That doesn't mean they are gods!
When I talked to Jesus, I called him "Rabbi", I told him I believed He had come from God. He didn't correct me or assumed to have another identity.


We have studied Daniel for some few generations, we all know that the Son of Man is the Messiah to come, but NOBODY, NOBODY of us has ever thought that the Son of Man is YHWH!
The King to come, the Anointed, the Son of Man, will have everlasting dominion. He will restore Israel and bring the Kingdom of God, which will never end. Through Him, the nations of the earth will come to Jerusalem and worship the God of Israel.
All messiah who have emerged these years have never claimed to be God. John the Baptist didn't announce a God coming.
I have talked to this Rabbi, Yeshua, and He didn't tell me He was God. On the contrary, He told me He had been sent by God.
He told me that God loved the world so much that He had sent his only Begotten Son to save anyone who believes in Him. He always spoke about God in third person.



Well, then this Rabbi Yeshua is either blasphemous, and therefore a false Messiah, or he speaks with the authority of God, because He comes from God, and therefore He is The Messiah and can declare to be Lord over all our rituals and symbols.
Didn't you know that Moses could declare who would die and who would be spared by doing work on Sabbath? Israel took his words as the words of Adonai Himself. Moses exerted full lordship over the Sabbath.
If Yeshua is The Messiah, as I believe, He cannot be God. God does not eat or sweat or defecate or get diseases... but the Messiah does.
The Scriptures never said that God would be transformed into a man. That would be blasphemous!



No. They got mad because we all uphold Abraham as our father, and He implied he was older and greater than Him.
But He had told them "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say that He is your God."
So, He clearly stated that the God of our Fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God we have all worshiped for generations, was the one who glorified Him... God is a different person, not him! Otherwise, how God can glorify God?



I have read Isaiah since I was a child and I keep reading it. Isaiah never says that God Himself would step as a man in human history!
Isaiah calls the Messiah a Servant. How can a Servant of God be God? Are you out of your mind? God is no Servant of anyone!



Didn't the prophets of God opened the Red Sea, and stopped the movement of the sun, and turned sticks into snakes, and healed the lepers, and made fire descend from heaven, and brought men to life? Did all these miracles made them God?
The Messiah can do miracles because He comes with the power of God, as the ancient prophets... not because the Messiah is God!
Besides, I heard Him tell his disciples that they would do miracles even greater than his... so, are they all Adonai? Please stop this foolishness!



Which country do you come from? You said "South Africa"? I have heard about Ethiopia... is that south enough? Well, perhaps in your country is different, but here and in most countries known from here, sitting on the right of a king does not mean to be the king, but to be honored by the king. If the Anointed is at the right hand of God, it is precisely because He is not God! Otherwise, how God could sit at the right hand of Himself?

Take this dates and olives. Eat them. Yeah, and drink a bit of goat milk. I don't know what you eat and drink in South Africa in 2024, but it is damaging your head !

(Please take these comments with a pinch of salt. I am playing the role of Nicodemus and teasing you a bit)

While I appreciate that you're playing devil's advocate regarding Nicodemus, I just can’t see or imagine that this is what truly unfolded between Jesus Christ and Nicodemus.

You've also grown bold enough to openly declare on this forum that you worship Muhammad in the same way as Yeshua Ha-Mashiach.

Don't respond @Pancho Frijoles.

J.

 

[synergy]

You’re right, Peterlag. @synergy is wrong and clings to his error against all evidence that the apostles did not use Kurios as equivalent as the Old Testament Adonai when referring to Jesus.
If Kurios refered to God, then several verses in the NT would be nonsense.

“After the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19​

If Lord referred to God, how God would sit at the right hand of Himself?​

​

She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” John 11:27​

If Lord referred to God, how God could be the Anointed of God? How God could be the Son of God?​

​

Therefore, let all the house of Israel assuredly know that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Act 2:36​

If Lord referred to God. How God could have made God God?​

And then we have the 50 instances, in which the Father and Jesus appear in the same verse, and in shich God is a tile given exclusively to the Father while Lord is given to Jesus.

In conclusion, Synergy’s claim that the lordship of Jesus meant deity is incorrect.
The fact that the apostles used the Septuagint does not mean that they were using Theos and Kurios as interchangeable terms. Their writings prove ghe opposite. In the time of the apostles “Lord” was a Leader, a Master, a high ranked official in the army or government, a big landowner with servants… any person with authority who deserved great respect, fear, or loyalty.

Cornelius prayed to the One and True God. God accepted him and would not have praised him if he was an idolater. However, he called “Lord” the angel who appeared to him (Acts 10:4). Why?
Saul didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah…let alone God! However, in the vision in his way to Damascus, he IMEDIATELY reacts to Jesus calling him “Lord”. Why?

As usual, Unitarians run towards strawmen in a desperate attempt to save face. I already said that the term κυριος is used for both Jesus and the Father in the NT which makes Trinitarian sense of all the verses you quoted. Here is my statement:

They did not use the name "Lord" (κυριος) for anyone besides Jesus and God the Father in the New Testament.

So your entire post crumbles before your very eyes, as usual.

Now we're right back to the fact that Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, the God of the OT. What's your next strawman?

 

[synergy]

You've also grown bold enough to openly declare on this forum that you worship Muhammad in the same way as Yeshua Ha-Mashiach.

That's exactly what @Pancho Frijoles is doing. He's placing Jesus, whom the entire Heavens is worshipping, on the same level as Muhammad, who is nothing but dust. If that isn't heretical then I don't know what is.

 

[synergy]

If Unitarism is the subject, do not insult Unitarians.
When Trinitarism is the subject, I do not insult Trinitarians.
You are an intelligent and noble man. So behave accordingly.


I am addressing the matter.
You are the one cornered and resorting to insults to Muhammad out of any context.
You are the one acting in despair.

I insist: I have no problem with The doctrine of Trinity.
I have a problem, though, with arrogance. I have a BIG BIG problem with that.

People are neither stupid nor dishonest for believing the Trinity… they are stupid and dishonest but treating non-Trinitarians as stupid or dishonest.

You continue to run away from unitarian slaying phrases like "the Word was God" and "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!" in order to save face.

 

[synergy]

You proved nothing. You just keep saying you did over and over. But you proved nothing. All you have done is found the word Lord in the Old Testament and the word Lord in the New Testament and then you say they must be the same one God. That is not proving anything. It's just you saying it over and over.

You continue to run away from the Apostolic fact that Jesus is YHWH/Adonai, the God of the OT. Does your book accept that Apostolic fact? If not then what good is it?

 

[Johann]

That's exactly what @Pancho Frijoles is doing. He's placing Jesus, whom the entire Heavens is worshipping, on the same level as Muhammad, who is nothing but dust. If that isn't heretical then I don't know what is.

There’s an ongoing push to diminish the Alpha and Omega-the mighty God-into nothing more than a mere man, denying the core of what Christians cherish as revealed in Scripture. Every doctrine we uphold is being systematically redefined to fit a version of faith they’re marketing here on this forum.

Even after we’ve pointed out the error in their approach, they persist in willfully rejecting biblical truth and guidance from Scripture.

Truly, a sad day.

J.