John 20:28 and the Trinity

[Dartman]

Shepherd, Rod and Staff refer to The Second Person of The Trinity, in Psalm 23.

This is a classic example of just how desperate you are to manufacture evidence.

In a way, it's understandable .... you've ONLY got inferences .. and not one single clear, simple and direct statement of your theory, while the Scripture is unanimously unitarian.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,


1 Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[Apple7]

Get a grip, and a brain...

Get a grip, and a brain...

Greetings again Apple7,
I have previously suggested that Ehyeh should be rendered “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins and thus Yahweh is “He will be”. “I will be” is the correct translation, while “I AM” is an incorrect translation. Also I have stated that Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15 are both part of the explanation of God’s Name. Some readily accessible commentaries clearly state this but you seem to have denied this. Maybe you do not look at these as you are convinced that you fully understand Exodus 3:14-15 by quoting TWOT and also reverting back to “I AM”.
The problem is that most “authorities” have some wrong ideas. If I may be selective Adam Clarke on Exodus 3:14 says “the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be”.

I have not responded to your other posts as they are not beneficial.

Kind regards
Trevor

You are a prime cult example of what happens to a person that knows just enough scripture to be dangerous to themselves, and others.

This is why I have always stressed the utter importance of studying the original languages, as, especially in the Semitic languages, words have a much deeper meaning than any ONE English rendering could possibly deliver.

So...what again is your 'argument', Trev....do you even know?

 

[Apple7]

Got any NEW material, cult?

Got any NEW material, cult?

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Of the seventy times in which the demonstrative pronoun ουτος has a personal referent in the Gospel of John and his Epistles, the Father is never the referent! This fact, along with proximity, significantly increases the likelihood that Jesus Christ is the antecedent in the case of 1 John 5.20, as thus…


οιδαμεν δε οτι ο υιος του θεου ηκει και δεδωκεν ημιν διανοιαν ινα γινωσκομεν τον αληθινον και εσμεν εν τω αληθινω εν τω υιω αυτου ιησου χριστω ουτος εστιν ο αληθινος θεος και ζωη αιωνιος

oidamen de hoti ho huios tou theou hēkei kai dedōken hēmin dianoian hina ginōskōmen ton alēthinon kai esmen en tō huiō autou Iēsou Christō houtos estin ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios

And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life eternal. (1 John 5.20)


What can you do now?


:guitar:

 

[Dartman]

Of the seventy times in which the demonstrative pronoun ουτος has a personal referent in the Gospel of John and his Epistles, the Father is never the referent! This fact, along with proximity, significantly increases the likelihood that Jesus Christ is the antecedent in the case of 1 John 5.20, as thus…


οιδαμεν δε οτι ο υιος του θεου ηκει και δεδωκεν ημιν διανοιαν ινα γινωσκομεν τον αληθινον και εσμεν εν τω αληθινω εν τω υιω αυτου ιησου χριστω ουτος εστιν ο αληθινος θεος και ζωη αιωνιος

oidamen de hoti ho huios tou theou hēkei kai dedōken hēmin dianoian hina ginōskōmen ton alēthinon kai esmen en tō huiō autou Iēsou Christō houtos estin ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios

And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an understanding that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life eternal. (1 John 5.20)


What can you do now?


:guitar:

:yawn::yawn:
1) You are trying to change the subject, because John 17:3 directly contradicts your theory.
2) You are ignoring the FACT that HIS .... is the topic,
3) You are pitting Scripture against Scripture, as if your SPIN on 1 John 5:20 cancels John 17:3.
4) You are quoting a trivial fact, as if that alters the rest of Scripture. The statement regarding the 70 times is silly, since the VAST majority of the time OUTOS is used regarding an inanimate object.

1 John only uses OUTOS once regarding Jesus, and with 5:20 once regarding Christ's God.

 

[Apple7]

:yawn::yawn:
1) You are trying to change the subject, because John 17:3 directly contradicts your theory.
2) You are ignoring the FACT that HIS .... is the topic,
3) You are pitting Scripture against Scripture, as if your SPIN on 1 John 5:20 cancels John 17:3.
4) You are quoting a trivial fact, as if that alters the rest of Scripture. The statement regarding the 70 times is silly, since the VAST majority of the time OUTOS is used regarding an inanimate object.

1 John only uses OUTOS once regarding Jesus, and with 5:20 once regarding Christ's God.

Regarding your centerpiece, John 17.3, if you were even remotely familiar with Greek, then you would already be cognizant that there are absolutely no grammatical reasons at all for denying that αληθινον θεον refers to Jesus Christ.

This can be deduced from a study of the article with multiple substantives connected via kai.


αυτη δε εστιν η αιωνιος ζωη ινα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ον απεστειλας ιησουν χριστον

hautē de estin hē aiōnios zōē hina ginōskōsin se ton monon alēthinon theon kai hon apesteilas Iēsoun christon

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. (John 17.3)


Thus…it is only out of your sheer ignorance of NT Greek that you have chosen to follow a cult which denies Jesus’ deity.

Most assuredly you cannot even begin to exegetically prove your lame position….nor do you even attempt to.

You have nothing.

 

[Apple7]

Owned.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings clefty,

I have also read were “I will be” is more appropriate as He waits for a people that prove that He is...not only God almighty but worthy of an obedient blameless worshipping free willed people...at which point He IS.
So he He waits for us...so that He might be...complete...

These are interesting comments. I believe that the NT equivalent of “I will be” is that God is a father, and hence the title God the Father. He has developed a Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and he is in the process of developing sons and daughters to be like the character of His Son:
1 John 3:1-3 (KJV): 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

The ultimate purpose of God the Father is to fill this earth with His Glory, and then God will be all in all, the Creator God, “I will be”.
Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (KJV): 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[clefty]

Greetings clefty,These are interesting comments. I believe that the NT equivalent of “I will be” is that God is a father, and hence the title God the Father. He has developed a Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and he is in the process of developing sons and daughters to be like the character of His Son:
1 John 3:1-3 (KJV): 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

The ultimate purpose of God the Father is to fill this earth with His Glory, and then God will be all in all, the Creator God, “I will be”.
Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (KJV): 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yup...there was One...alone...what type of love can be had? Love is relational...thus NOT self love...thus the One became a Father at the begotteness of His Son...now begins relational love a Oneness of the two...by the Spirit of the first...

This love was then provided to others angels etc...but again NOT relational as they were MADE TO WORSHIP/OBEY thus they had to and were not free to chose whether or not He indeed was worthy of love...or even a good God...

It was in the fall of an advisary that challenged this GOD IS LOVE or GOD IS GOOD that now the test was to be done...is God GOOD?

Man was created...free will...and through his fall the GRACE MERCY and long suffering patience of God was revealed...a side of God revealed NEVER BEFORE...and also the vengeance and jealous and wrath and JUSTICE

So is God good? Is this “I will be” worthy of Love?...Worship? Is He good? So it is up to His creation to be character witnesses to testify indeed He is good...to declare it into ALL the world...and beyond...

We through ADAM and like Adam NAME HIM as a good god...we know good and evil...”and have become LIKE ONE OF US”...Gen 3:22...and thus we of all creation are best equipped to declare Him good...proving His advisary and his counterfeiting false

Through us “I WILL BE”...through His SON and IN HIM we are extensions of the Father...MADE IN HIS IMAGE not in looks but action and deed and character and will...We are His...filling the world with HIS GLORY AND SPIRIT...and because we OBEY HIM HIS WAY...even His begotten Son calls us BROTHERS...we establish LAW THE FATHER’s LAW...on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN...Thy Will be done...

And so the “I WILL” is done...

HalleluYah...

 

[Dartman]

Regarding your centerpiece, John 17.3, if you were even remotely familiar with Greek, then you would already be cognizant that there are absolutely no grammatical reasons at all for denying that αληθινον θεον refers to Jesus Christ.

This can be deduced from a study of the article with multiple substantives connected via kai.


αυτη δε εστιν η αιωνιος ζωη ινα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ον απεστειλας ιησουν χριστον

hautē de estin hē aiōnios zōē hina ginōskōsin se ton monon alēthinon theon kai hon apesteilas Iēsoun christon

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. (John 17.3)


Thus…it is only out of your sheer ignorance of NT Greek that you have chosen to follow a cult which denies Jesus’ deity.

Most assuredly you cannot even begin to exegetically prove your lame position….nor do you even attempt to.

You have nothing.

......wow .... you really need to contact EVERY Bible translator, and get THEM this obvious fact!!! (Your sarcasm alarm should be screaming)

Because every single one of them translates Christ's statement to his Father as;
Eternal Life = 1) Knowing YOU, (not "me") THE ONLY TRUE GOD
2) AND Jesus Christ whom YOU (the Father.. the ONLY TRUE GOD) hath sent.

Your transparent attempt to overcome the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS is truly SAD!

 

[Apple7]

......wow .... you really need to contact EVERY Bible translator, and get THEM this obvious fact!!! (Your sarcasm alarm should be screaming)

Because every single one of them translates Christ's statement to his Father as;
Eternal Life = 1) Knowing YOU, (not "me") THE ONLY TRUE GOD
2) AND Jesus Christ whom YOU (the Father.. the ONLY TRUE GOD) hath sent.

Your transparent attempt to overcome the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS is truly SAD!

As already stated, there is nothing in the Greek grammar construct of this passage that mandates that the Father is the referent.

Jesus is declared to be Theos in numerous other passages outside of John.

 

[Dartman]

As already stated, there is nothing in the Greek grammar construct of this passage that mandates that the Father is the referent.

Jesus is declared to be Theos in numerous other passages outside of John.

Both of your statements are false.
The unanimous translations of John 17:3 prove 1 error, and your failure to produce a text that "declares Jesus to be Theos, (other than Heb 1:8,9 where Jesus is included in the discussion of the Kings of Israel), proves the 2nd error.

 

[Apple7]

What can you possibly do now?

What can you possibly do now?

Both of your statements are false.
The unanimous translations of John 17:3 prove 1 error, and your failure to produce a text that "declares Jesus to be Theos, (other than Heb 1:8,9 where Jesus is included in the discussion of the Kings of Israel), proves the 2nd error.

Here are two passages, outside of John 17, each declaring that Jesus IS Theos...

προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου


σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου


:cigar:

 

[Dartman]

Here are two passages, outside of John 17, each declaring that Jesus IS Theos...

Not so fast. Let's nail down your dishonesty in John 17:3 first. Then, we can return to your repetitive error in Titus, and 2 Peter.

Your attempt to distort the grammar in your favor, in John 17:3 is GRAPHICALLY, and BLATANTLY shown to be a desperate stretch by the UNANIMOUS translations of that verse!!!

 

[Apple7]

Not so fast. Let's nail down your dishonesty in John 17:3 first. Then, we can return to your repetitive error in Titus, and 2 Peter.

Run from them, as expected...

:cigar:

Your attempt to distort the grammar in your favor, in John 17:3 is GRAPHICALLY, and BLATANTLY shown to be a desperate stretch by the UNANIMOUS translations of that verse!!!

You cannot even google ANY Greek grammar reasons for this passage not referring to The Son.

Instead, you rely upon comma placement in English translations!

Sweet....

 

[Apple7]

Owned.

 

[Dartman]

Run from them, as expected...

There is nothing to run from. You are attempting to cancel out the direct statements of Scripture, with an opinion about grammar that is NOT shared by all your trinitarian/oneness friends.

So, when will you admit your opinion about John 17:3 doesn't have the support of trintarian translators?

And, when will you admit that I clearly have verses that literally, clearly, simply and directly .... STATE my doctrine .... without ANY reliance on trumped up twisted grammar?

 

[Apple7]

There is nothing to run from. You are attempting to cancel out the direct statements of Scripture, with an opinion about grammar that is NOT shared by all your trinitarian/oneness friends.

So, when will you admit your opinion about John 17:3 doesn't have the support of trintarian translators?

And, when will you admit that I clearly have verses that literally, clearly, simply and directly .... STATE my doctrine .... without ANY reliance on trumped up twisted grammar?

All five NT locations of αληθινον, existing outside of John 17.3, have The Son as the subject.

Therefore, we can conclude that John 17.3 must likewise pertain to The Son.


:cigar:

 

[Dartman]

All five NT locations of αληθινον, existing outside of John 17.3, have The Son as the subject.

Therefore, we can conclude that John 17.3 must likewise pertain to The Son.

Both statements are grossly inaccurate.
There are 9 times it's used in John, and those include;
John 4:23 ... true worshipers
John 4:37 .... that saying is true
John 7:28 ... He that SENT me is true
John 8:16 .... my JUDGEMENT is true

It's used about 20 times in the REST of the NT .... and your claims are just as false in those references.

 

[Dartman]

Owned.

This is a classic example of just how desperate you are to manufacture evidence.

In a way, it's understandable .... you've ONLY got inferences .. and not one single clear, simple and direct statement of your theory, while the Scripture is unanimously unitarian.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,


1 Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[Apple7]

Both statements are grossly inaccurate.
There are 9 times it's used in John, and those include;
John 4:23 ... true worshipers
John 4:37 .... that saying is true
John 7:28 ... He that SENT me is true
John 8:16 .... my JUDGEMENT is true

It's used about 20 times in the REST of the NT .... and your claims are just as false in those references.

LOL...you googled the WRONG word, dumbo!

:rotfl: