Aspen and Tigger 2 discuss 'who is God?'

[tigger 2]

We have agreed to examine a verse until we are both ready to go to another. We'll use the Bible of our Choice, but will use a good NT text to back it up.
If two scriptures are necessary to complete a single idea (John 8:58/Ex. 3:14?) it will be allowed.

Aspen may start if he wishes.

 

[aspen]

I am a he.

I am going to allow you to start

 

[tigger 2]

Sorry about that. With my memory I'll probably make the same mistake again.

I'm pretty worn out for this day, but I'll leave you with the old standard - John 17:1, 3, "Father.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" - NEB.

I'll be back around noon tomorrow.

 

[aspen]

Sorry about that. With my memory I'll probably make the same mistake again.

I'm pretty worn out for this day, but I'll leave you with the old standard - John 17:3,4 "Father.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" - NEB.

I'll be back around noon tomorrow.

And yet, Jesus possesses the same glory as Jehovah: "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was" (John 17:5).

 

[Helen]

...Watching...

 

[tigger 2]

And yet, Jesus possesses the same glory as Jehovah: "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was" (John 17:5).

I had hoped that we would discuss the scripture presented until we both decided to move on to the next one. Do you have an interpretation for John 17:3 itself that would nullify the meaning that the Father alone is the true God?

 

[aspen]

I

I had hoped that we would discuss the scripture presented until we both decided to move on to the next one. Do you have an interpretation for John 17:3 itself that would nullify the meaning that the Father alone is the true God?

I have the standard, orthodoxy Christian interpretation; Jesus, in his humble state of being, is relating to God the Father from the standpoint of a child; which as children of God, we are called to do.

 

[tigger 2]

I


I have the standard, orthodoxy Christian interpretation; Jesus, in his humble state of being, is relating to God the Father from the standpoint of a child; which we as children of God we are called to do.

I'm sorry, maybe it's my aging brain, but I still don't understand how your reply explains that the Father is not the ONLY true God. This scripture says to me that only the Father is God. Not Jesus, not the HS, but only the Father.

John 17:1, 3 - "Father.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" - NEB.

 

[ScottA]

Chomping at the bit...

 

[tigger 2]

Hi, Aspen. I'll check back around noon tomorrow. Stay warm.

 

[aspen]

I'm sorry, maybe it's my aging brain, but I still don't understand how your reply explains that the Father is not the ONLY true God. This scripture says to me that only the Father is God. Not Jesus, not the HS, but only the Father.

John 17:1, 3 - "Father.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" - NEB.

Hmm...i beg to differ. It seems to me that you may not like my answer - it may not satisfy you, but it is a reasonable interpretation and is supported by 1 John 17:5.

 

[tigger 2]

I'm sorry, Aspen, but I really do not see how your post answers the question of how John 17:3 is not saying the Father alone is the only true God.

Can you put it in simple everyday language for a simple man? We're supposed to be, at least, 'sharing ideas.' If I honestly don't understand, shouldn't you try to explain your ideas so that I can understand them?

I'll answer John 17:5 after I understand your take on 17:3 if you wish.

 

[aspen]

I'm sorry, Aspen, but I really do not see how your post answers the question of how John 17:3 is not saying the Father alone is the only true God.

Can you put it in simple everyday language for a simple man? We're supposed to be, at least, 'sharing ideas.' If I honestly don't understand, shouldn't you try to explain your ideas so that I can understand them?

I'll answer John 17:5 after I understand your take on 17:3 if you wish.

Yes. We seem to be having a disconnect. My interpretation can only take us so far, i am afraid. Before I add clarification, I think it will help your understanding to explain my post to me - tell me what you do understand and we can go from there.

 

[tigger 2]

Aspen: "I have the standard, orthodoxy Christian interpretation; Jesus, in his humble state of being, is relating to God the Father from the standpoint of a child; which as children of God, we are called to do."

I see nothing explaining "Father is God alone".

I didn't know there was a "standard, orthodoxy Christian interpretation" of John 17:1, 3.

Jesus at this time was in a humble (comparatively) state of being and was humbly praying to his God. But, as I understand it, according to the trinity doctrine, he was still fully God. In any case, how can the Father be the true God alone if the HS is really a person who is also equally God with the Father?

 

[tigger 2]

???
How important does this scripture say it is to know the Father, who is the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ?

John 17:1, 3 - "Father.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" - NEB.

Probably more important than, say, dinosaur conspiracies, don't you think?

 

[aspen]

Jesus is both God and man, the second person of the Trinity, and the word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man, He would naturally and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: "Now, O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, LORD, are God," (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4); and as a man, He would be subject to God. Only, in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God; but it is not a phrase that excludes Christ, for Christ Himself said, "Before Abraham was, I am," (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28.

 

[tigger 2]

Jesus is both God and man, the second person of the Trinity, and the word made flesh (John 1:1, 14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man, He would naturally and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: "Now, O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, LORD, are God," (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4); and as a man, He would be subject to God. Only, in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God; but it is not a phrase that excludes Christ, for Christ Himself said, "Before Abraham was, I am," (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28.

This is what I was afraid would happen. The scripture in question (which we were to discuss until we both agree to go on to another scripture telling who is God) tells us that the Father is God alone, and that Jesus was sent by Him. I don't see the third 'person' who is also supposed to be the only true God. The statement clearly says that the Father is the only true God.

We are attempting to discuss scriptural evidence for who God is. Your citing trinity concepts is not meaningful to me at this point. We are still trying to see a rational explanation of John 17:3. By that scripture we see only the Father as God.

I wanted you to explain this scripture to me without drawing in other trinity 'proofs' (John 1:1c; John 8:58; John 20:28) which cause me to make long responses to each of them. (My study of John 1:1c includes statements by noted trinitarian scholars who admit a literal non-Trinitarian interpretation of that scripture, but then claim that they prefer a Trinitarian translation because of other scriptures found in the NT.)

As you seem to admit, Jesus was still God even while a man on earth. If Jesus had understood this, he would have included himself and the Holy Spirit in his identifying the true God. He does not.

When (or if) we get to OT scriptures, please let's use a transliteration of God's only personal name YHWH (Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah) rather than the false translation used by most Bibles 'LORD,' 'GOD,' or 'Lord'. Or, if you prefer we could just transliterate the Hebrew characters of that name: 'YHWH.'

So, disregarding our personal understandings of Who is God, I still see (as if I were one who was neutral - as I was at the start of my studies) John 17:1, 3 as saying that there is only one true God, and that is the Father. I'm sure you can understand that interpretation.

I don't quite understand your interpretation of it, especially if we remove pre-conceived beliefs. But if that is as clear as you can interpret John17:1, 3, I'm willing to go on to the next scripture. At least, we have shared ideas:

Aspen - "I’ve had zero success with JWs. My idea of success is sharing ideas."

 

[aspen]

Well tigger,

If John 17:3 was a prooftext and the only reference to God’s nature - without context AND a verse that was clearly meant to limit God’s nature to ALONE......then you would have a leg to stand on.

 

[tigger 2]

Well tigger,

If John 17:3 was a prooftext and the only reference to God’s nature - without context AND a verse that was clearly meant to limit God’s nature to ALONE......then you would have a leg to stand on.

Do you mean that only scriptures used by Trinitarians as 'proof' are prooftexts?

We are not discussing nature, we are discussing 'persons' who are God (see the title above), and there are more of them than this one.

How does "only" or "alone" in John 17:3 not limit God to one person?

As for context, do you want me to comment on John 17:5 now?

 

[aspen]

Do you mean that only scriptures used by Trinitarians as 'proof' are prooftexts?

We are not discussing nature, we are discussing 'persons' who are God (see the title above), and there are more of them than this one.

How does "only" or "alone" in John 17:3 not limit God to one person?

As for context, do you want me to comment on John 17:5 now?

I have not prooftexted.

God’s nature is comprised of His personages.

‘Alone’ is a word denoting sovereignty and worthiness to receive glory and praise. Jesus was in a state of submission and the Holy Spirit had not been revealed yet. Jesus giving glory to his Father and the God of the Jewish people as revealed to them up until that moment in time