The misuse and abuse of John 17:3 by Unitarians to promote Unitarianism.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
101G
Well-known member
Weren't you paying attention?
I already told you where they fall short of
John 5:23 (KJV 1900) — 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Neither you or they worship or pray to Jesus
Why you failed to address my point?
Arm is just a metaphor for a source of power, not a physical body part. In Isaiah 53 he is other than the him he grew up before
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I'm paying attention.
You insist in that we do not honor the Son as we honor the Father... but you haven't given a single example of what you mean.
Praying to Jesus is not what make us different. As I have said several times, millions of people who believe in the deity of Jesus do not pray to Jesus. Some never pray to Jesus during their whole life!
In contrast, I have already posted a heartfelt prayer I did to Jesus here: https://berean-apologetics.communit...ians-to-promote-unitarianism.2195/post-129022
So, if it is not praying... what is it? In which way you honor Jesus that we don't?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Sure, but we are not talking about the Messiah. That was revealed in the Tanakh.
We are talking about the Trinity. The Trinity was not revealed in the Tanakh.
Because there were also righteous and God-fearing people among the Jews of all generations, not only stiff-necked and hardened people.
There were people inspired by the Spirit of God.
And yet ,none of the righteous or inspired people spoke anything about the Trinity.
So, the question remains
Why would God keep "hidden" such an important thing about Himself (in case you deem it important) for 2000 years or so?
These are great questions, worthy of an answer and discussion in my view. I am always fascinated by the difference between how Jesus interacted with the mainstream preachers of His time, and the people who were being led astray by them. For the preachers, HE was stern and didn't mince words with them and wasn't concerned by hurting their feelings or pointing out a lie they were promoting. He asked them many questions for their own benefit, but instead of seeking a dialogue with Him concerning their own doctrines, they weighed out the consequences of their answer according to how it would reflect on them personally. Their standing in the religious sect they had adopted, their wealth and power among a certain group of people, etc. This caused them to spend their time "justifying" themselves to preserve their religion, defending it from the truth in Scriptures, as opposed to "Seeking God's Truth".
Luke 20: 3 And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: 4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. 7 And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
I find this fascinating that these men "who professed to know God", knew the truth, but could not say it openly for fear of being exposed as hypocrites. So they just refused to answer.
I find this is the similar case with the religious philosophy of this world called the "Trinity". It is widely taught that God created impossible Laws and placed them on the shoulders of men. There are preachers on this forum who have actually said that only "God" can obey God's Laws. So with this as a foundation, Jesus "HAS" to be God because it is written that HE was obedient to God from His Youth to His murder.
To admit Jesus was a man who overcame Sin and temptation by seeking the escapes God had promised all men, by keeping God's Words in His mind in the morning, during the day and in the evening, as God instructed, to "Have faith" in God, would mean that we all have been given all that is needed to walk in "The way of the Lord". So if you asked them the question, "Was Jesus a man who overcame sin by Faith, and was given a Name above all other men by His Father "Because", as it is written "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore (Because of this) God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.?"
If they say HE was a "man of sorrows", sent by His Father, then their religious philosophy that God created Laws that are impossible for men to obey, is exposed as untrue. And the "Trinity" doctrine, that God is an assembly of 3 separate immortal beings, starts to crumble.
So they must say HE was God that just looked like a man, and overcame sin and Temptation "because" HE was God. So I wouldn't expect an honest answer to your question " Why would God keep his triune identity "hidden" from Israel? ", because Paul has already told us the truth.
Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that "which may be known of God" is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; "so that they are without excuse":
And so did the Hebrews Author.
Heb. 4: 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
And you are right to ask and question popular religious philosophies of this world. But remember, the rebellious Jews murdered Prophets God sent, and Even killed His own begotten Son, to preserve and protect the doctrines and traditions of their manmade religion. We can expect that the promoters of this world's religions will go the extra mile to defend, preserve and protect their adopted religious philosophies and traditions as well.
Col. 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (Given to Him by His Father)
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith "of the operation of God", who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, (Commandments and Traditions of men the Pharisees and scribes taught for doctrines) which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, (according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience ) he made a shew of them (Not God as "many" imply) openly, triumphing over them (Not God as "many" who call Jesus Lord, imply) in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow "of things to come";
The religious traditions of men are shadows of nothing.
Keep asking the questions my friend. May God lead you and I both into "HIS" Truth.
Sorry but I was speaking of the trinity and the multiplicity of person are seen in the Old covenant
Trinity is but a word however in the Old Testament we see the word of God personally appear to people, the angel of God who are both called God, Jehovah and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Again read the verses all over the forum showing the three divine persons
BTW where is the revelation of Baha'u'llah founder of the Baháʼí Faith, and elucidated at his passing by his son, ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, following whom, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s grandson, Shoghi Effendi. And where is there support for the core teaching of the Baháʼí Faith - the fundamental unity of the world’s major religions (Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) as part of a single plan overseen by one God.
Were you unable to read
Prayer and worship
Unitarians do not pray to or worship Christ and you prayer to a mere man
How does a mere man hear and respond to your prayers
Johann
Well-known member
Incorrect-what a shame millions of people do NOT pray or honor Jesus Christ for WHO He is, worthy of our highest eulogy!
That all may honour the Son (hina pantes timōsin ton huion). Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of timaō (may keep on honouring the Son).
He that honoureth not the Son (ho mē timōn ton huion). Articular present active participle of timaō with negative mē.
Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has.
Dishonouring Jesus is dishonouring the Father who sent him (Joh_8:49; Joh_12:26; Joh_15:23; 1Jn_2:23). See also Luk_10:16.
There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship. The Gospel of John carries this high place for Christ throughout, but so do the other Gospels (even Q, the Logia of Jesus) and the rest of the New Testament.
1) "That all men should honor the Son," (hina pantes timosi ton huion) "In order that all men and things may honor the Son," to the same extent, and for the same reason, that they honor the Father, Mat_6:9. As the Father should be hallowed for who He is and does by all men and all things, so should the Son, Rev_5:9-14.
2) "Even as they honor the Father." (Kathos timosi ton patera) "Just as they all honor the Father," for I and my Father are one, in nature, purpose, and the trinity, Joh_17:21. The clear implication and assertion is that such as do not honor, or respect the person and integrity of the Son dishonor His Father who sent Him, Joh_3:16-17.
3) "He that honoureth not the Son," (ho me timon ton huion) "He who honors not the Son," of the Father, who commanded that men hear and give heed to Him, Deu_18:15-18; Mat_3:16-17; Mat_17:5.
4) "Honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." (ou tima ton patera ton pempsanta auton) "Honors not the Father who has sent him." Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; Gal_4:4-5.
"He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" This statement is very similar to 1Jn_5:12. No one can know God who does not know His Son, and conversely, no one can honor or praise the Father who does not honor and praise the Son!
τιμάω
timáō; contracted timṓ, fut. timḗsō, from the timḗ (G5092), honor, price.
(I) To esteem, honor, reverence, with the acc.
(A) Generally (1Ti_5:3); especially of parents (Mat_15:4, Mat_15:6; Mat_19:19; Mar_7:10; Mar_10:19; Luk_18:20; Eph_6:2; Sept.: Exo_20:12; Deu_5:16); everyone, kings (1Pe_2:17); God and Christ (Joh_5:23; Joh_8:49); of feigned piety toward God and Christ (Mat_15:8; Mar_7:6 quoted from Isa_29:13; Pro_3:9).
(B) To treat with honor, to bestow special marks of honor and favor upon someone, with the acc. (Joh_12:26; Act_28:10).
(II) To prize, to fix a value or price upon something. Pass. and mid. with the acc. (Mat_27:9 [cf. Zec_11:12-13]; Sept.: Lev_27:8, Lev_27:12, Lev_27:14).
Deriv.: epitimáō (G2008), to rebuke; tímios (G5093), most honorable.
Syn.: hēgéomai (G2233), to lead, to esteem; doxázō (G1392), to glorify, honor.
Ant.: exouthenéō (G1848), to despise, treat contemptuously; kataphronéō (G2706), despise; periphronéō (G4065), to despise; atimázō (G818), to dishonor; oligōréō (G3643), to care little for, regard lightly; the expression logízomai eis oudén (logízomai [G3049], to count; eis [G1519], unto; oudén [G3762], nothing), to reckon or count as nothing, be made of no account; apodokimázō (G593), to reject as disapproved.
Correct you are, the world care little for, and have little regard for---
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Greek Text: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Transliteration: tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou
Translation: "of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ."
Key Aspects of the Grammar:
Definite Article (τοῦ):
The singular definite article (τοῦ) governs both nouns in the phrase: θεοῦ ("God") and σωτῆρος ("Savior"). This indicates that both nouns refer to the same person.
Single Article Governing Two Nouns:
The Granville Sharp Rule states that when two singular, personal, non-proper nouns are connected by kai (and), and the first noun has the definite article while the second does not, both nouns describe the same subject. Here:
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ ("the great God")
καὶ σωτῆρος ("and Savior")
Both refer to Jesus Christ.
Adjectival Descriptor (μεγάλου):
The adjective μεγάλου ("great") modifies θεοῦ ("God"), emphasizing the majesty of the one being described.
Genitive Case (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ):
The name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("Jesus Christ") is in the genitive case, functioning appositionally to clarify who "the great God and Savior" is.
No Additional Article Before "Savior":
If Paul intended to refer to two distinct persons (God the Father and Jesus Christ), he would have inserted a second article before σωτῆρος ("Savior"). The absence of this article strongly indicates that "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person.
Theological Implications:
This verse directly identifies Jesus Christ as "the great God" (θεὸς), affirming his full deity.
The title "Savior" (σωτήρ) reinforces Jesus' unique role in salvation, a role exclusively ascribed to God in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 43:11: "I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior").
The phrase does not distinguish between "God" and "Savior" as separate persons but presents them as unified in Jesus Christ, emphasizing both his divine nature and redemptive work.
Do not respond-I am wrapping this up @Pancho Frijoles.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Keep on running @Runningman since this is an Apologetic's Forum and as to your claim John 1.1 uses the PAST tense to refer to the Word of God is error--
John 1:1 (Greek Text):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Transliteration:
En archē ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn ho Logos.
Translation:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Parsing the Greek Grammar:
Repeated Use of "ἦν" (ēn):
ἦν is the imperfect tense of the verb εἰμί ("to be"). The imperfect tense in Greek denotes continuous or ongoing action in the past. It does not imply that the action ceased after the past reference.
In context, it establishes the eternal existence of the Word (Logos) before and during "the beginning."
Therefore, ἦν in John 1:1 does not suggest that the Word stopped being God at any point. Instead, it points to the Word's continuous existence as God in eternity past.
Theological Implication of the Imperfect Tense:
The use of ἦν ensures that the Word's nature as God is eternal and unchanging. It emphasizes that the Word was already existing "in the beginning" and was both with God and God himself.
The Predicate "Θεὸς" (Theos) in the Third Clause:
The clause καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (and the Word was God) uses the anarthrous predicate nominative Θεὸς (Theos, "God") placed before the verb.
This word order highlights the essence or quality of the Word as divine. It does not imply that the Word was merely "a god" or that the divine nature was limited to the past; rather, it affirms the Word's eternal, unchanging deity.
Addressing the Claim:
Does the past tense imply that the Word is no longer God?
No, the imperfect tense in Greek does not indicate a change in state or condition. Instead, it emphasizes a continuous state of being. The Word's deity described in the past tense is consistent with his present and future deity because God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). The text does not infer any temporal limitation or cessation of the Word's divinity.
Why does John use the imperfect tense?
The purpose is to situate the Word's existence in eternity past—before creation—and to affirm the Word's divine nature as continuous and preexistent. It highlights the Word’s eternal relationship with God rather than limiting his deity to a specific time frame.
******************************************************************************************************************************************
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Parsing the Verse: Grammar and Morphology
The key point hinges on the Greek text, specifically the grammatical structure known as the Granville Sharp Rule. This rule governs how nouns connected by the conjunction "kai" ("and") relate to one another. Here's a breakdown of the relevant Greek phrase:
Greek Text: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Transliteration: tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou
Translation: "of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ."
Key Aspects of the Grammar:
Definite Article (τοῦ):
The singular definite article (τοῦ) governs both nouns in the phrase: θεοῦ ("God") and σωτῆρος ("Savior"). This indicates that both nouns refer to the same person.
Single Article Governing Two Nouns:
The Granville Sharp Rule states that when two singular, personal, non-proper nouns are connected by kai (and), and the first noun has the definite article while the second does not, both nouns describe the same subject. Here:
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ ("the great God")
καὶ σωτῆρος ("and Savior")
Both refer to Jesus Christ.
Adjectival Descriptor (μεγάλου):
The adjective μεγάλου ("great") modifies θεοῦ ("God"), emphasizing the majesty of the one being described.
Genitive Case (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ):
The name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("Jesus Christ") is in the genitive case, functioning appositionally to clarify who "the great God and Savior" is.
No Additional Article Before "Savior":
If Paul intended to refer to two distinct persons (God the Father and Jesus Christ), he would have inserted a second article before σωτῆρος ("Savior"). The absence of this article strongly indicates that "God" and "Savior" refer to the same person.
Theological Implications:
This verse directly identifies Jesus Christ as "the great God" (θεὸς), affirming his full deity.
The title "Savior" (σωτήρ) reinforces Jesus' unique role in salvation, a role exclusively ascribed to God in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 43:11: "I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior").
The phrase does not distinguish between "God" and "Savior" as separate persons but presents them as unified in Jesus Christ, emphasizing both his divine nature and redemptive work.
I was unfamiliar with Unitarians until now, but after reading @synergy's posts on this subject, I am concerned that this is indeed a salvific issue. Denying the deity of our Lord, Christ Jesus, strikes at the heart of the gospel and cannot be seen as deserving of our highest commendations.
You have a very low Christological view of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Don't respond.
J.
Last edited:
Christianity cleans the inside first. Here's an extreme case of those who focus on acts and behaviors but neglect their faith. Pharisaic Unitarians are the extreme cases of unitarianism.
Matt 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
JWs are a strange lot, believing that Jesus is the archangel Michael. I'm not going to get into that bizarre belief of theirs.
Islamic Unitarians are repulsed by the Cross like demons are. There was talk about Muslims asking to take down Crosses among major cities in North America because they offended them - spoken like demons.
Carry on with your Star Wars "may the force be with you" belief.
The Holy Spirit is present in our Churches and Sacraments. Can't say the same thing in your meetings.
Many Protestant Churches recognize the Lord's Prayer and that they partake of Christ spiritually.
Jesus spiritually abides in us. It's ludicrous to say that a purely human Jesus can abide in us. For example, Muhammad is dust so how can dust abide in us except when we choke in a sand storm?
You're talking about personalities. Some people are more emotional, active, and outgoing than others regardless of what they believe.
You keep repeating "so what". There are ample resources in the internet to educate yourself on Christianity.
One thing to know is that the Baha'i faith will never absorb Christianity in its collective. The devil attempted something similar with Christ and look what happened to him.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-known member
The issue is that the more you present him with Scripture and its clear teachings, the more he tends to resort to philosophical arguments and questions instead of engaging with the biblical text directly.
J.
Needless to say, I totally agree. We should all speak up when we must. If we don't then we can be accused of not being vocal enough when our brothers and sisters needed us to be so. Most Christians are much too passive in their evangelizing these days.
That's the Islamic approach. They attempt to neutralize the Cross by appealing to human rationality, no matter how misguided it is. They promote their "rationality" and attempt to absorb us into their collective.
Johann
Well-known member
I completely agree-most Christians tend to be far too passive. While you and I may have our differences, when it comes to the deity of our Lord Christ Jesus, the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and living in a way that aligns with our Lord’s teachings, I stand fully with you.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Correct, Islam does not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. According to Islamic teachings, Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is a highly revered prophet but was neither crucified nor killed. This belief is based primarily on Surah An-Nisa 4:157 in the Qur'an, which states:
"...and [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."
Key Points in Islamic Doctrine:
Jesus Was Not Crucified: Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified; instead, it was made to appear as though he was. Some interpretations suggest that another person (possibly Judas Iscariot or someone else) was made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place.
Jesus Was Taken Up by God: The Qur'an asserts that Jesus was raised up to Allah, protecting him from death (Surah An-Nisa 4:158). This is sometimes understood as a miraculous event preserving him for a later return.
Jesus’ Return: Islamic eschatology holds that Jesus will return before the Day of Judgment to restore justice, defeat the Antichrist (Dajjal), and affirm monotheism.
Contrast with Christianity:
In Christian theology, the crucifixion is central to the faith, as it represents the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of humanity, followed by his resurrection. This sharp theological difference shows a fundamental divergence between Islamic and Christian beliefs about Jesus’ mission and nature.
1. Surah Al-Imran 3:55
Translation:
"When Allah said, 'O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.'"
Key Point:
This verse is interpreted by many Muslims to support the belief that Jesus was raised to God without experiencing death. However, there is debate among Islamic scholars about whether the phrase "I will take you" (mutawaffīka) implies physical death or another form of divine protection.
2. Surah Maryam 19:33-34
Translation:
"And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive. That is Jesus, the son of Mary – the word of truth about which they are in dispute."
Key Point:
This verse mentions Jesus' death and resurrection, but Muslims interpret it as referring to a future event, not a past crucifixion. It aligns with the belief that Jesus will return at the end of times and will eventually die after fulfilling his mission.
3. Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:117
Translation:
"I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness."
Key Point:
Jesus acknowledges in this verse that his mission was limited to his earthly ministry and that God "took him up." This reinforces the Islamic view that Jesus was removed from earth without being crucified.
4. Surah An-Nisa 4:159
Translation:
"And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in him before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he will be against them a witness."
Key Point:
Muslims interpret this verse to mean that Jesus will return before the end of the world, at which time all will recognize him as a prophet of God, though not as divine.
Summary of Islamic Beliefs About Jesus:
Jesus is highly revered as a prophet and messenger of God but not as divine or the Son of God.
He was not crucified but was raised alive to heaven by God.
He will return before the Day of Judgment to restore justice, reject false beliefs about his nature, and affirm the oneness of God.
These surahs collectively shape the Islamic perspective on Jesus, which contrasts significantly with the Christian understanding of his death, resurrection, and deity.
Sound familiar?
Very, very concerning @synergy.
J.
Last edited:
There will have to be detoxification triage camps set up for Muslims before they can enter Heaven. That's because in their view the entire Heaven is guilty of shirk by worshipping Jesus (along with the Father).
Speaking of Sam, what do you think of his promotion of Catholicism? I'm not Catholic nor will I ever become Catholic but I find no fault with any of his Catholic views that he promotes on the internet.
Similar threads
