John 17

[LADYWILLIAMS]

Mod Edit Copyright violation

Edited October 17, 2011 by estradling75
Copyright violation

[prisonchaplain]

You have to ignore the "as we are" and "perfect in one" statements... or at the very least, reduce their significance.

It may appear that I am reducing their significance, however, in the context of a prayer that Jesus is offering to his Father, on behalf of his disciples, I see the focus being that the Father would help his followers remain united, NOT an exposition about the metaphysical nature of the Father and the Son.

If you understand that the scriptures mean one and not 1, it's not difficult.

You say this with such confidence and yet I cannot fathom why spelling 1 out changes its meaning. I do not deny that 1 can be unity vs. singularity, but one = 1. Spelling it out does not imply one meaning over another.

God the Father is God, and even Jesus Christ is subordinate to Him. One God the Father from which all known things to us have come. It is by His power and authority that all this (creation) exists. His Son did the creating, but not without His power and influence.

What do you mean by subordinate? I agree that the Son defers to his Father. This is respect, and is common in traditional families. If you agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, that Jesus is essentially less than the Father--that the Father created him--that he is a lesser species--then I do not see how you can say Jesus is a capital-G God. Perhaps you mean something in between those two understandings?

Show me in scripture where any use of "one God" means number and not unity of will. No where in the Bible does it attempt to explain "one" like it does in John 17.

I do not believe Jesus is attempting to explain "one." Depending on context, "one" is very simple. It is either singularity or unity. Jesus was praying that Father God would help his disciples remain united. He offers the example of his own unity with the Father. That's it. Trying to draw a metaphysical discussion about the essential nature of Jesus as a species, in relation to Father seems a stretch to me.

Isaiah is replete with phrases such as "none beside me" and "none before me" but that is easily understood as I described earlier.

The intent of saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" to the Israelites was clearly meant to instruct them to not worship any other Gods, and was not meant as a description of eternity, where or if any other Gods exist. If you follow this line of teaching the Bible becomes clear. John 17 then supports what is taught elsewhere as "one."

The Old Testament clarifies that they should not worship other gods because they are false. They are made by men, out of wood, clay, and metal. They cannot speak, hear, or act. They are not real. There are no other gods. God is 1. 2 billion Christians, nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews agree on this understanding.

Yet, many of the early Christian fathers, disciples of the original Apostles, taught that the Father and the Son were different beings, and that the Son was subordinate to the Father. We both choose what we believe. The Trinity wasn't official church doctrine until the 4th or 5th century, depending on which council you believe had final say.

The Father and the Son are separate persons. I'm still not clear on what subordinate means, though.

Besides, this multiplication trick is a falsehood. When 3 are mentioned, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is not a multiplication problem, but an addition problem.

Actually, there are no math equations about God in scripture, that I know of. We use analogies. The multiplication one is no "trick." It's an illustration. It's not "false." You might argue it's wrong...though I see it working well. Three persons, each distinct in the equation, yet they are the one God. The numerals are the same, but they have their own position, because they are distinct. Yet they are God. They are one.

Edited October 18, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[LADYWILLIAMS]

Mod Edit Copyright violation

Edited October 17, 2011 by estradling75
Copyright violation

[prisonchaplain]

I will read it, PC.

I use the term "bodily" as the context to join them in "one" substance. You say essence is better, I'll go with it. In any case, it has absolutely no bearing on my point. I may have called in "bodily" but "essence" works just the same for the point of discussion.

Christ now has a body of flesh and bones. Can He now not be re-joined into this "essence" because He is now different? What significance does His body play now that He is resurrected? If it is His ultimate destiny to be rejoined to this "one-in-three essense," then must He lose His body at some point?

Essence is not body, because the Father, in trinitarian understanding, is Spirit. Jesus and the Father share an essence that makes them co-equal and co-eternal. The Holy Spirit does, as well. They do not share flesh. They are not one body. They are one God.

And, I have to be honest with you PC, I don't like your answer for John 17 one bit. You agree it says they are "perfect in one" and that we will be "one as [they] are one" but it's referring to a different "one?"

I expect you know I'm not buying it.

What is it about John 17 that allows for Jesus to be discussing his and the Father's metaphysical nature during a prayer? Especially considering that for Jesus to "teach" about the Father's nature to the Father during a prayer would be the worse kind of pedantic discourse. Contextually, it does not make sense.

It would be far more natural and appropriate to see Jesus praying that the Father will help his disciples stay united, just as he and the Father are united.

[volgadon]

PrisonChaplain, yet a good portion of the nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews tend to consider that Christians believe in more than one God.

[volgadon]

It's also difficult to reconcile the schema: Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one, with a vision of the One God as two essential beings (not to mention the Holy Spirit):

The Shema is not a particularly useful verse for establishing your sort of monotheism. It is sort of like saying the following.

"Listen, readers. Your writer, Somerset Maugham, is one (or a single) Somerset Maugham."

[prisonchaplain]

Volgadon...indeed. We Christians have a difficult task in our allegiance to monotheism, while upholding Jesus' deity. We see scriptures teaching both. Jews and Muslims, of course, deny Jesus' deity.

However, understanding that even Tri-unity is not accepted by the other children of Abraham, sure the henotheism that comes out of the argument that the Godhead is three Gods united only in purpose would be a doctrine they would never accept, and never see as consistent with the Old Testament.

[volgadon]

The Old Testament clarifies that they should not worship other gods because they are false. They are made by men, out of wood, clay, and metal. They cannot speak, hear, or act. They are not real. There are no other gods. God is 1. 2 billion Christians, nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews agree on this understanding.

That other gods are false doesn't negate their existence, merely their efficacy. Most of the information contained in the Hebrew Bible on idols and their worshippers is polemic meant to mock and downplay its target. Isaiah 44:10-21, where the idol worshipper uses the same block of wood for fire and for bowing down to, is a classic example. It is worth noting that polemic rarely takes into account the meaning of the thing targeted to its devotees or adherents. In other words, the attitude of an idol worshipper to his idol might differ substantially from the portrait painted by Isaiah.

"The Babylonian might have pointed out that for several centuries Yahweh, after emerging from the obscurity of a remote desert, had lived inside, or at the least in close association with, a decorated chest made of acacia wood. He was of rather uncertain temper, but in the main could be kept good-humoured by regular offerings of the smoke of burnt beef fat, of which he was inordinately fond. In contrast, Marduk was a spiritual being, creator of heaven and earth, and so transcendent that it was impossible to see or to comprehend him."

H.W.F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: Athlone Press, 1978), p. 15.

[volgadon]

However, understanding that even Tri-unity is not accepted by the other children of Abraham, sure the henotheism that comes out of the argument that the Godhead is three Gods united only in purpose would be a doctrine they would never accept, and never see as consistent with the Old Testament.

They don't see it as any different to classic notion of the trinity.

OTOH, Judaism used to be binatarian, that is, henotheistic. There was God and another lesser but still divine being.

[prisonchaplain]

Concerning the schema, although there are arguments about the precise translation and meaning, it is largely seen as supporting Jewish monotheism. I especially like how the site below refers to creation, saying no other God created the world.

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

[prisonchaplain]

They don't see it as any different to classic notion of the trinity.

OTOH, Judaism used to be binatarian, that is, henotheistic. There was God and another lesser but still divine being.

Did many ancient Jews worship other gods? Absolutely! Were they supposed to? I'd suggest probably not.

Monotheism - My Jewish Learning

[Soninme]

From PC

The Father and the Son are separate beings. I'm still not clear on what subordinate means, though.

PC

Just so you know, I think you give great answers and I enjoy your kind spirit and will not pretend to speak for you.

Having said that, you meant separate Persons, one Being, correct?

[volgadon]

Concerning the schema, although there are arguments about the precise translation and meaning, it is largely seen as supporting Jewish monotheism. I especially like how the site below refers to creation, saying no other God created the world.

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

If the point was to support monotheism, then there are plenty of verses more suited to the task. The classic use of the Shema in Judaism is as a call for absolute love towards God, manifested in complete obedience to his laws, even if you lose your life.

[prisonchaplain]

From PC

PC

Just so you know, I think you give great answers and I enjoy your kind spirit and will not pretend to speak for you.

Having said that, you meant separate Persons, one Being, correct?

Persons...you are correct...and thank you. Just like the old hymn, "God in three persons, blessed Trinity."

And now I shall slink off and edit my previous post....

[Justice]

...I see the focus being that the Father would help his followers remain united, NOT an exposition about the metaphysical nature of the Father and the Son.

The clear declaration "as we are one" is the best description of the oneness of the Father and Son. He is using a comparison, "perfect in one." How can the oneness be any better? If we all can join in this "perfect in one" then we will either join with them in essence and become God with them, or we will subject our will to theirs in unity. I see opposite of what you see. I see Jesus as making a solemn declaration of how the Father and Son are one (but I've stated that enough).

You say this with such confidence and yet I cannot fathom why spelling 1 out changes its meaning. I do not deny that 1 can be unity vs. singularity, but one = 1. Spelling it out does not imply one meaning over another.

I only did it to separate the numerical definition from the unity definition, showing that the unity definition completes these verses, simply by the fact that it's a valid definition. We do not need to go father to include the numerical value for the Oneness of God to be true. These verses are the best in the Bible for making this argument. Very few others, if any, even try to define the "one."

What do you mean by subordinate?

Jesus stated the Father is greater than He is, several times. Every indication is that the Father is greater. Jesus claimed He came to do the will of the Father, indicating that He made His will one with the Father's, or He chose to follow the Father's will. That is how they became one. He wants this same thing for all of us, as John 17 indicates. He mentioned "overcoming the world" as part of this "being one."

I don't see "God" as a name, PC. It is a title that, apparently, has differing degrees of "greatness" or glory. The Father can be God, the Son can be God, yet they can be two distinct personages, one greater than the other. Numerically 2, but one in will, because the Son subjected Himself to the will of the greater, thereby fulfilling the text of the Bible perfectly.

The Son speaks for the Father, because the Father is greater. The Father sent the Son, as John 17 suggests, and is necessary to believe in order to become one with them.

The God of the Old Testament that appeared to Moses is the Deliverer, Redeemer, Savior, and

Messiah of mankind. The Father instructed Him to speak those words, speaking for the Father. It is not difficult to fathom.

Trying to draw a metaphysical discussion about the essential nature of Jesus as a species, in relation to Father seems a stretch to me.

That's just it, PC... I don't draw that discussion at all... anywhere. Jesus was describing, perfectly, how the Father and Son are one... and that explanation did not include a "one essence" definition. It did not, because they are not "one essence." If they were one essence the Bible would at least attempt to expain it somewhere.

Peter declared "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

That is the description of theire "oneness."

They attempted to stone Jesus because He claimed to be their God, Jehovah, not that He claimed to be the Father. The Father was never known to them, but He was declared to them by the Son.

Jesus can be considered the Father because it is through Him we are adopted back into the Father's family. We were "spiritually begotten by Him" through the atonement. In other words, we can become reborn.

The Old Testament clarifies that they should not worship other gods because they are false. They are made by men, out of wood, clay, and metal. They cannot speak, hear, or act. They are not real. There are no other gods. God is 1. 2 billion Christians, nearly 2 billion Muslims, and 15 million Jews agree on this understanding.

Yes. Jehovah is the God of Israel. Jehovah is the Son of the Father. He speaks what the Father tells Him to speak, speaking for Him in first person at times. There is no big mystery here. There's no mystical triune make-up. There's a Father, who is worshiped by the Son. The Father sent His Son into the world (even before He was born physically) to save the world, and be mankind's Messiah. Jehovah is God, as He represents the Father in first person, doing all things the Father commanded Him.

If Jehovah is actually one of the beings in essence (God) then how can He be the Son of Himself? That language makes no sense, and is actually deceiving if such is the case. Because of the flesh? Nope, still not a Son. If they all 3 existed for eternity together, then one cannot be the son of the other. God cannot "send Himself." It makes no sense.

I believe Peter's declaration literally. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus Christ is also God, but is definately not His own Father.

It's good discussing this with you PC. It gets difficult at times, and pointed, but always remains respectful.

[Justice]

When you get a chance PC, read this talk from the most recent General Conference.

The Book of Mormon?a Book from God - general-conference

I'm curious to read your thoughts.

That goes for anyone else who would like to read and respond from a Trinity perspective.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice...it's taken about 20 posts for me to get that I was reading your case for the LDS Godhead backwards. Rather than suggesting that Jesus was discussing the nature of God in John 17, you are saying that biblical statements that "God is one" mean nothing more than what is indicated in John 17--that biblical "monotheism" is unity, and not singularity. That is something to munch on.

[Justice]

I love it when the light bulb turns on for you, PC. You have a way of stating things much more clearly, and with less words, than I do.

Indeed, if The Father and The Son are distinct and separate Beings, then what you just said must be true. So, yes, I agree.

As a thought, what may be adding to the confusion of interpretation, even the words you used "unity" and "singularity" share a common root of "one."

Uni and Single

..making both valid interpretations of "one."

[apexviper13]

Here is the official invitation for anyone who wishes to explain the Trinity using John 17. I'd like to see all uses of the word "one" in John 17 explained from a Trinity perspective. Of course, I want it taken in perspective of the entire chapter, and New Testament, so if you have to post other scriptures to explain these verses please feel free.

Here are the specific verses I see:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These verses pose a problem for the "trinity". Of course when I'm talking about the "trinity" I'm talking about the 3-in-1 God version of it. Many trinitarians say they believe in the "trinity" but they define it differently; therefore, although they believe in the general idea, they're not in unity about what the "trinity" is. Ironically, the 2 verses quoted most often for the "trinity", John 1:1 and John 10:30, are the best verses that show why the "trinity" concept is false. John 10:30 also describes how they are one. In fact, it shows that their oneness is in purpose, not in person.

Edited October 18, 2011 by apexviper13

[apexviper13]

John 17 would neither confirm nor deny this trinitarian teaching.

John 17 is a chapter that denies the trinitarian teaching. Like Justice said, this chapter describes how they're one. Verse 3 is a major one. Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God."

[apexviper13]

Could we not all join then, as Lekook hints at? We could all be one with the Godhead?

It's also difficult to reconcile the schema: Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one, with a vision of the One God as two essential beings (not to mention the Holy Spirit):

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_-0fQ69XzMtxQPtedTxEUEb2FvBEfOXqAqYHvGcWQaMVAjtsR1w = 1 is just hard to reconcile.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

When us LDS bring up Acts 7 many try to say "Stephen only saw the glory of God." Verse 56 shows otherwise. Being on the "right hand of God" refers to position and glory. He stands at the right side of the Father. While you may find it hard to believe that the Father and Son are 2 beings, Stephen, in Acts 7, saw the 2 separate being: the Father and the Son.

[prisonchaplain]

John 17 is a chapter that denies the trinitarian teaching. Like Justice said, this chapter describes how they're one. Verse 3 is a major one. Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God."

Actually, as Justice explained, John 17 speaks to the unity of the Father and the Son. He went on to suggest that we absolute monotheists have no way to insist that the "God as one" passages of the Bible must mean anything more than unity (i.e. of purpose). I will grant that the idea deserves consideration.

However, to use John 17 as proof that God is only united in purpose is incredibly weak. Again, Jesus is praying to his Father, requesting his help in keeping the disciples united. To turn that prayer into a metaphysical discourse about God's essential nature is an incredible stretch.

Also, considering that the Father commands his angels to worship Jesus, and also addresses his Son as God (Heb 1:6, 8), it does not seem appropriate to see Jesus' statement about the father as a denial of his own true Godhood.

[prisonchaplain]

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

When us LDS bring up Acts 7 many try to say "Stephen only saw the glory of God." Verse 56 shows otherwise. Being on the "right hand of God" refers to position and glory. He stands at the right side of the Father. While you may find it hard to believe that the Father and Son are 2 beings, Stephen, in Acts 7, saw the 2 separate being: the Father and the Son.

It may seem to reinforce other scriptures that you hold to, but without that, I have never encountered any interpretation of this passage that would suggest, much less insist, that it requires the Father to have a body. I previously posted a link from a Jewish educational site that explains part of their basic understanding about God's nature is that he is IN-corporeal (Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d). Nothing in the New Testament suggests any kind of break with that understanding of the Father. The shocker was Jesus appearing as the Son of God, in the flesh.

Edited October 18, 2011 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Maureen]

These verses pose a problem for the "trinity".

Not so, because to a trinitarian, these verses are not talking about the nature of God, but about the unity between the Son and Father.

Of course when I'm talking about the "trinity" I'm talking about the 3-in-1 God version of it.

What other version is there?

Many trinitarians say they believe in the "trinity" but they define it differently; therefore, although they believe in the general idea, they're not in unity about what the "trinity" is.

I disagree. Many believers may not be able to articulate what the trinity is well, or they may confuse modalism with trinitarianism, but that does not negate what the trinity is. I'm sure that some LDS have the same problem with explaining their own beliefs, but that does not make the belief any less important or real to that person.

Ironically, the 2 verses quoted most often for the "trinity", John 1:1 and John 10:30, are the best verses that show why the "trinity" concept is false. John 10:30 also describes how they are one. In fact, it shows that their oneness is in purpose, not in person.

Now I extremely disagree. And the trinity does not say they are one in person, it says they are one in essense. Misrepresenting a belief does not help your argument.

M.

[apexviper13]

It may seem to reinforce other scriptures that you hold to, but without that, I have never encountered any interpretation of this passage that would suggest, much less insist, that it requires the Father to have a body. I previously posted a link from a Jewish educational site that explains part of their basic understanding about God's nature is that he is IN-corporeal (Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d). Nothing in the New Testament suggests any kind of break with that understanding of the Father. The shocker was Jesus appearing as the Son of God, in the flesh.

In these particular verses, no. They don't say anything about the Father having a body.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

While mankind is created in the image of the Father, Jesus Christ is the express image of the Father. What Christ looks like is what the Father looks like. Since the Son is the express image of the Father and has a body of flesh and bone then the Father has a body of flesh and bone as well.