Defending the Trinity

[Floyd]

I remind you again Purity, that you started this dialogue, and at the same time said "I don't want to discuss this subject"!
Since then, you have remained in the stance of trying to draw comments re. the concept of the Trinity from people; but not responding to many scriptural elements given; such as the "Shema" truth!
All this, and at the same time refusing to give explanations in plain English of what your pronouncements mean, and refusing to explain what mystery knowledge you say you have.
Your credibility is almost gone. Don't you want to try to retrieve it?
Floyd.

PS
Your last list of Scripture quotes are a massive misuse, by the inference you give them!

 

[Purity]

I remind you again Purity, that you started this dialogue, and at the same time said "I don't want to discuss this subject"!
Since then, you have remained in the stance of trying to draw comments re. the concept of the Trinity from people; but not responding to many scriptural elements given; such as the "Shema" truth!
All this, and at the same time refusing to give explanations in plain English of what your pronouncements mean, and refusing to explain what mystery knowledge you say you have.
Your credibility is almost gone. Don't you want to try to retrieve it?
Floyd.

PS
Your last list of Scripture quotes are a massive misuse, by the inference you give them!

I will wait for wormwood to respond as I feel he has more to give on this subject.

Purity

Zech.14:9 was given, not for explanation, but to see what you did with the statement!
You did not give your Affiliation?
Floyd.

"in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and His name one" Zech 14:9ESV

Yahweh will be manifested in a vast multitude of glorified ones who will bear His name (Rev 3:12), His nature (2Pe 1:4), and His glory (Rom 5:2). Though numbering "ten thousand times ten thousand" (Dan 7:1-28) they will comprise one Family, upon which will be named the Name of Yahweh (Isa 30:27). His name is that of a family, signifying "He who will become..." testifying to the fact that His purpose is that of the manifestation of His characteristics in creatures of His approval. As the king-priests of the Age to come (Rev 5:9-10) the saints will be spread throughout the world (Mal 1:11), and yet they shall comprise a unit, being "one" with God and His Son because they are the manifestation of the divine wisdom (Joh 17:21). This unity in multiplicity is expressed by Zechariah as a great number of the redeemed bound together as one: the fulfilment of the purpose of the Gospel (see Joh 17:17-23).

I doubt you will comprehend its meaning Floyd as you have demonstrated by allowing the Word to fall to the ground before your feet. I am yet to see you bend down to pick them up.

But you did ask politely.

Purity

 

[KingJ]

WOW. I have seen a lot of posts I strongly disagree with but none have made me think about completely leaving this board before this one.

I know this post is worded much more strongly than my average post, but I have never seen such a brazen attempt to shut someone down based on a supposed position of authority. Abuse of authority always makes me instantly angry. If you can make an argument, you do not have to resort to this...and if your position is so sure fire, make your case there slim....don't just pull rank tough guy.

SL

SL your post is out of line bud. I felt like reminding Purity of the statement of faith myself. Iforest even said 'please'.

Purity how do you explain these verses? John 10:30 I and the Father are one. Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God and 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

CJ as long as we believe Jesus is God. Grasping the trinity is difficult. But what is beyond debate / discussion is the fact that there is one God and Jesus is diety. Your view or Wormwood's is fine imho.

 

[Purity]

Purity how do you explain these verses? John 10:30 I and the Father are one. Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God and 1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

KingJ

Nothing you have presented defines Trinitarian teaching

- John 10:30 does not define how God and Jesus are one - do you believe you will be God also? John 17:21
- Phil 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. See Gen 3:6
- 1 Cor 12:3 I assume you are referring to his title of Lord? Master, Chief, Teacher, Exulted One and so on... its a respectful title given by a student to his Master. Matt 10:24,25

I suggest you consider the wealth of gems within these verses which speak nothing of the Trinity but volumes of the hidden wisdom of God. Prov 2:7NET

Though I fail in my walk and do not live by the integrity of God continually I have come to appreciate His storehouse - His Kmart shelves gems beyond silver and gold, beyond creeds and councils of men, nowhere is there an isle for Trinitarian teaching - nowhere.

We wait for wormwood to continue his defence.

Purity

 

[Floyd]

Purity: you are now beginning to show your true colours. The bracketed italics below give the corrections!
The correct understanding of Zech.14:9, is the uniting of the Godhead during the Millennial Reign and "the day of Jehovah Zebaoth" ; the word "one" means in the Hebrew "united", and is the same word "ehad" as Deut.6:4!
Your teaching is clearly not mainstream to say the least; and is possibly approaching heresy.

"in that day shall there be one Yahweh (Jehovah= God in Covenant relationship with Israel), and His name one" Zech 14:9ESV

Yahweh will be manifested in a vast multitude of glorified ones who will bear His name (Rev 3:12) (this refers to the "overcomers"), His nature (2Pe 1:4), and His glory (Rom 5:2). Though numbering "ten thousand times ten thousand" (Dan 7:1-28) they will comprise one Family, upon which will be named the Name of Yahweh (Isa 30:27). His name is that of a family, signifying "He who will become..." testifying to the fact that His purpose is that of the manifestation of His characteristics in creatures of His approval. As the king-priests of the Age to come (Rev 5:9-10)(this refers to redeemed Israel and Ex.19:6) the saints will be spread throughout the world (Mal 1:11), and yet they shall comprise a unit, being "one" with God and His Son because they are the manifestation of the divine wisdom (Joh 17:21). This unity in multiplicity is expressed by Zechariah as a great number of the redeemed bound together as one: the fulfilment of the purpose of the Gospel (see Joh 17:17-23). (This refers to the Lord's disciples and also to those who would be His by their witness).

Kingdom of Priests unto God (Separate study) Access in www.revelationsmessage.co.uk Subjectindex.



Where is this teaching you pronounce as truth?
I don't think it is even JW!
Floyd.

 

[Wormwood]

I see no mention of three persons either. I do see one God.

CJ,

The Trinity teaches there is one God consisting of three persons. The persons of the Triune God are evident in Scripture. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are referenced independently and act independently in Scripture. Also, they are each referred to as persons with personal pronouns. The persons of the Trinity speak to each other and point to each other, which would be highly confusing if the modalistic concepts you are proposing are true. The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father. He is referenced independently. Also, the Holy Spirit is not a force. He is referred to with personal pronouns, can be grieved, resisted, and is given a list of other characteristics that constitute a person.

The issue here is not whether or not any of these terms are in the Bible. What theology does is develop terms that reflect principles and teachings that are believed to be taught by the panoply of Scripture. For instance, none of the terms, dispensationalism, premillenialism, postmillenialsim, or amillenialism are found in the Bible. Yet all these terms are used to describe different ways people interpret Revelation (as well as other passages). They describe interpretive lenses and the words are used to help people quickly identify a theological stance. I could have you sit down with me CJ, and share with me your beliefs about God, the teachings of the Bible and what happened at the cross and what a person needs to do to be a Christian. Based on your response, I could point to terms that represent your views. Others would not agree with your views and there are terms that could be used to represent their stance.

So, the point here is the issue is not about which term is in the Bible. None of them are. The terms were developed to express a particular interpretation of the Bible. You may not like the term, but the term serves a purpose to help people understand your interpretation and views about who God is and how He operates. The question is, which of these theological views is best supported by the teaching of the Bible. I am making the case that the Trinitarian view is, which is why it has been the orthodox view of Christianity throughout history.

Purity,

Thank you for your response. I would appreciate a less condescending tone. Let's just share each other's views on Scripture and allow the authority to remain with God's word, okay?

1. I think Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus was without sin. It seems you are suggesting that he "became" wisdom, righteousness, etc., but was not always such. Moreover, it seems (correct me if I am wrong) but that you are implying that Jesus was not more righteous than the thieves being crucified next to him. I surely hope this is not what you believe. Jesus "committed no sin, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22), and he was "tempted in all ways" yet was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Jesus "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) and "in him" was "no sin" (1 John 3:5).

So, the reason Jesus said, "no one is good except God alone" is not because Jesus was a sinner. Moreover, the Rich man is not said to have been a Pharisee. The point in this conversation is correcting the errant presupposition of this rich man. The idea that goodness derives from humanity was the question being addressed. Jesus is correcting the faulty mentality that humanity can establish its own perfect righteousness before a holy God. The point here is not about the person or nature of Jesus, as the Scriptures listed above are abundantly clear of Jesus' sinless life, but is about addressing a faulty mindset of the rich man. Jesus is calling the man to abandon everything to follow him as the means of obtaining life. To go beyond this is to address theological concepts that the Gospel were clearly not trying to address in this context.

2. I think you are taking the 1 Corinthians passage entirely out of context. Having letters behind one's name does not eliminate one from being able to participate in the Kingdom of God. God is not opposed to intelligence or academics anymore than he is opposed to being worshiped by professional singers. I don't have time to go into the literary and historical context of 1 Cor. and what is being taught there. I assure you that God is not opposed to formal education. Paul himself would have been considered something along the lines of a PhD in his day. Paul used his intelligence to serve Christ rather than himself, and that is the primarily issue in a nutshell.

3. Finally, I think you are ignoring the fact that the NT writers often use the prophetic teachings in the OT typologically. To suggest that EVERYTHING written in a Psalm that speaks prophetically of Jesus applies to Jesus is to miss the point. Jesus was the true David, the true Israel, the true King, the true Adam. Because David speaks of his sin in a psalm that has messianic overtones does not mean that the messiah would sin. For instance, God called his "Son" out of Egypt. That text is speaking of Israel and Israel died in the wilderness due to their sin. However, Matthew uses this text to point to Jesus, the true Son of God and Jesus went through the wilderness with flying colors. Just because Jesus is identified with texts that speak of David, Solomon, Israel, and Adam does not mean he shares in their failures. Rather, he displays the fulfillment of what all of these were supposed to be, but could not. God came to be that which we could not be so that the glory would belong to him alone and righteousness would be provided to us by grace through faith.

 

[Floyd]

Very clear Wormwood.
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

1. I think Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus was without sin. It seems you are suggesting that he "became" wisdom, righteousness, etc., but was not always such.
​

Scripture is clear wormwood that Jesus grew in wisdom - this of course means he increased or was increasing as he grew older. Nothing knew here. If you believe Jesus as a 2 month old baby was wise then you would certainly have some explaining to do.

Supporting reference: Luke 2:52

Moreover, it seems (correct me if I am wrong) but that you are implying that Jesus was not more righteous than the thieves being crucified next to him.

Until he died his righteousness was imputed and in his death he was found to be without sin and no guile was found in his mouth.

The term "Son of man" is referencing his representation of all that man is before God - hence Jesus could say even "None good but God"

I surely hope this is not what you believe. Jesus "committed no sin, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22), and he was "tempted in all ways" yet was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

Correct.

It appears from your above comments you do not understand that Jesus' nature was exactly the same as yours. He was under the dominion of death all his life (Rom 6:9) and he experienced the impulses from that nature which if acted upon was sin. Like Paul who also understood "no good thing" dwelt in his flesh (Rom 7), Jesus likewise believed the same. Morally he was perfect and righteous, however in his flesh dwelt no good thing.

In Heb 2:14, this no good thing is styled the devil, as it falsely accuses us before God - hence it is said Jesus bore our nature that on the cross he would destroy the power of death i.e Sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3)

Jesus "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) and "in him" was "no sin" (1 John 3:5).

Correct and he was "made" sin - how do you reconcile God being made sin? 2 Cor 5:21

So, the reason Jesus said, "no one is good except God alone" is not because Jesus was a sinner. Moreover, the Rich man is not said to have been a Pharisee. The point in this conversation is correcting the errant presupposition of this rich man. The idea that goodness derives from humanity was the question being addressed. Jesus is correcting the faulty mentality that humanity can establish its own perfect righteousness before a holy God. The point here is not about the person or nature of Jesus, as the Scriptures listed above are abundantly clear of Jesus' sinless life, but is about addressing a faulty mindset of the rich man. Jesus is calling the man to abandon everything to follow him as the means of obtaining life. To go beyond this is to address theological concepts that the Gospel were clearly not trying to address in this context.

The bold is where you fail to appreciate Jesus's nature. Read the Masters teaching here Mark 7:15.

Once you come to appreciate the precise nature of his battle, then the Lords words "None good but God" will be opened to you. While you remain in a state of denial as to his nature and its evil desires and his subsequent agony in overcoming it, I feel you will not be able to move forward in this discussion. Gal 5:24

You are holding to dogmas which he need to protect at the expense of truth.

The key to understanding Jesus position before God is in his nature....he was in agony until it was overcome - Luke 12:50NET.

Why do you call me good?

Hebrews 2:14-18 puts all this in so many words:-

"As the children (us) are partakers of flesh and blood (human nature), he (Christ) also himself likewise took part (i.e. "partook", R.S.V.) of the same (nature); that through death he might destroy...the devil...For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the (nature of the) seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest... to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted".

Wormwood, only in digesting these truths could you possibly understand Jesus teaching on goodness and its source. How could Jesus claim goodness, even morally, when he dwelt in sins flesh? When he partook of a nature which he himself was required to destroy? Flesh and blood cannot glory in Gods presence 1 Cor 15:50. I ask you in what could Jesus boast? Could he boast in his nature? Could he boast in his righteousness (it wasn't his!)

Supporting quotes:

Heb 4:15 - had our nature
Mark 7:15-23 source of defilement is the flesh
James 1:13-15 temptation which leads to sin originates in the flesh

Jesus rebuke of the Pharisee was a warning that righteousness is imputed, yes even for the Son of God.

I will deal with the remainder of your post when time permits.

Purity.​

 

[Wormwood]

Scripture is clear wormwood that Jesus grew in wisdom - this of course means he increased or was increasing as he grew older. Nothing knew here. If you believe Jesus as a 2 month old baby was wise then you would certainly have some explaining to do.

Yes. Jesus was fully human. I am not a Gnostic and I do not believe in Apollinarianism. The idea that Jesus was a man who grew in stature and wisdom does not conflict with Trinitarian views.

Until he died his righteousness was imputed and in his death he was found to be without sin and no guile was found in his mouth.

The term "Son of man" is referencing his representation of all that man is before God - hence Jesus could say even "None good but God"

It appears that what you are proposing is a form of Adoptionism. I think the texts I presented in the OP refute this position strongly Philippians 2 does not teach that Jesus "became" imputed with righteousness or divine status due to his exemplary life. Quite the contrary. He was God who lowered himself to human semblance and became obedient to death on a cross. While Jesus was made in the "likeness of sinful flesh" he was not sinful. I reject the idea that the guilt and stain of sin is imbedded in human flesh. The propensity to sin certainly is, but the guilt is not. Jesus said of little children that the "kingdom of God is made of such as these." I believe there is an innocence with children even through their flesh is corrupted by the fall. I think you are making massive leaps from your assumptions about the nature of human flesh and how that corresponds with Jesus' ability to be "good." What you are proposing is Gnostic in thought which views only the non-physical as capable of being "good." Scripture and the early church rejected the effort to push such Greek philosophical ideas into Christianity.

It appears from your above comments you do not understand that Jesus' nature was exactly the same as yours. He was under the dominion of death all his life (Rom 6:9) and he experienced the impulses from that nature which if acted upon was sin. Like Paul who also understood "no good thing" dwelt in his flesh (Rom 7), Jesus likewise believed the same. Morally he was perfect and righteous, however in his flesh dwelt no good thing.

Jesus was like us "in every way." But he was the "only begotton." He is the creator of all things and nothing exists apart from his creation of it. He is the truth and the life and was the true light which gives light to every man. This was not something he became, but something he was prior to the incarnation. So while he was "like us in every way" he was the "one and only Son of God." To suggest that Jesus, Paul, you and I basically have no difference other than Jesus lived a more exemplary life and was rewarded for it is deeply unorthodox and unbiblical.

Correct and he was "made" sin - how do you reconcile God being made sin? 2 Cor 5:21

The same way I reconcile God being "made" in our form and likeness. How do you reconcile the idea that a finite creature could become the substitutionary atonement for the entire world? How can you claim that God alone is our Savior if an indifferent third party is chosen to suffer divine wrath on the cross for lawbreakers? It would seem that the man Jesus is our Savior, not God.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Purity,

Does the question "Why callest thou me good?" equal "Do not call me good!"? I do not think so. I have always read that as Jesus equating himself with God. In other words, Jesus was acknowledging the man's discernment that He was God, the man knew Jesus was good and was asking Him questions as the authority. In the verse proceeding, the man was asking how to inherit eternal life. So I read the verse more like, "Why do you call me good? None is good except God, I am He. In the verses following, Jesus speaks authoritatively about who will enter the kingdom of God, because He knew. Jesus had the authority to speak about it. The man knew Jesus was good. Jesus certainly was not telling the man to not call Him good. The man had already discerned it.

Wormwood,

Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?

SL

 

[Purity]

Yes. Jesus was fully human. I am not a Gnostic and I do not believe in Apollinarianism. The idea that Jesus was a man who grew in stature and wisdom does not conflict with Trinitarian views.

So you say.

Jesus is God but he required to learn wisdom like all God's Children and this does not conflict with Trinitarian views.

You are on the run Wormwood and we are only in the formative stages of our discussion.

Its noted also your statement Jesus is fully human but omit to say fully God and rightly so.

So you believe Jesus was in possession of a carnal mind? i.e Not my will (carnal) but thine be done (divine)?

Interesting.

It appears that what you are proposing is a form of Adoptionism.

Not so - how could God say Matt 3:17 or Luke 1:32 - how could Elizabeth call Jesus Lord while still in Mary's womb?

Adoptionism is man made doctrine!

I think the texts I presented in the OP refute this position strongly Philippians 2 does not teach that Jesus "became" imputed with righteousness or divine status due to his exemplary life.

What he became is evident from Hebrew 1

Thus Jesus became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.

Compared too:

He "was" made a little lower than the Angels"

What changed from his birth - - > death - - > resurrection?

Well, for one thing he received an inheritance he did not previously hold.

1. Divine nature
2. A throne beside his Father
3. Power, Authority and Honour
4. A Kingdom
5. Saints
6. A name which is above all other names beside Him who gave him the name.

I could list so many more inheritances which Jesus was given none of which he had prior to his birth.

Of course to disagree with this one would need to redefine the meaning of "inheritance?: :)

He was God who lowered himself to human semblance and became obedient to death on a cross.

God lowered Himself? Clearly you do not know the righteousness of God. Even reading you words makes the hairs on my head stand on end. It Reads difficult doesn't it? And what makes it more insipid is your teaching is nowhere in the Bible. If, as you say, this is the core of "your" faith; why do we not see this essential teaching in the NT? From Paul? or the other Apostles?

While Jesus was made in the "likeness of sinful flesh" he was not sinful.

Interesting you accept God dwelt in sinful flesh - something corrupting and unclean - destine to die - condemned to death and you would have Almighty God 1 Tim 6:16 dwelling is such muck?

Again you know not Yahweh Elohim

I reject the idea that the guilt and stain of sin is imbedded in human flesh.

Have you studied the subject of leprosy? ;) - imbedded in human flesh is lust and all its passions - sin is not stored in the flesh but the effects of a sinful life can be manifested in our bodies - appearance, health and disease can all be attributed to sin in the flesh.

Example:
Leprosy in the forehead Lev. 13:44 cmp to Exodus 28:36

“His clothes rent”
“Cover his upper lip”
Cries “Unclean, unclean”

You are bold to say there is absolutely no relationship between the carnal mind and the carnal nature - bold indeed!

Here is the comparison of the leprosy in the forehead compared to the Holiness of Yahweh

“ His train fills the Temple” Isa 6:1
"Lips purged" Isa 6:5-7
Cries “Holy, Holy, Holy” Isa 6:3

The question for you Wormwood is this: Did Jesus experience that nature in all its weakness?

Yes or no?

The propensity to sin certainly is, but the guilt is not.

So it is here that you have God who cannot be tempted with evil dwelling in flesh which can be tempted?
Scriptural support please?

Jesus said of little children that the "kingdom of God is made of such as these." I believe there is an innocence with children even through their flesh is corrupted by the fall. I think you are making massive leaps from your assumptions about the nature of human flesh and how that corresponds with Jesus' ability to be "good."

No leaps - its simply you cannot speak to the passages which highlight Jesus' weakness, in fact, I don't think you are able too because of all the Trinitarian doctrine getting in the way. 2 Cor 13:4

I tell it how I see it - blunt I know but these are essential truths you are missing out on.

What you are proposing is Gnostic in thought which views only the non-physical as capable of being "good." Scripture and the early church rejected the effort to push such Greek philosophical ideas into Christianity.

Take me to the Scripture Wormwood.

I gave your hard evidence that their is absolutely nothing in man which is good.

How about I keep listing off the Scriptures and hopefully eventually you will humble yourself to say yes purity - the Scrpitures are correct "there is no goodness in man, his nature or thinking without God"

Lets start with Jer 17:9

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?

tn - Or “incurably deceitful”; Heb “It is incurable.” For the word “deceitful” compare the usage of the verb in Gen 27:36 and a related noun in 2 Kgs 10:19. For the adjective “incurable” compare the usage in Jer 15:18. It is most commonly used with reference to wounds or of pain. In Jer 17:16 it is used metaphorically for a “woeful day” (i.e., day of irreparable devastation).

The human mind Jesus expressed as being "not my mind but thine be done" should reveal to you precisely what was placed on the cross that glorious but dreadful day. A serpant on a pole? Yes John 3:14

Fancy believing God condescended to become man to possess a carnal mind which is incurable only to choose to believe in himself - putting himself to death to save humanity.

You are missing out wormwood on a deeper message and an atonement for sin which you are yet to reach.

Jesus was like us "in every way." But he was the "only begotton."

Yes we agree he was begotton. Jesus unlike His Father has a beginning.

He is the creator of all things and nothing exists apart from his creation of it. He is the truth and the life and was the true light which gives light to every man. This was not something he became, but something he was prior to the incarnation.

Proof please ;)

So while he was "like us in every way" he was the "one and only Son of God." To suggest that Jesus, Paul, you and I basically have no difference other than Jesus lived a more exemplary life and was rewarded for it is deeply unorthodox and unbiblical.

Are you suggesting Jesus was not reward for his faithfulness? Wow so you believe Hebrews 11:6 did not apply to the Lord? Because he was already God?

You are way way outside Scripture.

So when Paul writes

And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.” (future tense = Son of Promise) But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” And he says of the angels,

So you must therefore believe he cannot be a son of promise if he already existed? He could not have been given a name, throne or inhertence which are all meaningless if he had those in his possession? What you also suggest is the angels worshipping Jesus has no significance if he had this previously?

In fact the entire book of Hebrews is fabricated to show the glorious exalted position achieved by the Son because you infer it was always his. This also contradicts him being the firstborn from the dead - he is actually unlike his brethren because they did not pre-exist...unless you believe as the Mormons do?

The same way I reconcile God being "made" in our form and likeness. How do you reconcile the idea that a finite creature could become the substitutionary atonement for the entire world?

The atonement cannot be substitutionary as this would make God the debtor - he was a representative of mankind hence Gal 5:24 - All Gods children are called to crucify the flesh and its lusts.

Again I see you do not understand the nature of Christ or the work of atonement - dangerous position to be in Wormwood (said sincerely)

How can you claim that God alone is our Savior if an indifferent third party is chosen to suffer divine wrath on the cross for lawbreakers? It would seem that the man Jesus is our Savior, not God.

Show me where Jesus suffered Gods divine wrath - man you are miles away from the atonement. It appears you do not know why Jesus had to die

Why did Jesus Christ have to die? Rom 3:25

1. Jesus inherited Adam‟s mortal dying nature through Mary: Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4.
2. Jesus had to defeat sin on our behalf. By living a perfectly sinless life to the point of death on the cross, he overcame sin in the most difficult of circumstances: Rom 6:6-7; Phil 2:8-9; Heb 2:14. In doing so he voluntarily gave up his mortality with all its lusts: 1 John 2:16-17.
3. Jesus overcame death. The only way is to actually die and be resurrected to immortality: Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:55.
4. To have a fellow feeling for all those he came to save. This includes those persecuted and killed for their faith. No-one can say Jesus doesn‟t understand: Heb 2:14-15.
Also, Jesus learnt obedience by the things that he suffered Heb 5:7-9. Through the very process of trial and suffering, he developed a personal relationship with his brothers and sisters. He was therefore not detached from those he came to save.
Jesus “declared God‟s righteousness” in his life, death and resurrection: Rom 3:25-26. He willingly submitted to God‟s will rather than his own, right to the point of death: Matt 26:39. His death on the cross was the last act of obedience in a whole life of perfect obedience: Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8. An appreciation of his life should have an emotional and motivational effect upon us: Gal 2v20.

The reason Jesus died fulfils many divine principles but none more important than declaring Gods righteousness. NOT APPEASING AN ANGRY GOD - you have it all wrong Wormwood...all wrong

Purity

Purity,

Does the question "Why callest thou me good?" equal "Do not call me good!"? I do not think so. I have always read that as Jesus equating himself with God. In other words, Jesus was acknowledging the man's discernment that He was God, the man knew Jesus was good and was asking Him questions as the authority. In the verse proceeding, the man was asking how to inherit eternal life. So I read the verse more like, "Why do you call me good? None is good except God, I am He. In the verses following, Jesus speaks authoritatively about who will enter the kingdom of God, because He knew. Jesus had the authority to speak about it. The man knew Jesus was good. Jesus certainly was not telling the man to not call Him good. The man had already discerned it.

Wormwood,

Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?

SL

SL

Read (no study) Psalm 16 then come back to me regarding what the Lords teaching was concerning the origin of goodness.

It wasn't in Jesus - He relied on Gods goodness in the same manner as the rich man.

Not difficult.

Purity

 

[Wormwood]

Well, for one thing he received an inheritance he did not previously hold.

1. Divine nature
2. A throne beside his Father
3. Power, Authority and Honour
4. A Kingdom
5. Saints
6. A name which is above all other names beside Him who gave him the name.

I could list so many more inheritances which Jesus was given none of which he had prior to his birth.

Of course to disagree with this one would need to redefine the meaning of "inheritance?: :)

As I said, what you are proposing is adoptionism. Jesus did not "receive" a divine nature which he did not previously hold. Philippians 2 makes this clear.

God lowered Himself? Clearly you do not know the righteousness of God. Even reading you words makes the hairs on my head stand on end. It Reads difficult doesn't it? And what makes it more insipid is your teaching is nowhere in the Bible. If, as you say, this is the core of "your" faith; why do we not see this essential teaching in the NT? From Paul? or the other Apostles?

Yes, he "lowered" Himself. The Greek word is "kenosis" which literally means "to pour out" or "to empty." If you have having issues with this concept then your issue is with the Biblical text. The teaching is clear in Philippians 2. For someone who is so adamant that their view is Biblical and mine is not, you sure do not offer many Scriptures on the matter and have yet to respond directly to any of the dozens of Scriptures I have referenced in the OP as well as in my responses to you.

Interesting you accept God dwelt in sinful flesh - something corrupting and unclean - destine to die - condemned to death and you would have Almighty God 1 Tim 6:16 dwelling is such muck?

Again you know not Yahweh Elohim

See again John 1:1-3; Philippians 2 and the multitude of other passages in the OP about Jesus' divinity. This should answer your inquiry about God being tempted. Your issue is with the Bible, not me. The NT and early church clearly teaches the divinity of Jesus.

So you must therefore believe he cannot be a son of promise if he already existed? He could not have been given a name, throne or inhertence which are all meaningless if he had those in his possession? What you also suggest is the angels worshipping Jesus has no significance if he had this previously?

Again, most of your issues here are a failure to understand Trinitarian teaching. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus of Nazareth was born around 4BC. The name of Jesus was a name given above every name and angels and all creation "worship" Jesus as a result of his triumph (which is a real problem for those who believe Jesus is not divine, as God does not give his worship to another). Jesus is referred to as "the Word" that dwelt with God and was God, prior to the incarnation. So, Jesus is the Son. The Word became flesh, the Son of God. So while the Word existed eternally, the Word made flesh became man for eternity around 4BC. It is a beautiful and fantastic thing that you do not really seem intent on trying to understand.

Show me where Jesus suffered Gods divine wrath - man you are miles away from the atonement. It appears you do not know why Jesus had to die

Why did Jesus Christ have to die? Rom 3:25

1. Jesus inherited Adam‟s mortal dying nature through Mary: Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4.
2. Jesus had to defeat sin on our behalf. By living a perfectly sinless life to the point of death on the cross, he overcame sin in the most difficult of circumstances: Rom 6:6-7; Phil 2:8-9; Heb 2:14. In doing so he voluntarily gave up his mortality with all its lusts: 1 John 2:16-17.
3. Jesus overcame death. The only way is to actually die and be resurrected to immortality: Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:55.
4. To have a fellow feeling for all those he came to save. This includes those persecuted and killed for their faith. No-one can say Jesus doesn‟t understand: Heb 2:14-15.
Also, Jesus learnt obedience by the things that he suffered Heb 5:7-9. Through the very process of trial and suffering, he developed a personal relationship with his brothers and sisters. He was therefore not detached from those he came to save.
Jesus “declared God‟s righteousness” in his life, death and resurrection: Rom 3:25-26. He willingly submitted to God‟s will rather than his own, right to the point of death: Matt 26:39. His death on the cross was the last act of obedience in a whole life of perfect obedience: Rom 5:19; Phil 2:8. An appreciation of his life should have an emotional and motivational effect upon us: Gal 2v20.

The reason Jesus died fulfils many divine principles but none more important than declaring Gods righteousness. NOT APPEASING AN ANGRY GOD - you have it all wrong Wormwood...all wrong

Yes, Scripture is clear that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins. Isaiah says, "he was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities." Paul says, "He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God." Moreover, 6x in the NT the word for "propitiation" is used in reference to the atonement. The word literally means to divert wrath. Over 500x in the OT God's wrath on sin is mentioned. God's wrath was not swept under the rug. The wages of sin is death and Jesus suffered on account of our sin, not his own. This is substitution, whether you want to admit it or not. According to your limited depiction of the atonement, the cross basically boils down to Jesus as a moral example. While this is true, it is only a small part of the atonement. Jesus is also our redeemer, propitiation, reconciliation, etc. I will stop here since this forum is about the Trinity, not the atonement. I would be happy to write a post on the atonement if you would like to discuss this issue in the future.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Purity,

One more quick question if I may before I take your advice and study Psalm 16. Were you trying to indicate that Jesus did not exist before He was born on this earth? That is how I took your initial post in this thread. If I am wrong, could you please clarify?

SL

 

[Purity]

As I said, what you are proposing is adoptionism. Jesus did not "receive" a divine nature which he did not previously hold. Philippians 2 makes this clear.

There is no reference to Jesus possessing divine nature prior to his birth in Phil 2.

Actually it does happen to mention him being "given" something:

Therefore God (not himself) has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus bevery knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

So what if he already had the position and name - what is Paul teaching if Jesus always possessed the name and the exalted position...

You haven't thought this through wormwood...and you are not making any sense whatsoever.

Yes, he "lowered" Himself. The Greek word is "kenosis" which literally means "to pour out" or "to empty." If you have having issues with this concept then your issue is with the Biblical text. The teaching is clear in Philippians 2. For someone who is so adamant that their view is Biblical and mine is not, you sure do not offer many Scriptures on the matter and have yet to respond directly to any of the dozens of Scriptures I have referenced in the OP as well as in my responses to you.

Phil 2 is not speaking about God becoming man! Is this the only passage in all Scripture you can hang this hat on?

Phil 2:7 is speaking about Jesus Christ emptying himself of his own will and desires, becoming a humble servant of the Father. Phil 2:8 goes on to prove this point conclusively and speaks nothing about Yahweh emptying Himself.

The context Wormwood is Jesus' servitude and if you want examples of this theme they run thick through the NT. You need to read your Bible in context of what Paul is teaching: "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself" (Joh 6:15). "It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them" (Luk 12:37). Even after his resurrection, he (presumably) kindled the fire and cooked the fish, in John 21:9. Jesus in the role of a servant: Isa 53:3; Psa 22:6; Isa 42:1-6; Isa 49:1-8; Isa 50:4-6; Mar 9:12; Mar 10:45; Luk 22:27; Psa 40:6-8; 2Co 8:9; Mat 20:25-28.

He took on the form of a servant (Not even a Son!) Accepted the "form" (morphe)... cp Joh 13:13-14 (a servant for our example) and Heb 5:8-9 (...and for his own training). The Master and Lord washed his disciples' feet. So, at the same time, he had "form/status" of God and "form/status" of servant (cp Isa 52:13-14)! Cp Joh 21:9.

What blows me away is this is speaking about Jesus and his relationship with his Father and somehow you turn and twist this passage to mean what? God becoming man? Outrageous handling of the Word.

See again John 1:1-3; Philippians 2 and the multitude of other passages in the OP about Jesus' divinity. This should answer your inquiry about God being tempted. Your issue is with the Bible, not me. The NT and early church clearly teaches the divinity of Jesus.

A multitude you say?

You misquote Phil 2 then you line up John 1 which is speaking about a spiritual creation in Christ Jesus who became flesh and blood and dwelt among us - nothing in the chapter to suggest God emptying Himself at all.

Your special pleading is becoming rather laborious - do you have a chapter in the Bible where its context is God becoming man emptying himself of all power and coming down to earth as a mere man?

Again, most of your issues here are a failure to understand Trinitarian teaching. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

No wonder Christians are confused. If I ask you to define this God-Man nature you cannot - you haven't a clue what you believe.

Jesus of Nazareth was born around 4BC. The name of Jesus was a name given above every name and angels and all creation "worship" Jesus as a result of his triumph (which is a real problem for those who believe Jesus is not divine, as God does not give his worship to another). Jesus is referred to as "the Word" that dwelt with God and was God, prior to the incarnation. So, Jesus is the Son. The Word became flesh, the Son of God. So while the Word existed eternally, the Word made flesh became man for eternity around 4BC. It is a beautiful and fantastic thing that you do not really seem intent on trying to understand.

Yes, Scripture is clear that Jesus suffered punishment for our sins. Isaiah says, "he was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities." Paul says, "He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God." Moreover, 6x in the NT the word for "propitiation" is used in reference to the atonement. The word literally means to divert wrath. Over 500x in the OT God's wrath on sin is mentioned. God's wrath was not swept under the rug. The wages of sin is death and Jesus suffered on account of our sin, not his own. This is substitution, whether you want to admit it or not. According to your limited depiction of the atonement, the cross basically boils down to Jesus as a moral example. While this is true, it is only a small part of the atonement. Jesus is also our redeemer, propitiation, reconciliation, etc. I will stop here since this forum is about the Trinity, not the atonement. I would be happy to write a post on the atonement if you would like to discuss this issue in the future.

Its all bla bla bla Wormwood. You need to provide an argument which is established on the Word of God - read back over your reference to Phil 2 - where is your exposition of the verse/s in mind? Your post is an illusion born out of delusion which has been passed down from the ECF's who even themselves could not define the Trinity or explain its meaning. I need you to enter the Word of God - that means to open up its meaning and not to blanket it with your notions and infered meaning.

Philippians 2:6-11 has its subject in Christ and focuses on Christ’s status, Christ’s humiliation and exaltation (making it important for reasons of comprehensiveness), but nowhere is the subject matter referring to divine nature - trinity - pre-existence of Christ.

You sure have some work to do.

Purity

Purity,

One more quick question if I may before I take your advice and study Psalm 16. Were you trying to indicate that Jesus did not exist before He was born on this earth? That is how I took your initial post in this thread. If I am wrong, could you please clarify?

SL

Straight answer is no Christ did not pre-exist.

I suggest you ask how it is possible for God to promise a Son at a future time if he already existed in Heaven? How can he be a Son of Promise if he pre-existed? Secondly, when you read Psalm 16 you will see its content and context is highly messianic - how can Jesus who is God state openly he has no goodness apart from Yahweh?

Can you see how ridiculous this is? You have God and Christ in Heaven when Psalm 16 was written prophesying that Jesus (who is at the Fathers side already) has no goodness whatsoever to offer God! Further more when this Son is somehow born from a woman he needs to learn his own knowledge? He dwells in sins flesh in that which is unclean having no goodness at all - But by the way he is God.

Like I said - Trinitarian religion is senseless and illogical.

Purity

As I said, what you are proposing is adoptionism. Jesus did not "receive" a divine nature which he did not previously hold. Philippians 2 makes this clear.

Yes, he "lowered" Himself. The Greek word is "kenosis" which literally means "to pour out" or "to empty." If you have having issues with this concept then your issue is with the Biblical text. The teaching is clear in Philippians 2. For someone who is so adamant that their view is Biblical and mine is not, you sure do not offer many Scriptures on the matter and have yet to respond directly to any of the dozens of Scriptures I have referenced in the OP as well as in my responses to you.

Here is a quote from a Trinitarian commentator who has like yourself totally gone astray on these verses but nonetheless he sees an issue with this interpretation:

"taking the very nature of a servant and being made in human likeness. These statements explain both how this took place and what it means. Paradoxically, being “made nothing” means adding humanity to deity rather than subtracting deity from his person. The language has a vagueness to it; that vagueness allows for theology which cannot be expressed easily, a theology of the relationships between the divine and human in Christ"

Its refreshing to read Richard R. Melick, Jr words as he is at least seeing the issue of context as previously discused in my response. Now you and I both know we can find support for Christ not grasping at equality. We read Jesus, "Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" which is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

So once again your foundation is eroding with the weight of Scripture which states Jesus (though obedient) learned obedience through the things which he suffered - yes at one with his Father in mind but never more than a Son.

 

[Floyd]

Purity: who is the god of this world?
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Purity: who is the god of this world?
Floyd.

Good question.

The Apostle Paul takes this theme up in 2 Cor 4:1-4.

4:1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, just as God has shown us mercy,1 we do not become discouraged.2 4:2 But we have rejected3 shameful hidden deeds,4 not behaving5 with deceptiveness6 or distorting the word of God, but by open proclamation of the truth we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience before God. 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, 4:4 among whom the god of this age (world) has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel8 of Christ,9 who is the image of God. 4:5 For we do not proclaim10 ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves11 for Jesus’ sake. 4:6 For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,”12 is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge13 of God in the face of Christ.14

Context: Allusion to the serpent in Eden. See Rom 16:17-20; John 3:14; Num 21:9; 2 Cor 11:3; the symbol is used in Rev 12:9 as the "old serpent" speaking to the apostasy.

The apostasy Paul was referring to in 2 Cor 4 (blindness) refers to those "believers" who trusted in the law of Moses. They had not "renounced the hidden things of dishonesty". They were still "walking in craftiness" and "handling the word of God deceitfully " - hence living up (or down!) to the example of their spiritual "ancestor" - the old serpent!

Like 2 Cor 11:3 he continue his analogy, Pauls mind is in the tragic event of Eden lost due to 1 John 2:16. Eve sought to be like the Elohim, Eve departed from her "first estate". She was reaching for "greater light". She found instead darkness - deceived by the serpent (carnal thinking Rom 8:7) , or the "god of this world" (1 John 2:16). Her mind was blinded by "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" (1Jn 2:15-16), and consequently she "believed not" God. Thus ruin came.

By no mean is this exhaustive but enough for you to be led into the Word and not away from it.

Purity.

Note: The word "age" here reflects the Jewish age which was about to draw to an end.

Purity: you are now beginning to show your true colours. The bracketed italics below give the corrections!
The correct understanding of Zech.14:9, is the uniting of the Godhead during the Millennial Reign and "the day of Jehovah Zebaoth" ; the word "one" means in the Hebrew "united", and is the same word "ehad" as Deut.6:4!
Your teaching is clearly not mainstream to say the least; and is possibly approaching heresy.

"in that day shall there be one Yahweh (Jehovah= God in Covenant relationship with Israel), and His name one" Zech 14:9ESV

Yahweh will be manifested in a vast multitude of glorified ones who will bear His name (Rev 3:12) (this refers to the "overcomers"), His nature (2Pe 1:4), and His glory (Rom 5:2). Though numbering "ten thousand times ten thousand" (Dan 7:1-28) they will comprise one Family, upon which will be named the Name of Yahweh (Isa 30:27). His name is that of a family, signifying "He who will become..." testifying to the fact that His purpose is that of the manifestation of His characteristics in creatures of His approval. As the king-priests of the Age to come (Rev 5:9-10)(this refers to redeemed Israel and Ex.19:6) the saints will be spread throughout the world (Mal 1:11), and yet they shall comprise a unit, being "one" with God and His Son because they are the manifestation of the divine wisdom (Joh 17:21). This unity in multiplicity is expressed by Zechariah as a great number of the redeemed bound together as one: the fulfilment of the purpose of the Gospel (see Joh 17:17-23). (This refers to the Lord's disciples and also to those who would be His by their witness).

Kingdom of Priests unto God (Separate study) Access in www.revelationsmessage.co.uk Subjectindex.



Where is this teaching you pronounce as truth?
I don't think it is even JW!
Floyd.

Your corrections only supported the glorious name of Yahweh.

Multitude of saints all manifesting the Yahweh name. Maybe Phil 2:9 can be appreciated further yes?

That name is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Son of God who is exalted by Yah; who offers salvation by Yah and who is anointed by Yah

Thank you.

 

[Floyd]

The god of this world is clearly stated as Satan; the same one who tempted Eve.
He refused to accept the sinless state of our Lord after His Baptism by John; and tried to use the Word to tempt Him. Satan knew who Jesus was/is, as do the demons in their acknowledgement of Him; and their future torment!
They had/have no doubt about His Divinity!
Interestingly, in the case of Satan, he use innuendo/sarcasm in his approach to Eve!
Where ever this is seen/experienced against a Christian; one can be sure that Satan is involved!
Would you not agree Purity?
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

The god of this world is clearly stated as Satan; the same one who tempted Eve.
He refused to accept the sinless state of our Lord after His Baptism by John; and tried to use the Word to tempt Him. Satan knew who Jesus was/is, as do the demons in their acknowledgement of Him; and their future torment!
They had/have no doubt about His Divinity!
Interestingly, in the case of Satan, he use innuendo/sarcasm in his approach to Eve!
Where ever this is seen/experienced against a Christian; one can be sure that Satan is involved!
Would you not agree Purity?
Floyd.

No Floyd

Paul is specific in his context that the serpent is the one being referenced and while you will try and force faniciful notions upon the text the cunning beast was made (created) by God.

"Was more subtil than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made" -

The serpent was shrewder than all other "beasts of the field." This attribute of subtlety, shrewdness, or wisdom is commended by the Lord Jesus, who advised his disciples to be "as wise as serpents" (Matt 10:16). Therefore, at this stage, together with all other forms of creation, it was "very good" (Gen 1:31).

You need to go somewhere else to find your supernatural being but hands of the cunning beast.

If you enquire of Egyptian mythology you are sure to find the imaginative creature there.

Purity

 

[Floyd]

Taking the Trinity subject further; a recent translation by an Ancient Aramaic scholar of the Pshitta; (approx. AD100), renders John 17:14: " I gave them your manifestation(footnote= Trinity),and the people hated them, for they are not from the world, just as I am not of the world".
Interesting don't you think?
This Pshitta version is Armenian; and has been used since approx. AD100-300.
It is known as the "Eastern version". Its sister is known as the "Western version"; and all Western translations derive from this one; first into Greek, then into the vernaculars of each country. This version is considered "less pure" than the Eastern, due to the many additions and alterations; but thankfully, most are known.
The fact (so called) of the "purity" of the Eastern Pshitta, and its rendering of Jhn.17:14, adds fuel to the Trinity argument!
Floyd.

Your answer re Satan, leaves me in no doubt as to your true self!
Your answer is as Satan would answer!
I have been very suspicious of your constant sarcasm, and triumphal approach; which in defending Satan, has shown your alliance.
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Taking the Trinity subject further; a recent translation by an Ancient Aramaic scholar of the Pshitta; (approx. AD100), renders John 17:14: " I gave them your manifestation(footnote= Trinity),and the people hated them, for they are not from the world, just as I am not of the world".
Interesting don't you think?
This Pshitta version is Armenian; and has been used since approx. AD100-300.
It is known as the "Eastern version". Its sister is known as the "Western version"; and all Western translations derive from this one; first into Greek, then into the vernaculars of each country. This version is considered "less pure" than the Eastern, due to the many additions and alterations; but thankfully, most are known.
The fact (so called) of the "purity" of the Eastern Pshitta, and its rendering of Jhn.17:14, adds fuel to the Trinity argument!
Floyd.

Your answer re Satan, leaves me in no doubt as to your true self!
Your answer is as Satan would answer!
I have been very suspicious of your constant sarcasm, and triumphal approach; which in defending Satan, has shown your alliance.
Floyd.

The first point Floyd is to date this thread is yet to see a single argument for the trinity. Go ahead and reread the thread and show where a coherent argument has been formed? Lots of assertion and inference but no meaningful arguments have been put forth.

Secondly, the manifestation of the Father through the son 2 Cor 5:19, or should we say "many sons" is the central message of the Holy Writ. If you removed your trinity glasses for but a moment you may see a broader and far reaching message than three gods in one.

Romans 8:19KJV is the fulfilment of Christ prayer which he gave concerning himself before his Heavenly Father. Of course the sons of God is inclusive of Christ himself the firstborn from the dead. 2 Cor 4:6; Gal 6:15 ;2 Cor 5:14,15,16,17,18,19

It (the creation) waits! It signifies an eager expectation and a clear reference to the return of Christ to the earth (1 Cor 1:7; Gal 5:5 and Heb 9:28)

So the only fuel you have added here is one which reinforces the plurality of God is made of a community of glorified beings manifesting the character of Yahweh in the earth - all sons; yes angles inclusive for they do His bidding as ministering spirits assisting the true Sons and Daughters of God into a glorious Kingdom.

Floyd providing you keep providing posts which speak to manifestation we shall all profit 1 Cor 12:7KJV

Purity

I should add Floyd seeing you led us to the Lords prayer in John 17 and the subject of the sons of God manifesting the Father; we should also accept the following facts concerning his petitions to the Father:

I have glorified you (Yahweh) on earth (v. 4).

I have manifested your (Yahweh) name (vv. 6, 26).

I have given them the words which you (Yahweh) have given me (vv. 8, 14).

I have kept them in your (Yahweh) name (v. 12a).

I have guarded them (v. 12b).

I have sent them into the world (v. 18).

I have consecrated myself (v. 19).

I have given them the glory which you (Yahweh) have given me (v. 22).

I have “known” you (Yahweh) (v. 25).

Regarding the satan comment I can only have pity on you as one speaking from ignorance; so knowing this allows me to not take offence. You simply don't know what you are talking about.