The Holy Trinity and John 17:3

[Noa]

Misrepresentation? You literally said that most Christians avoid complex theological issues because they are uncomfortable. That, at the very least, implies willful ignorance.

Edit: I forgot to quote and do not know how to put it back in here now, my bad.

 

[Skwim]

Misrepresentation? You literally said that most Christians avoid complex theological issues because they are uncomfortable. That, at the very least, implies willful ignorance.

Edit: I forgot to quote and do not know how to put it back in here now, my bad.

There's and EDIT button in the bottom left corner. I'll wait.

 

[Noa]

There's and EDIT button in the bottom left corner. I'll wait.

You will be waiting a while. Cheers.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In light of

John 17:3

And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.​

it's evident that god and Jesus are distinct beings. God is not Jesus and Jesus is not god. And it's worth noting that none of the 50 Bible versions I looked at indicated this god being referred to is god the father, the first person of the trinity. All use the singular, "god," which doesn't square with the popular The Shield of the Trinity that's often used to illustrate the trinitarian relationship. So, as I see it, John 17:3 contradicts the God Is The Son relationship.

Anyone have a good explanation?​

In short, there are many realities and therefore many Gods/gods/ Goddesses/goddesses. Each to their own realm. Each shows it own truth. It is more complex than it first seems.
Also, The saviour emptied himself. Emptied of what? It was when he was resurrected that he had the Glory he had before the world began.

I would say the triangle was upside down.

 

[Skwim]

In short, there are many realities and therefore many Gods/gods/ Goddesses/goddesses. Each to their own realm. Each shows it own truth. It is more complex than it first seems.
Also, The saviour emptied himself. Emptied of what? It was when he was resurrected that he had the Glory he had before the world began.

I would say the triangle was upside down.

Okay, but I'm only going to deal with standard Christian monotheism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Okay, but I'm only going to deal with the standard Christian monotheism.

Well you did say you wanted a good answer. Sticking with a small piece of the pie, then he emptied himself and became God later. As a man, that's all he was- a man.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your opinion is noted, and utterly rejected by two-thousand years of Christian tradition. Whatever you think you know, those much more qualified than you disagree.


And of course, none of the contemporaneous Church Fathers read Greek, nor did the Greek Church. They were all morons or lying conspirators. It's ludicrous, and you do not know Greek yet alone know better than the very people contemporaneous with the text and what it says.

And people much more qualified than me - agree!

Later "tradition" does not make it so.

John 1 does not say - in the Greek - that Jesus is the Logos/word, nor does a person fit the definition of the word.

The only thing that would be with God in the beginning, would be God's Power/Law/creation potential, not some foreign trinity idea.

Any Jew can tell you this.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

For most of the Christians I have known, the reason they do not go around talking about the intricacies of the Trinity is because to them their faith is primarily about how you live your life. Not how you debate with every hostile person you meet.

...

Most people whom question Christianity are not hostile.

It makes perfect sense to question a religion that claims theirs is the ONE God, than - no matter how they try to get around it - throw in the Pagan trinity concept.

In some texts you have all THREE there at the same time.

A text says Jesus will have a throne beside GOD???????

When you have them at the same time they are not one God, no matter how you try to talk around such.

The trinity idea was added later.

*

 

[Glaurung]

And people much more qualified than me - agree!

That's good for you, but the problem remains that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to budge, and you're going to endlessly parrot whatever nonsense agenda you have.

It makes perfect sense to question a religion that claims theirs is the ONE God, than - no matter how they try to get around it - throw in the Pagan trinity concept.

I know, Muslims harp on the same point. You insist that the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism and while I can sympathise I disagree. It's not that I "just can't see the obvious" it's that I reject your views. And giving me condensing nonsense or lessons in a language you have yet to display any grasp of whatsoever isn't going to convince anyone. The Greek doesn't say that? Well I guess that's a slight oversight of the Greek Church. Think about that for a moment, no orthodox Greek Christian has been able to understand what the Greek "really" says? That's a big claim and it's ludicrous on the face of it.

A text says Jesus will have a throne beside GOD???????

That's not a problem as the Son is distinct from the Father, the trinity concept stresses this point. Jesus is not a mere facet of the Father, which itself is a heresy called Sabellianism.

The trinity idea was added later.

No, Nicaea simply defined the accepted teaching that had always been passed down. Those who questioned the divinity of Christ have always been the outliers, it has never been the other way around. Your narrative of history would have us believe that the protectors of Church doctrine lost their voices (not a peep from them) as this novel and heretical idea spread all over. And of course God allowed it to happen as à la Islam God (when convenient) is unable to protect his revelations from corruption. You parrot a similar claim as the JW's. Everyone fell into heresy pretty much the moment Christ died and it's you and your group who sees the obvious truth which for two-thousand years of Christian tradition has been mysteriously overlooked.

Can you even begin to see the elephant here?

 

[Ingledsva]

That's good for you, but the problem remains that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to budge, and you're going to endlessly parrot whatever nonsense agenda you have.

ING - It is hilarious that when you can't counter an argument - you attack the writer.

As others have noted - perhaps you could stick to the subject and leave out the personal crap?


I know, Muslims harp on the same point. You insist that the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism and while I can sympathise I disagree. It's not that I "just can't see the obvious" it's that I reject your views.

ING - It matters not if you reject my views - any theologian can tell you the trinity concept was adopted later! The trinity concept is NOT in the Bible.

And giving me condensing nonsense or lessons in a language you have yet to display any grasp of whatsoever isn't going to convince anyone. The Greek doesn't say that? Well I guess that's a slight oversight of the Greek Church. Think about that for a moment, no orthodox Greek Christian has been able to understand what the Greek "really" says? That's a big claim and it's ludicrous on the face of it.

ING - LOL! Back to the crap! I looked the texts up in their original languages. But that is neither here not there, as it is well know in the theological community that there is no trinity in the Bible, and the concept was adopted later.


That's not a problem as the Son is distinct from the Father, the trinity concept stresses this point. Jesus is not a mere facet of the Father, which itself is a heresy called Sabellianism.

ING - BULL! There is a problem - as you say God is ONE, - and the trinity is only for a reason, redeeming mankind, - supposedly completed by Jesus rising! There is no longer a reason for a TRIPLE PAGAN GOD. Yet the Bible has Jesus sitting BESIDE ONE-GOD after all these events. A totally separate MAN - not part of any trinity-God.

The fact that the bible keeps them totally separate after supposed events, and the FACT that there is no trinity in the Bible, - proves they are separate beings and not one God split for a purpose.


No, Nicaea simply defined the accepted teaching that had always been passed down. Those who questioned the divinity of Christ have always been the outliers, it has never been the other way around. Your narrative of history would have us believe that the protectors of Church doctrine lost their voices as this novel and heretical idea spread all over. (And of course God allowed it to happen as à la Islam, God is conveniently unable to protect his revelations from corruption) But that's not what we see, we see the opposite.

ING - LOL! We know from their own writings, that they destroyed the writing of those whom taught the ORIGINAL JEWISH ONE GOD, - no trinity - as that trinity was Pagan blasphemy!

But of course, you parrot a similar claim as the JW's. Everyone apostatised pretty much the moment Christ died and it's you and your group who sees the obvious truth which for two-thousand years of Christian tradition has been mysteriously overlooked.

Can you even begin to see the elephant here?

Expand his to see all answers.

The FACT that other groups and theologians can see there is no actual trinity idea in the Bible, obviously does not make them incorrect. You just want them to be. AGAIN - it is well known that there IS NO trinity idea in the Bible. It was brought in much later.

*

 

[Glaurung]

The FACT that other groups and theologians can see there is no actual trinity idea in the Bible, obviously does not make them incorrect. You just want them to be. AGAIN - it is well known that there IS NO trinity idea in the Bible. It was brought in much later.

And the fact that most theologians and most Christian groups do see the Trinity in the Bible does not make them incorrect. You just want them to be.

ING - It is hilarious that when you can't counter an argument - you attack the writer.

All you do is make the same assertion time and time again, Christians are fundamentally wrong and I should just accept this because you said so.

It matters not if you reject my views - any theologian can tell you the trinity concept was adopted later! The trinity concept is NOT in the Bible.

They would not tell me that and you know it. Yes it's true, the Trinity would not be authoritatively defined until later but that doesn't mean it was "adopted" later. Authoritative declarations are made to protect Church doctrine, not to install new ones. And Church doctrine comes from tradition, of which Scripture is only one part.

I looked the texts up in their original languages. But that is neither here not there, as it is well know in the theological community that there is no trinity in the Bible, and the concept was adopted later.

Again with this I looked up and I know what's what. I don't consider you to be an authoritative reference. It is there, I see it and the Church has always seen it. I really don't care about what you think you know, repeating the same darn thing again and again is no argument.

There is a problem - as you say God is ONE, - and the trinity is only for a reason, redeeming mankind, - supposedly completed by Jesus rising! There is no longer a reason for a TRIPLE PAGAN GOD. Yet the Bible has Jesus sitting BESIDE ONE-GOD after all these events. A totally separate MAN - not part of any trinity-God.

The fact that the bible keeps them totally separate after supposed events, and the FACT that there is no trinity in the Bible, - proves they are separate beings and not one God split for a purpose.

So many misconceptions. God is inherently triune, each person is fully God and not an aspect or a separation. (Get the doctrine straight before you attack it). It is eternal and in and of itself has nothing to do with humanity or their redemption. The Son took to redeem us by accepting a human nature at a definite time, but our salvation is not the rasion d'être of the Son. Eternally begotten before all ages. Before humanity or even before the creation itself.

We know from their own writings, that they destroyed the writing of those whom taught the ORIGINAL JEWISH ONE GOD, - no trinity - as that trinity was Pagan blasphemy!

Ah, the root of the problem. It's not so much the Trinity so much as Christianity isn't Judaism. Well fine, if you believe that convert and stop preaching to me. I'm not adopting a Jewish theology because you insist it's the "correct" one.

 

[sojourner]

And people much more qualified than me - agree!

Later "tradition" does not make it so.

John 1 does not say - in the Greek - that Jesus is the Logos/word, nor does a person fit the definition of the word.

The only thing that would be with God in the beginning, would be God's Power/Law/creation potential, not some foreign trinity idea.

Any Jew can tell you this.

*

But then John goes on to say that the Logos became flesh, and then goes on to identify that fleshly being as Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

The trinity idea was added later.

The developed doctrine was "added later." There is a concept extant n the bible of Jesus as Divine -- and as God.

 

[s13ep]

Don't forget for the Holy Trinity is it's opposite and harmonious Unholy Trinity.

 

[sojourner]

AGAIN - it is well known that there IS NO trinity idea in the Bible. It was brought in much later.

There is no developed "trinity idea" in the bible. AGAIN -- it is well known that Jesus is biblically-described both as Divine -- and as, somehow, God.

 

[Desert Snake]

The developed doctrine was "added later." There is a concept extant n the bible of Jesus as Divine -- and as God.

It's written outright; if anything there is a interpretive bias to separate the Godhead, occurring, in some traditional theological argumentation.

 

[sojourner]

Don't forget for the Holy Trinity is it's opposite and harmonious Unholy Trinity.

Are you arguing for "Bizarro World?"

 

[sojourner]

It's written outright; if anything there is a interpretive bias to separate the Godhead, occurring, in some traditional theological argumentation.

Yes, but the developed doctrine came later. The Doctrine, as outlined, simply does not appear verbatim in the texts.

 

[s13ep]

Are you arguing for "Bizarro World?"

If you like

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, but the developed doctrine came later. The Doctrine, as outlined, simply does not appear verbatim in the texts.

Yes I know that, I meant the fact that Jesus is referred to, as G-d, in the text.