Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
1 John 5:20 
BTW John 17:3 is one of the key verses used to support the Arian doctrine. So does 1 John 5:20 if we do not interpret "the true God" as applying to Christ. The verse read in isolation does not really support or deny the Trinity doctrine.
I still believe it is about the image of God and the Triune God.
The image of God = Christ. Another way to write the verse would be "We must believe in the true God and His image, Jesus Christ"
It must be about the Triune God because the Father and the Son are part of the Triune God.
|
Failing eyesight. Great at 20+ feet. Horrible up close. And reading glasses don't completely make up for the early stages of cataracts. So I missed the "1" or misread it. Can't say which now.
I really don't care if John 17:3 was used to support Arian doctrine. Cherry-picking verses to create claims of specific meaning without reference to the rest of the scripture that may also be described differently (but are conveniently ignored or dismissed) is a popular practice for those who want to create specific doctrine that is not acceptable to the majority. John 17:3 says what it says. It does not say that Jesus is not "the true God." It just does not specify that he is in this verse.
As for saying that Christ is the image of the invisible God, there is no quarrel with that. But the fact does not mean that any particular verse with the word "Christ" in it, or "his Son," or even "Jesus" is about that fact, or is about the Triune God (meaning that the reference to any particular one or two of the Trinity can be restated to mean all three).
I have no problem with you thinking, or even believing that "about the image of God and the Triune God." But it doesn't say it. It is saying something else. So you can't insist that what it does say is to be ignored and an altered reading inserted such that the Triune God is the subject and the actual reference to the two is about all three — even though it is not.
Each verse that tells of the qualities of God, of the Father, of the Son, and/or of the Spirit are saying what they say, not something else. Every verse that indicates something of separation and/or unity or oneness, or that seems to dole out functions to one or more of the three, or to God as a whole, are not intended to say something different than what they say. They are not contradictory. Unless they make statements of exclusion, verses about one are not necessarily exclusionary with respect to the others. At least not where there is nothing said about it.
Then you can take this jigsaw puzzle of attributes, functions, statements, and try to piece together a complete picture of the Three-One God. But it isn't all there. So we make up stuff like "essence." And we declare that it is the essence that is the "being." But we cannot obscure the Three so some would argue "being" is also applicable at the Three level, though not in the same way that it is at the One. And we find that there are inferences of the various verses describing a distinct Three, and a unified One. No matter what kind of terms you try to use to reconcile these, it is inadequate and leaves those who need answers trying to force round pegs in square holes, or square pegs in round holes — or both.
My conclusion is that each verse is provided as it is written for a purpose. And that purpose is not to test people to see if they have been keeping up with all the other nuances (or have read ahead to some of the epistles that were not written when Jesus or the OT spoke, therefore NOT presuming any of that) and can figure it all out. That purpose was to make a current statement with the particular words given. Jesus is talking with the disciples in John 17. He has already made a comment some time back (chapters back as far as the written gospel goes) that he is the image of the Father ("if you've seen me . . ."). So there is no reason to obscure the statement now to the core of his team. If that was what he was trying to say, he would have just said it rather than burying it in code.
So I cannot accept that John 17:3 must be understood as having anything to do with the Triune God (meaning all 3 of the godhead) or with restating that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. That is just not here. And to force it here is to reject what it does say.
I will not reject you for thinking that it could. But we will have a hard time "discussing" if you
insist upon what isn't there and ignoring what is and cannot equally allow for a difference perspective.