Just received an email from a Muslim friend..



Categories: Bible, God

46 replies

  1. A Question could be given to any christian!
    Can we label one of three persons as ( one God, the only one God)?
    If anyone notice that phrase ( one God) in the whole bible has not been given as a label to the ( triune God) ever. In contrast, it has always been given to one of three persons who was ” The father”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • True meaning of 1John 5:20

      1 John 5:20

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

      Trinitarian Claim

      Trinitarians claim this verse identifies Jesus as “the true God.” They do this by insisting the antecedent to the word “this” is a reference back to “Jesus Christ” in the previous sentence.

      The Claim vs. The Facts

      The facts show quite clearly that the true God in this verse is the Father whom the Son reveals.

      The Problems with the Trinitarian Claim

      1. Houtos

      The word translated as “This” is the Greek word houtos. The word “this” requires an antecedent. This word is used to refer to something which has been mentioned or will be immediately mentioned. An antecedent is a noun or noun phrase to which the word “this” is referring. Trinitarians are attempting to suggest that the nearest person mentioned in the preceding context is always the most likely antecedent to the word “This” (houtos). However, grammatically speaking, this Trinitarian claim is very disingenuous, and in their passion to promote Trinitarian doctrine, they are simply not being honest. In both English and Greek, the antecedent is not the nearest preceding word. The antecedent is rather the most recent subject under discussion. The most recent subject under discussion might be the last thing mentioned prior to the word “This” but it very commonly is not the last thing mentioned. And so Trinitarians are really resorting to wishful thinking and dishonest conduct for the sake of their doctrinal traditions.

      2. The Ludicrous Implications of the Trinitarian Claim

      The Trinitarian claim is that we should consider the nearest preceding word to “this” to be the antecedent to the word “This.” Notice carefully what happens if we use the Trinitarian method in these two verses from John:

      Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This (houtos) is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22.

      For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This (houtos) is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7
      Here are two passages, one from this selfsame letter of John, and one from his next letter. If we used the same Trinitarian line of reasoning for these two verses, we would need to conclude that the referent for the word “This” at 1 John 2:22 is the Christ and we would therefore have John saying that Christ is the antichrist and Christ denies the Father and the Son. We would also need to conclude at 2 John 1:7 that the referent for “This” is the flesh of Jesus and we would therefore have John saying that Jesus’ flesh is the deceiver and the antichrist. The Trinitarian line of reasoning results in preposterous implications.

      Analysis of the Facts

      1. The Greek word alēthinos (ἀληθινός)

      The Greek word for “truth” is alētheia. The Greek word for “true” is alēthēs and refers to something objectively true. The Greek word alētheuō means to tell the truth. The Greek word alēthōs is usually translated as “truly.” The word alēthinos is used in a variety of ways in Scripture and essentially refers to something, or someone, as inherently true.

      The following is a more literal translation:

      “And we know that the Son of God comes and has given us understanding, to know the True One, and we are in the True one, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and eternal life.”
      Basic reading comprehension should be enough for most folks to see that the True God is the Father. But apparently, basic reading comprehension doesn’t work in Trinitarian world.

      2. Basic Reading Comprehension

      The truth of the matter only requires basic reading comprehension. Let us first ask, “Who is the True One?”

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know Him who is True, and we are in Him who is True, in His son Jesus Christ.

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His son Jesus Christ.
      The True One has a son named Jesus Christ. Very obviously, the True One is the Father.

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life.
      The True God is the True One, and we are in the True One if we are in His son Jesus. The True One/True God is obviously the Father.

      3. The Eternal Life

      At John 17:3, Jesus is praying to the Father and he says, “THIS is Eternal Life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

      Here Jesus tells us that eternal life is to know God the Father, the only True God. At 1 John 5:20, John is telling us the same thing – that the Son has come so that we might know the True One. The man Jesus is the way to the Father (John 14:6) and we must know Jesus to know the Father for Eternal Life. This is because the Eternal Life of God the Father is found in Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life.

      4. The True God and Eternal Life

      Once these facts are laid out before us, it is more than clear that the True One at 1 John 5:20 is the Father whom Jesus came to give us understanding so that we might know the Father for Eternal Life just as Jesus prayed at John 17:3. When John uses the word “This” he is referring to the True God and Eternal Life that Jesus makes known to us. The only True God is the Father as Jesus declared at John 17:3 and Eternal Life is to know the Father. “This” refers back to what Jesus has given us understand of and knowledge of: the Father, the only True God.

      Compare the highlighted words in these two verses:

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life.

      Father…. This is Eternal Life, that they might know You, the only True God and Jesus Christ whom You sent.

      Now compare these highlighted words:

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life.

      Father…. This is Eternal Life, that they might know You, the only True God and Jesus Christ whom You sent.

      Now compare these highlighted words:

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life.

      Father…. This is Eternal Life, that they might know You, the only True God and Jesus Christ whom You sent.

      Now compare these highlighted words:

      And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we might know the True One, and we are in the True One, in HIS son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life.

      Father …. This is eternal life, that they might know You, the only True God and Jesus Christ whom You sent.
      It is really quite obvious isn’t it? It should be clear to every honest person that the same idea is being presented in both of these verses. The Eternal Life of our God and Father is found in His Son. The Son makes the only True God known to us, that is, the Father. Since Eternal Life is to know the only True God our Father, John says, “This is the True God and Eternal Life.”

      Conclusion

      If we set aside Trinitarian wishful thinking, it is quite clear that the antecedent to the word “This” is not Jesus. John is telling us how Jesus came so that we might know the True One. This is obviously a reference to the Father since we know the Father through Jesus who is the way to the Father. The word “This” refers to the True God who Jesus makes known to us, his God and Father. All the facts indicate that John is expressing the idea that the true God, the Father, is known through His Son Jesus. At John 17:3, Jesus tells us “this” is Eternal Life – to know the Father, the only True God. The same idea is being expressed at 1 John 5:20.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for insightful analysis Jason. God bless you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric,

      That’s copy and pasted from the Trinity delusion website. Wish I could take credit. Regardless, God bless you to bro.

      Like

    • I forgot to mention my source. My bad.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jason, the Father is never the referent for houtos in John’s writings.

      “The demonstrative pronoun, οὗτός, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner. Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which οὗτός has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son. What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 327; emphasis original)

      Second, alētheia is also never used for the Father In any of John’s writings.

      So for purely grammatical reasons, the referent has to be Jesus. If we adopt a Unitarian exegesis, we adopt grammatical usages never found anywhere else in John’s writings. That is why your cited source has to ignore the real issues and deflect to more theological arguments.

      I suggest you read this

      http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2016/08/this-is-true-god.html?m=1

      Like

    • Right on Paulus,

      Thanks

      Like

    • Paulus,

      What’s the best book you would point someone to to help them understand as well as see the Trinitarian case from scripture for the Trinity?

      I would appreciate any book recommendations.

      Thanks

      Like

    • Paulus,

      FYI, the author of that article was a Trinitarian at one time. That doesn’t mean his exegesis is correct, I just thought I should throw that out there.

      Like

    • Thanks Jason, I had a read. I dont personally find his arguments persuasive. He did the same thing as your former source-making assertions with disregard for the grammar.

      E.g “ton alethinon is clearly the most natural antecedent for ho alethinos theos (“the true God”), who is distinguished from Jesus (zoe aionios [“everlasting life”]”

      Actually it’s not the most natural antecedent. As I said before, the most natural antecedent is “Jesus Christ” because it’s the NEAREST antecedent, which is how Greek grammar works. To see this referent as the Father is to apply the grammar of John in such a way as we see no where else.

      His second argument is a theological one from John 17. That is normally ok to support one’s exegesis, provided it doesn’t breach normal grammatical rules. But his argument requires such a breach which is why I don’t find it appealing.

      Thirdly, his final approach doesn’t even make sense. He recognises that ‘Zoe’ (life) only is ever used of Jesus and thus needs to make the bizarre distinction that the first clause is referring to the Father, but the second the Son. Have a look at the clause,

      “This is the true God and eternal life.”

      Your source is saying essentially “(the Father) is the true God and (Jesus) is eternal life.

      But you’ll notice that this only works by the addition of the second parenthesis that isn’t in the Greek text. Most Unitarians apply the whole clause to the Father (e.g the first source you cited above), but this particular guy recognises that eternal life is only ever used of Jesus. So he tries to solve the difficulty by splitting the clause, but he has to move beyond the actual words in the text to reach his conclusion. In short, he has to fabricate the grammar to fit his theology. Unitarians are quite divided exegetically on how to solve this problem. You probably didn’t even realise that your two sources are arguing two very different things I their attempt to come to the same conclusion.

      Thus, Since the father is NEVER called eternal life and since the closest antecedent is Jesus for houtos (normal grammatical rule), it seems most appropriate to apply this to Jesus. That’s what I think anyway.

      Like

  2. Another example of “keep reading” – read all the verses before and afterward. Verse 5 says that the Son had the same glory with the Father in heaven in eternity past. Of course Jesus is going to call the Father “the only true God” while on earth, because the Son is not an atheist, and the doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges that the Father is the God, and the ultimate expression of Monotheism, but at the same time, with all the verses also, the Bible teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God by nature, substance, essence. The Son derives His nature from the Father – eternally generated, and the Spirit eternally proceeds out from the Father. (John 15:26)

    5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

    Great photo also – see the cross references:

    1 John 5:20
    20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

    the Word was both “with God” (with the Father) (2 persons in personal relationship) and “the Word was God” (in essence, nature, substance)

    John 1:14
    And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten (unique one, eternally generated out) from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    John 1:18
    “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

    this verse calls the Son, “the only begotten God” or “only unique God, who is at the Father’s side” or other versions say, “in the bosom of the Father” – the highest level of closeness and relationship.

    Philippians 2:6 (and including verse 5, and also to verse 11)

    5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
    6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
    8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

    9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
    10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    the doctrine of the Trinity puts all the verses together in a theological harmony.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      The God of Abraham does not hide proclaiming publicly over and over in all scriptures that He is God and He is One, Only and Alone.

      Any God who does not do that i.e. Jesus Christ is not God. All that you quoted above does not say Jesus is God. It is not clear. Jason will say “Trinitarians love Trinity than clear words” and Rabbi Tovia Singer will say “Trinitarians will choose the obscure and not clear texts over clear texts”.

      Yahweh clearly said He is God and He is One and Alone. No where did Jesus said He is God and He alone is to be worshiped.

      This verse and you quoted is still talking about the God of Jesus

      20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

      Ken, you are trying to make it look like it is Jesus who is God. No it is still about the God of Jesus.

      In the beginning if the Word is with God and the Word is God, then we can count 2 Gods except Trinitarians who have counting problems. I can assure you a kindergarten kid can count 2 Gods In the beginning here.

      I cannot comment on the other verses because it does not say Jesus is God. If God takes the form of a human being why can’t he tell us the day of Judgement?

      If you visit children play ground you will see people wearing the form of animals like lions, horses etc. and that does not make them lions, horses etc. but still human beings in lion clothes. They still remember what they know.

      If you ask a human who took the form of lion his birth day and name he will be able to provide it for you. Jesus as God taking the form of man must be still God and be able to know what he know and give us the day of judgement.

      Jesus said he does not know the day of judgement and it means he is not God who has taken the form of a man. As simple as that.

      If Jesus had said “As God I know the day of judgement and will not provide it for now” then he would have claimed to be God. Jesus said he does not know the day of judgement on earth while performing some God functions on earth and shows he could perform divine functions on earth according to Christians.

      Thanks

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      “Why can’t God take the form of human without ceasing to be God and still remains as God?”
      -Dr. James White

      Answer
      Because he did cease to be God because Jesus forgot the day of judgement and God is All Knowing and does not forget. In addition, the form of a human being is too small for God and has impunities, bacteria, smell etc. and does not befit God.

      It is like saying human being must be a pig eating worms in decomposed human excreta. That is insult to man to be a pig and is insult to God to be a man or take the form of a man. God is majestic and does not need to become another being or take the form of another being in order to be able to execute his will.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus also denied he was God in Mark 10.

      Like

  3. “Intellect” – that is the amazing thing about the Christian message, that God the Son voluntarily was willing to come and become man / flesh / human and be willing to be subjected to the hardships of this life and was willing to be unjustly treated – they beat Him and crucified Him and killed Him. When we wonder about why evil and why suffering, the greatest answer is that God Himself entered into our sufferings and injustices.

    Dorothy Sayers, the Anglican writer, wrote an interesting piece, seeking to answer the issue of why God allowed evil to come into the world.

    “For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is – limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death – He had the honesty and the courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation and defeat, despair and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worth while.”

    (Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos? New York: Harcourt, Brace and Col, 149, p. 4; cited in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, p. 153-154.

    Such a beautiful quote!!

    My Iranian friend Kamyar, who was my second Farsi teacher in 1994, said this to me:

    “The two most amazing things about Christianity are:
    1. That God, who we were taught in Islam, was far off and aloof, became a man like us, clothed Himself in flesh.”
    and
    2. That there is a way to be saved from sin and know it and have assurance of it.
    “دو چیز خیلی عالی است در مسیحیت
    1. که خدا، که ما در اسلام تعلیم یافتیم که خیلی دور از ما می ماند، انسان شد مثل ما شد، و خود را جسم پوشید،
    و 2. که یک راهی را وجود دارد برای نجات از گناه و می توانیم آن راه را بدانیم، و اطمینان داشته باشیم

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      “Intellect” – that is the amazing thing about the Christian message, that God the Son voluntarily was willing to come and become man / flesh / human and be willing to be subjected to the hardships of this life and was willing to be unjustly treated – they beat Him and crucified Him and killed Him. When we wonder about why evil and why suffering, the greatest answer is that God Himself entered into our sufferings and injustices.

      I say;
      The Son/son said he was SENT, SENT, SENT, SENT SENTSENTSENTSENTSENT by the true God who is not the Son/son. Don’t you understand English? Or show me a Greek word in the NT that does not mean SENT.
      Someone who was SENT cannot claim he voluntarily was willing. Mr. Temple, you know this site is critical thinking site and you keep preaching like how Pastors do to ignorant people by telling lies that Jesus voluntarily came while it was not voluntary or willing but was sent.

      Again, human form or body is too small for God to enter into it. The Bible said nothin we know can contain God. Christians say human beings are impure and imperfect to get closer to God and so how can it be possible for God to come closer to all these imperfect and impure human beings?

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken ignores the fact that God SENT Jesus. It messes with his theology.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      “The two most amazing things about Christianity are:
      1. That God, who we were taught in Islam, was far off and aloof, became a man like us, clothed Himself in flesh.”
      and
      2. That there is a way to be saved from sin and know it and have assurance of it.

      I say;
      Idol worshipers have their gods in front of them too. If that means God of love, then all idol worshipers have their gods in front of them. Besides the God of the Trinitarians punished kids by commanding for them to be killed and promised to kill his enemies. Where is the lover here? No love from the Christian God whom Christian keep lying that he is love all the way.

      Distance God? Have you seen God face to face? No. So you cannot claim your God is not distant.

      You believed Dorothy Sayers when she said “God is humiliated and defeated” Astagfurillah. Ken repent before it is too late. The Mighty and Majestic God will never be humiliated and defeated by anyone. The Jew even the Messiah can never be defeated and humiliated and that is why they did not believe Jesus Christi is the Messiah and they are right no one can kill the Messiah.

      Bill Gates is the creator of Microsoft Windows 10 and Bill Gates is a human being and not a software and cannot become a software but know everything about windows 10. Bill Gates cannot become a software ever because he is a human being but knows how his software works.

      God does not have to become a human being which he cannot in order to know pain, suffering etc. or experience them. God created all these for God’s sake my dear Temple.

      Every religion has assurance but not Christianity alone. Prove to me the pictures you snapped in heaven and I will concede you have assurance. You cannot prove, so stop that assurance nonsense.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • You believed Dorothy Sayers when she said “God is humiliated and defeated” Astagfurillah. Ken repent before it is too late.

      Astagfurillah – استغفرالله
      You forget that Jesus rose from the dead, so the victory is there, over death, sin, and Satan.

      The issue in Dorothy Sayer’s quote and the beauty of it is that God entered into our sufferings and did not leave us alone.

      He suffered humiliation and “defeat” only for a time, and the “defeat” was actually a victory, because He atoned for sins, and rose from the dead and proved He defeated sin and proved everything He said in the Gospels was true.

      Like

    • Ken, are you speaking in tongues? Is the holy spirit in you struggling to come out? 😉

      Your post is further proof that Christians cannot provide any reasonable explanations for the contradictions and absurdities in their religion, but rather, an appeal to one’s emotions. Your Iranian friend seems to be impressed with the idea that God so loved the world that he came down as a man to die for our sins, but he doesn’t seem to realize how utterly ridiculous it sounds. This again brings us back to the contradiction between claiming that God “loves” everyone and the threat that if you don’t believe in his “sacrifice”, then he will throw you into hell forever. Not a “loving” god, I’m afraid.

      By the way, when a person looks at the Bible for what it is, free of any preconceived bias, then one will no longer be impressed with fictional stories of gods coming down to die for our sins. I have a Canadian friend whom I have debated with for more than 10 years. He was a devout Evangelical who believed every word of the Bible. After more than 10 years of trying, he has finally seen the facts about the Bible that I had known for so long, and no longer subscribes to trinitarianism. He is not yet a Muslim, but he has been doing Salat and I am hopeful he will soon convert. Anyway, here is what he wrote in an email after I explained to him that he should do the Salat the way the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught (he does not yet accept that Muhammad was a prophet):

      “Salaam alaikum and thanks for your response, Faiz. It makes more sense to either do it in the proper way or not do it at all, or at least when I do it then to not call it salat. I don’t want to stop praying even if I am a non-Muslim and the Surah Fatihah seems to me to be the most beautiful and good thing that one can say while praying, and I am not going to go back to praying to Jesus or anyone other than the Almighty.”

      Alhamdulillah! He has taken the first step. It took a long time, but as they say, patient is a virtue!

      Liked by 2 people

    • thanks for the Farsi Ken, my Iranian readers will appreciate it.

      Like

  4. All,

    If you guys/gals are interested a good book I would recommend is “The Son of God-Three views of the identity of Jesus” in it you have the Trinitarian position argued by Charles Lee Irons, Danny Andre Dixon argues for a Arian position, and Dustin R Smith who argues for a Socinian position. Both Danny and Dustin are Unitarians and it makes for a good read and interesting exchanges, rebuttals and counter rebuttals.

    Happy Saturday

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Faiz,

    Is not an appeal to bare emotions. I cannot understand why would call it that. Your friend’s testimony is his own personal experience; it proves nothing. Many Mormons and Hindus and other polytheists and other secular humanists, those who believe in a higher power in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings (but no personal God of the Bible, without doctrine, etc.) say the same things about their own experiences.

    The doctrines are the solid answers to the issues of suffering, injustice, guilt, salvation.

    the incarnation and atonement and resurrection answer those questions.

    Incarnation: God entered into our sufferings and did not leave us alone. Whenever injustice is experienced, we can look to Him who endured the cross and endured hostility against Himself by sinners in injustice.

    Atonement on the cross:

    Justice was done against sin.
    Love and mercy are demonstrated to sinners from all nations.

    Like

    • Of course it is an appeal to “bare emotions”. Just look at your post! You provided the personal opinions of others who are clearly very touched and impressed by the idea of God sacrificing Himself for us mortals, but there is absolutely nothing that can be considered a rational thought. Even your follow-up post is riddled with emotion. Case in point:

      “Love and mercy are demonstrated to sinners from all nations.”

      This is just raw emotion. It fails to answer the the reasonable questions that many people ask, such as

      1. Why couldn’t God just forgive sins without requiring a blood sacrifice?
      2. How is human sacrifice “just”?
      3. Why would a “loving” God throw people into Hell, if he truly loves them in the first place?

      None of these questions can be answered by Christians. That is why they resort to emotional arguments (i.e. “God loves you!”), which of course, prove absolutely nothing.

      Like

  6. Here is an interesting snippet from “The Son of God” by Socinian Dustin Smith

    ” It is regularly argued that the Prologue of John 1:1-18 insists that Jesus existed prior to his birth in the form of the Logos. However, the Logos in John’s Prologue functions as God’s personified and personal utterance, NOT A CONSCIOUS BEING ALONGSIDE OF GOD. Accordingly, when John 1:14 states that the Logos became flesh, this indicates that God’s personified SPEECH was embodied in the human Jesus, allowing for poetic and metaphorical overtones of the passage to take effect. If this is indeed the intention the phrase “the word be an flesh”, then this would again signify a reference to the Messiahs human birth.”

    I just thought I would share a quote from the book. There is a lot of intresting ideas and views being exchanged.

    Like

  7. http://elihubooks.blogspot.com/2010/10/jah-loves-her-wisdom-his-son-word.html

    Nice article by exJW Greg Stafford (who debated James White, Greg cleaned the floor with James in my opinion). Greg is still a biblical Monotheist. It’s a long article but intresting nonetheless.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Greg Stafford cross examines James White.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dr. White answered well – Stafford and others who only read only John 17:3 need to includes verses 4 and 5 and the context of verse 1-2 – Jesus in incarnate, on earth, and praying to the Father. This excludes Modalism, and also demonstrates Monotheism, and with verse 5, it points to the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. This is why the Doctrine of the Trinity is ONE GOD (affirming John 17:3) AND three persons (showing 2 of the persons in verse 5 and Jesus pre-existence and eternality before creation.

      There are solid reasons for the formulation of the Doctrine, taking into account all of the verses, not just one here and there plucked out of context.

      Include the whole debate. See Dr. White’s cross exam of Greg Stafford also.

      Like

    • BTW Paul, that text says nothing bout “God being One”. You’ve simply made that up. It says that the Father is the ‘only true God’, which is completely consistent with trinitarian theology.

      Like

    • it is completely INconsistent with your theology. If the father is the ‘only true God’, then there is no room for Jesus to be the only true God. You are defeated!

      Like

    • Huh? i think you know that such a statement is conpletely consistent with trinitarian theology. In fact, it’s a key building block.

      Perhaps it’s not consistent with your Unitarian assumptions, but that’s not my problem.

      Like

  9. Paul Williams/Ken Temple/Paulus

    You said to Paulus

    Paul Williams

    August 21, 2016 • 10:26 am

    it is completely INconsistent with your theology. If the father is the ‘only true God’, then there is no room for Jesus to be the only true God. You are defeated

    I say;
    Trinitarians are bullies when it comes to words and how they change words. Ken Temple and Trinitarian clergy do not understand English and Greek and do not understand SENT, SENT and change SENT to Willing and voluntary.

    Ken Temple changed defeat to victory i.e. Jesus was defeated said Temple but it was victory.

    Ken Temple said God dead but God does not die according to the Bible.

    He said God was humiliated and not one can humiliate the Almighty God.

    He said God entered into suffering or whatever does he mean is up to him, and God cannot enter into our small body or space that is why He sends Angels and Prophets. What are the use of Prophets Moses, Abraham. Angel Gabriel etc. if God love us and has entered in our body and is in love and with us?

    Trinitarians said God died but that “died” is not died because he was “alive” because he resurrected Himself. If the Father who is God resurrected Jesus like how He resurrect anyone else, then it is not a big deal and Jesus is not God. If Jesus resurrected himself then he is alive and did not die in the first place. How will they lie that he died and defeated death?

    This site is a critical thinking site and we will not accept that lies that someone who dies has defeated death. Anyone who died in the first place has not defeated death.

    Trinitarians will say 3 Persons/persons/beings is equal to 1 Person/person/being and expect you to accept this total nonsense and absurdity.

    Every Person/person is a being and so 3 persons are 3 beings and is polytheism/idolatry to worship such Gods.

    Ken Temple will say I have insulted God by comparing God to man in that a man is one being and God can be many persons 1 being.

    Mr. Ken it is nonsense

    Why is it nonsense?

    1. If God’s being can be more than 1 Persons/persons as in Trinity, then common sense must allow for other Gods like the Mormons, Rastafarians, Hindus and so many multi-Personal gods.

    2. Trinitarians will attack me for comparing God to man as Ken kept doing here but he Ken Temple said God became man, humiliated, suffered, pain etc. and all these nasty things to God. God the purest stayed in the womb of Mary for 9 months.

    The Trinitarians are bullies in the world that God has created. i.e. They can change every word as they like for their theology and say nasty things about God and say it is love but will criticise someone for comparing their God-Man to man. They forgot they said their God became man.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I forgot. Paulus does not understand ONLY, ONLY, ONLY. ONLY.ONLYONLYONLYONLYONLYONLY. He completely ignored Only because only means not Jesus and Jesus is not God. Trinitarians are prepared to ignore all these clear truth from the Bible and bring their own lies like “Jesus is willing and voluntary” which is not true, “Jesus is God” which is not true for the ONLY,ONLY ONLYONLYONLYONLYONLY true God is not Jesus according to Jesus and the Bible NT.

      Dr. Shabir Ally to Dr. Nabil Quraish and his Christian audience.

      If God can enter into our world and reveal Himself to us, how do you know that He did not enter into the world and revealed Himself to the Hindus? Ken, any answer.

      It is not in the Bible “God enters the world to love human beings”. It is Greeko/Roman mythology that God of Love came down to love and had sex humans to produce other Gods.

      Sometimes God does not love what Satan and his followers does. It is in both the Bible and the Quran. So it is not always God loves or God is love. God is not love itself but love is a word, noun, adjective or verb. God cannot sometimes decides not to love any bad think so God is not love itself.

      God is Merciful and sometimes God does not show Mercy to evil doers. God is just and punishes but sometimes God Mercy cancels just and punishment to accomplish forgiveness.

      Justice and punishment can be canceled with sincere repentance and love and mercy and forgiveness from God.

      It is Satan and Pagan gods who will not forgive and show mercy but will have someone to pour their anger and wrath at.

      The God of Islam forgives free of charge without punishing himself or anyone or the son of anyone. That is not justice.

      The victims of injustice will be compensated by Almighty God on His own time and discretion.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼😎😎😎 Good stuff Intellect.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Lol, Paulus/Lassie suffers another defeat!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, perhaps I was defeated in much the same ways the first Muslim, Muhammad, slaughtered all the dogs of Mecca. Of course, in your mind, that is probably some type of merciful action blah blah blah.

      Now, go ahead, have the last word again. We all know how desperate you are to prove yourself right.

      Like

    • Paulus why do you behave like a petulant child??

      Like

  11. LOL, Lassie always tries to put in a rabid post, then harps about “getting the last word”. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. What else can dogs do except bark mindlessly?

    How’s that for the last word, Lassie? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Intellect:
    We do understand “sent”, “sent”, “sent” – The Father sent the Son, yes; that is not a problem with Trinitarian doctrine. This proves against Modalism (that Father became flesh / human). Only the Son became human, the Father or the Holy Spirit did not. “Sent” also points to 2 of the persons. Not a problem.

    “Only”, “Only”, “only” – not a problem either, since there is only one God. Trinitarians are Monotheists.

    We believe both – Monotheism – one God; and 3 persons within the ONE God.

    You have to study the difference of the categories of “substance” verses “person”. One substance, three persons.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: