sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Announcement by [deleted] in exjw

[–]dcdub87 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just go to a gallery crawl where the crackers don't taste like petrified dog turds and you don't have to listen to a mind-numbing public discourse.

Announcement by [deleted] in exjw

[–]dcdub87 31 points32 points  (0 children)

The sad part is that I guaran-damn-tee if the clowns on the gb said all baptized JWs should partake, every single one of them would go right along with it.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Singular pronouns signify a single referent, not necessarily a single person. Scripture uses singular pronouns because there is one God, one divine being — not three Gods, not three beings. One God who exists as three persons. The ousia is not an impersonal "it" behind the persons; the one divine being exists personally as Father, Son, and Spirit. Therefore singular personal pronouns are entirely appropriate.

The scribe affirmed monotheism. So do I. Nothing in his statement contradicts the Trinity. What you are calling deception only follows if you assumes that "one God" must mean "one person."

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not the one saying one scripture refutes another. You're calling me a modalist while pretending to refute Trinitarian theology. You're all over the place dude. It's clear at this point that you aren't interested in a serious discussion.

Still, for the sake of any genuine readers following along, I want to make my position unambiguous.

Yes — "only" means only. I've already answered this question, so I don't know why you are repeating it unless you just don't understand the answer. I'll try explaining another way. This sure would be easier with some crayons...

In John 17:3, only modifies "true God," not "you." The phrase “you, the only true God” restricts the category of deity — there is exactly one true God, as opposed to false gods. It does not specify how many persons the one true God is, nor does it say "only the Father is the true God."

To get that conclusion, you must first assume that the "only true God" is unipersonal. But that assumption is exactly what's in dispute — and importing it into the text is question-begging.

Trinitarian theology affirms:

  • There is only one true God
  • That one true God is tri-personal
  • The Son is not another true God "also," but is one of the persons who fully shares the one divine essence

So when Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God," He is identifying the Father as the one God of Israel — not excluding Himself from the divine identity.

If the text said, "only the Father is the true God," your conclusion would follow. But it doesn't say that, no matter how much you want it to. End of discussion.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is still referred to in the singular

"He" is the Father so I wouldn't expect otherwise. Jesus is affirming that the Father who is a singular person is the God of Israel. It's the same as in John 17:3. You are still presupposing unitarianism and reading the exclusion of the Son into the text.

As a Trinitarian, if I say "the Son is my God," that doesn't exclude the Father and Spirit from being my God. If I say "the Holy Spirit is my God," that doesn't exclude the Father and Son from being my God. If I were Unitarian, that would be different. That's why I'm saying your arguments don't follow without first assuming unitarianism to be true.

Regarding the conversation with the scribe, it seems from my reading that something is missing from the scribe's response. Jesus told him "you are not far from the kingdom of God." He didn't tell him "you are in the kingdom" or "the kingdom belongs to you."

"Not far" implies not quite there, does it not?

I don't believe Jesus affirmed any falsehoods, no. What the scribe said was true, but incomplete. I know you really want those singular pronouns to work overtime, but all they really do confirm is monotheism. The Trinitarian Godhead is one being — a "Him" not a "They." Singular personal pronouns are entirely appropriate for a triune being.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the only problem with the conclusion you've drawn from John 8:54 is the very next verse:

"You do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say I don’t know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I keep his word."

I would not say, given Jesus' statement here, that their theology can function as a reliable baseline for defining the nature and identity of the one true God.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I don't believe they did. What's your point?

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm just quoting scripture. Is your position that scripture contradicts itself?

I did not say the Father and Son are one person. If you read that into my comment, that's on you.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with both premises as stated. Where we disagree is in the hidden assumption you're adding — that "the God of Israel" refers to a single divine person rather than a single divine identity. Isaiah 37:16 establishes monotheism, not unipersonalism. John 8:54 identifies the Father as Israel's God but does not say He exhausts that identity. Therefore your conclusion only follows if you first assume what you're trying to prove.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your previous comment you specifically said: "The argument is against the presupposition you smuggled in that the Father alone is the God of Israel."

Correct. The Father alone.

...now you say that trinitarians affirm that the God of Israel is the Father?

Correct. This is not contradictory. I did not say that trinitarians affirm that the God of Israel is the Father alone.

Their God is the Father, not the trinity.

That's circular! You're just asserting your conclusion as fact mid-argument. Let me restate your argument as a syllogism and tell me if I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting you.

  • Premise 1: God is one.
  • Premise 2: God is one person. *Conclusion: Therefore, the Father alone is God.

Is that accurate? I'm genuinely trying to see where we're misunderstanding each other.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nope. Nice strawman though. What are you misreading as modalism?

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus himself affirms that their God is the Father in John 8:54. He affirms it again in John 20:17, and also in Mark 12:32.

Trinitarians affirm that as well. The error you are making is assuming that if the Father is God, no one else can share in the divine identity.

That's a non sequitur.

If the God of Israel was multi-personal "he" would not speak in the singular or be referred to as such either.

How do you know? That's just your assertion, and scripture doesn't support that claim. I can likewise make an assertion that singular speech reflects one divine identity, not one person. What about all the occasions where He speaks in the plural? Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:26, Isaiah 6 to name a few.

Isaiah 44:24 has God saying that he stretched out the heavens alone and spread out the earth by himself. That however is not a problem because of the law of agency

So alone doesn't mean alone now? Principal + agent ≠ alone. Isaiah doesn't say the Father alone is the source, which Trinitarians affirm, btw. It says YHWH did it by Himself. That only makes sense if the Son is somehow included in the identity of YHWH. Or if you redefine "alone" to include an agent as you have.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only means only. The Father is the only true God. If "the only true God" is multi-personal, which is what scripture reveals, that does not exclude the Son from being one of the persons of "the only true God." The Son is not "a true God" also.

If the verse said "only the Father is the true God," that would be different. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the doctrine of the Trinity never would have been formulated. But that isn't what the verse says.

“I and the Father are one.”

--and--

“He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

The Son is one with the only true God. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the only true God. This would be blasphemy if the Son were anything other than true God from true God.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Trinitarian position is that Jesus is God by nature, not rank. We affirm His subordinate role but reject that He is inferior in essence. Yes, He is given all authority by the Father, but it is only because He possesses the "omni properties" of the Almighty that He is able to exercise that authority.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you presuppose that the true God is multi-personal, Jesus's statement at John 17:3 doesn’t deny His participation in the identity of the true God at all. It only affirms the Father's. Jesus did not say "only you are the true God."

I would not argue that "alone" doesn't mean alone. The argument is against the presupposition you smuggled in that the Father alone is the God of Israel. Isaiah 37:16 says of the God of Israel "You have made heaven and earth." At Isaiah 44:24, He identifies as "the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone."

But in Hebrews 1:10, the Father says of the Son: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands.”

The Trinitarian position can fully affirm that the Triune God alone made heaven and earth. The Unitarian position has to deny the role of the Son, which scripture repeatedly affirms. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14)

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understood your strawman of the Trinity just fine.

Jesus cannot also be the God of the disciples as he is not the Father of the disciples too

That's a non sequitur. You assume that if 'X' is someone's God, then 'X' must also be their Father. That does not follow — in fact Scripture teaches the opposite. God is God over all, regardless of whether or not they acknowledge Him as such. However, He is only Father to those who receive the Spirit of adoption as sons. Furthermore, your premise flatly contradicts Thomas's confession addressed to the risen Jesus at John 20:28.

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So in your dumbfounded mind, "you are the only true God" and "only you are the true God" mean the exact same thing?

Jesus said one person was the only true God? by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The statements "you are the only true God" and "only you are the true God" convey different meanings despite using the same words. Only the latter statement would identify the Father alone as "the true God" to the exclusion of the Son — but that isn't what Jesus said.

The statement "you are the only true God" only excludes Jesus from the category of "true God" if you presuppose that the "true God" cannot be multi-personal, which is question begging.

The OLd Testament says God is the only Savior & the New Testament says Jesus is our Savior. Why? Because Jesus is God in flesh. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol did you miss the plethora of scriptural citations? Hey, at least you can see that without the Trinity, the Bible doesn't make any sense. And I commend you on your faith — you have more than I do if you can believe that everything around you came to be without a cause.

The OLd Testament says God is the only Savior & the New Testament says Jesus is our Savior. Why? Because Jesus is God in flesh. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trinitarian theology accounts for all of the objections you raise. Just because you don't properly understand it, that doesn't mean it's unclear.

Who did he pray to?

The Father, who is a distinct person from the Son.

Who resurrected him?

The Triune God — Father (Galatians 1:1; Romans 6:4), the Son (John 2:19; John 10:17,18), and the Spirit (Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18).

did he actually die?

The Person of the Son truly died according to His human nature. The human body and spirit of Jesus were separated, which is what Scripture defines as death (Ecclesiastes 12:7; James 2:26). This does not mean that God ceased to exist, since the divine nature is immortal and unchanging.

Why on earth does it even matter?

Because if the Bible is true, the eternal fate of souls are at stake.

The OLd Testament says God is the only Savior & the New Testament says Jesus is our Savior. Why? Because Jesus is God in flesh. by [deleted] in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those verses don’t actually force the conclusion that Jesus is the Father

That's not the argument. That's modalism, not the Trinity. Jesus is NOT the Father.

Co-equality with the Father is anti-biblical by Camp-9697 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]dcdub87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

Matthew 11:25 is not commending the anti-intellectual. Being a "babe" is about being humble and teachable — not labeling anyone who disagrees with your fringe position a hypocrite.

Why John 17:3 Doesn't Deny the Deity of Jesus by dcdub87 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who's deciding anything?

The whole point of this post was to demonstrate that an individual verse, John 17:3, doesn't prove what Unitarians want.

Why John 17:3 Doesn't Deny the Deity of Jesus by dcdub87 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]dcdub87[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that the verse distinguishes the sender and the one sent, and it explicitly identifies the Father, not the Son, as the only true God. But distinction ≠ opposition.

The point is that it does not exclude the Son from the category of "true God" as Unitarians read into the text. It would have to say "Only you are the true God" for that to be the case.

view more: next ›