Evidence for God from Science

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

Why does Jesus call the Father the only true God? Isn't this scripture anti-trinitarian?

Thank you.

G'day Christian2 - Happy New Year!

No, this Scripture is not anti-trinitarian.
Here is an account of why it is not - from CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY:
John 17:3 and the Only True God

And another response worth reading is here.

Hope this info helps, at least until any of the theologians on here return from their New Year hibernations (or ongoing partying!)

Judah wrote:G'day Christian2 - Happy New Year!

No, this Scripture is not anti-trinitarian.
Here is an account of why it is not - from CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY:
John 17:3 and the Only True God

And another response worth reading is here.

Hope this info helps, at least until any of the theologians on here return from their New Year hibernations (or ongoing partying!)

Hi Judah, long time no talk to. Happy New Year to you too.

I will read the links.

I am having a knock down/drag out discussion with a person who is obviously not a trinitarian.

Thanks for the help and the links.

Nothing is easy, Judah. We fight the Muslims, we fight the Jews and we fight people who call themselves "Christians."

The battle never ends. Oh how I wish that I was a more than a five-year old Christian. There is so much to learn and that is why I come here to G&S for help.

My Christmas list consisted of over $200 worth of Christian books. I hope I live long enough to read them all and benefit from the wisdom contained in them.

All the best to you and yours and thanks again.

C2, I'm even younger than you - 3 years!
But you grow up fast when confronted by all the false prophets and heresies in the world. I got well launched by a good reading list and it does help, along with the tuition and guidance of solidly Biblically based mature Christians you find on the journey.

You are very brave to take on Muslims - those who are willing to look at Christianity, even if only to pull it apart and demolish it. They are so devout and often well-schooled in their delusional ideology.

I find myself in a battlefield of "Christian" liberals who subscribe to a wealth of heresies supported in today's post-Christian post-modern culture. I am concerned for the demise of the Anglican Communion as it once was - now splitting apart, especially as witnessed recently in the Episcopal Church in the USA.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has just been reported as saying that he doesn't think he can hold the world-wide Anglican Communion together when the Primates meet in Africa in February. It is tearing in two.

I am currently debating a liberal Anglican priest online and the most evident thing is that, no matter how well I counter his arguments (and he agrees my counter-arguments are all valid ones) nothing actually changes. We come at Scripture from different positions, have different assumptions, and see in there different things. I cannot convince him, and he cannot convince me. We are at loggerheads, and the aggression and hatred from the liberal faction has to be experienced to be believed - they fry the orthodox like me, roast them and toast them, and ban them from their so-called "Inclusive Church". No wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't think he can hold it together - the opposing sides are too far apart, and their positions mutually exclusive as well. I have the Southern Baptists to thank for my own Biblical literacy, but as I am far more advanced in that area than the average Anglican, I can hold my own against a liberal priest - but many of the flock would not even recognize one. So how can they NOT be led astray? That is what bothers me so greatly.

Yes, websites such as this one are wonderful aids - both for the articles on the main website, and the knowledgeable and generously responsive contributors who post to this forum. There is a whole list of other Christian Apologia websites on the left-hand side bar of Judah's Journal should you want to look further afield, too. The good thing is that the help is there, online and readily available, should you need a few extra arrows in your quiver or a little more armour where you find the odd chink.

All the best with your "knock down/drag out discussion" and have fun with your reading. I have a similar stack of such books to get through as well. I'm not sure if all this keeps me out of mischief, or throws me right into the thick of it!

Take care, my friend.

Judah wrote:C2, I'm even younger than you - 3 years!
But you grow up fast when confronted by all the false prophets and heresies in the world. I got well launched by a good reading list and it does help, along with the tuition and guidance of solidly Biblically based mature Christians you find on the journey.

You are very brave to take on Muslims - those who are willing to look at Christianity, even if only to pull it apart and demolish it. They are so devout and often well-schooled in their delusional ideology.

I find myself in a battlefield of "Christian" liberals who subscribe to a wealth of heresies supported in today's post-Christian post-modern culture. I am concerned for the demise of the Anglican Communion as it once was - now splitting apart, especially as witnessed recently in the Episcopal Church in the USA.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has just been reported as saying that he doesn't think he can hold the world-wide Anglican Communion together when the Primates meet in Africa in February. It is tearing in two.

I am currently debating a liberal Anglican priest online and the most evident thing is that, no matter how well I counter his arguments (and he agrees my counter-arguments are all valid ones) nothing actually changes. We come at Scripture from different positions, have different assumptions, and see in there different things. I cannot convince him, and he cannot convince me. We are at loggerheads, and the aggression and hatred from the liberal faction has to be experienced to be believed - they fry the orthodox like me, roast them and toast them, and ban them from their so-called "Inclusive Church". No wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't think he can hold it together - the opposing sides are too far apart, and their positions mutually exclusive as well. I have the Southern Baptists to thank for my own Biblical literacy, but as I am far more advanced in that area than the average Anglican, I can hold my own against a liberal priest - but many of the flock would not even recognize one. So how can they NOT be led astray? That is what bothers me so greatly.

Yes, websites such as this one are wonderful aids - both for the articles on the main website, and the knowledgeable and generously responsive contributors who post to this forum. There is a whole list of other Christian Apologia websites on the left-hand side bar of Judah's Journal should you want to look further afield, too. The good thing is that the help is there, online and readily available, should you need a few extra arrows in your quiver or a little more armour where you find the odd chink.

All the best with your "knock down/drag out discussion" and have fun with your reading. I have a similar stack of such books to get through as well. I'm not sure if all this keeps me out of mischief, or throws me right into the thick of it!

Take care, my friend.

This is why i quite like my church - it is a Baptist Union one and they are very scripture led. The only traditions they allow is Communion (and confirmation is not required to partake of the Lords Supper - that bugs me in the CoE), Beleivers baptism (Christning's are an enigma to me?!?!?) and Marriage. Basically the ones Jesus practiced or promoted - nothing else. Any other tradition as far as I am concerned is irrelevant.

Silvertusk, that I was raised in the Church of England means that it is a part of my identity - and there is Christianity found there in spite of its problems at present. I see an important place for Tradition and Reason although Scripture does over-ride both. In Anglicanism it is clearly stated that they are subject to Scripture, and to me it is important to have an educated and correctly informed interpretation of Scripture or there is a great risk of cultish beliefs developing instead - wrongly interpreted Scripture, such as that found in JWs... such as the notion that John 17:3 supports unitarianism!

However, the liberal theologians claim to be Biblically led as well - they just take a different interpretation of Scripture, one that is more culturally determined than a "plain reading" as I do. You can notice different interpretations among folks on this board, and each will be Biblically based. It is very frustrating to dialogue with a liberal theologian who will claim the authority of Scripture determines his belief - just as I do myself - and yet our beliefs are so different.

There is no perfect church anyway. We find one with the best "fit" for ourselves and belong there. I love some of the old Services in the Church of England, such as Evensong with its singing of psalms and certain prayers for the closing of the day. It is part of my personal tradition and is spiritually uplifting for me - something I would miss in a church of any other denomination. For instance, I am not "happy clappy" and I prefer the old church buildings with an organ to a hall with chairs and a piano. Certain things "fit" better than others - and not to say that any is right or wrong. But the schism is distressing and I can not trust a liberal priest/pastor as I see heresy in such interpretations that they espouse, so I currently feel as though I don't have a church home - my home has been invaded and is not entirely safe anymore. Maybe if the Anglican Communion does split apart completely I will find myself somewhere that truly fits. Meantime I worship outside the church walls but within the spiritual Church, the Body of Christ regardless.

Enough about me. This is supposed to be about John 17:3.

How did you find those links, C2? Have they helped at all?

Judah wrote:However, the liberal theologians claim to be Biblically led as well - they just take a different interpretation of Scripture, one that is more culturally determined than a "plain reading" as I do. You can notice different interpretations among folks on this board, and each will be Biblically based. It is very frustrating to dialogue with a liberal theologian who will claim the authority of Scripture determines his belief - just as I do myself - and yet our beliefs are so different.

Have you tried hitting them over the head with JP Holding's articles on the historicity of our faith?

Judah,

Yes, the articles helped -- me. LOL But were rejected by my opponent. I'm not talking to a Muslim this time. I'm not sure what faith this guy is because he won't tell me. He does not believe in the Trinity, nor does he believe that Jesus is divine so he is not a Modalist.

He did say something about John 17:3 that has me puzzled. He says that Augustine changed the NT text. This is his evidence:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701105.htm

"And this," He adds, "is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." The proper order of the words is, "That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God." Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God. And yet the Father is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; for the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three [persons], yet the Trinity itself is one God. If, then, the Son glorifies You in the same manner "as You have given Him power over all flesh," and hast so given, "that He should give eternal life to all that You have given Him," and "this is life eternal, that they may know You;" in this way, therefore, the Son glorifies You, that He makes You known to all whom You have given Him. Accordingly, if the knowledge of God is eternal life, we are making the greater advances to life, in proportion as we are enlarging our growth in such a knowledge. And we shall not die in the life eternal; for then, when there shall be no death, the knowledge of God shall be perfected. Then will be effected the full effulgence of God, because then the completed glory, as expressed in Greek by δόξα. For from it we have the word δόξασον, that is used here, and which some Latins have interpreted by "clarifica" (make effulgent), and some by "glorifica" (glorify). But by the ancients, glory, from which men are styled glorious, is thus defined: Glory is the widely-spread fame of any one accompanied with praise. But if a man is praised when the fame regarding him is believed, how will God be praised when He Himself shall be seen? Hence it is said in Scripture, "Blessed are they that dwell in Your house; they will be praising You for ever and ever." There will God's praise continue without end, where there shall be the full knowledge of God; and because the full knowledge, therefore also the complete effulgence or glorification.

The Latin Vulgate reads the order thus:

Haec est autem vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum.

The Greek NT has this:
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἱησοῦν Χριστόν.

There is no reason from either Greek or Latin to suppose that Augustine's reordering of the words to indicate from this verse that Jesus was "the only true God" is justified syntactically.

Judah (and others) what do you make of this?

Thank you.

Sorry, but it looks like the Greek does not show up for some reason.

It's complete bogus. Augustine FIRST gives the 'original' text and then rewrites it to what he thinks it should look like. He might very well have been wrong there, but the point is that Augustine gave the original Bible text before proposing to rewrite it. Hence, the Bible text as we have it has not been corrupted.

And since Augustine wasn't even mentioned in the linked article, this has no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

The transcribed Greek text runs: Autí¨ de estin hí¨ ai ónios z óí¨ hina gin ósk ósin se ton monon alí¨thinon theon kai hon apesteilas Ií¨soun Christon.

Turgonian wrote:It's complete bogus. Augustine FIRST gives the 'original' text and then rewrites it to what he thinks it should look like. He might very well have been wrong there, but the point is that Augustine gave the original Bible text before proposing to rewrite it. Hence, the Bible text as we have it has not been corrupted.

And since Augustine wasn't even mentioned in the linked article, this has no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

The transcribed Greek text runs: Autí¨ de estin hí¨ ai ónios z óí¨ hina gin ósk ósin se ton monon alí¨thinon theon kai hon apesteilas Ií¨soun Christon.

Thank you. You have confirmed my thinking. I think that Augustine was merely saying what the text should have said and that is all.

The clip came from the Homilies of John written by Augustine.