John 17:5 Revisited

I decided to post this because I was issued a challenge as a Oneness adherent on a Reformed blog concerning John 17:5.... You can read it here from my friend turretinfan's blog.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/challenge-for-oneness-advocates.html


The Keyword here being *The Glory* Jesus had with the father before the world was. In John 17:5 Does not, I repeat; does not refer to pre-existence of the son of God. The son of God was Born of Mary.....Deny that?

The Reformed trinitarians vacuum isolate passages from all other passages from their continued context in proof text to form their doctrines. And Gloss over the keyword and focus upon what they think is obvious.

Do they really think we cannot see what they see in John 17:5? There is more to the Glory of which Jesus and John spoke ....

The glory refers to His(The sons) shedding of his sinless blood Through *His FLESH* in redemptive sacrifice for mankind. It has nothing to do with pre-existence.

Let me repeat this so that you will understand? When Jesus spoke about his glory in John 17:5 he was speaking about His precious sacrifice of his sinless flesh, not pre-existence.

We understand if you take John 17:5 at face value you would get that meaning but it is much deeper than that and your interpretation actually contradicts scripture.

Romans 5:14 Adam who was the figure of him that was to Come. Meaning the son was not back there but coming even though Adam was made in his image. BTW that is what God was saying In (Genesis 1:26) When God said: *Let us make man in our image after our likeness.

The Us and Our is inclusive of the son.(The flesh God incarnated) Not god jr. We are not talking about multiple persons of god but the coming incarnation. God manifest in the Flesh. You do not have that. What you have is multiple god persons.

The continued context of John 17:24

John 17:24 The disciples were about to witness *the glory* he had with the father before the world was.

Father,I will that they also,whom thou hast given me,be with me where I am that *THEY MAY BEHOLD MY GLORY>*

They were about to behold his glory in his passion!

His glory was spoken of in both the past tense, and in the future tense that the disciples were about to behold, these were not two different glories, but the same glory and referred to Jesus being slain in his FLESH and had nothing to do with with him literally pre-existing in eternity as a *god the son.*

Jesus also said:The Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was **not yet Glorified.**(The ultimate price of his sinless flesh sacrifice for mankind to have the spirit.(John 7:38-39)


There was no literal *Glory of the son* before the incarnation somewhere in eternity.

John also talked about his Glory In Revelation 13:8 As the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was no more literally slain(His glory) than he literally existed as the son.

The KJV rendering of that passage is as valid and relevant as any version or translation of that passage and I am no KJV onliest.

We love taking criticism of John 17:5-24 because they are as wrong about it as wrong can be!




Again Jesus gave a Key word trinitarins go for what they think is obvious and spiritual when it is a shallow gloss over scripture.

Oneness could also take the shallow glossary reading and not really dig into what is being said.


His glory.(His slaying and God providing it )

Why do you think the KJV translators Chose the words and phrasing of Revelation 13:8? Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was no more literally slain than he were literally having glory with the father pre-existing as god the son.

1st Peter 1:19-20 Goes hand in hand with Revelation 13:8

But with the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot who verily was foreordained but was manifest in these last times for you.

Both passages indicate a *plan* taking place, this was the glory he had with the father and it was not a literal slaying any more than the son literally existed.


Jesus also Used the very same literal language but revealed it was much more in John 6:35-51 Jesus said I am the bread of life.

Verse 38
Jesus said he came down from heaven.
The continued context is as the bread of Life.

Verse 51 he gets into greater detail.

The keywords are *the living bread.*
I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Pay attention to the phrasing and the seeming literalness? And the bread I will give *is my flesh*.

Jesus said the bread I will give (Which came down from heaven) IS MY FLESH.

Understand? Jesus was no more literal bread, than he literally came down from heaven as god the son.. Did his flesh literally come from heaven. NO!

His flesh as our sacrifice was provided from heaven by the spirit of God both in him and in heaven.

Trinitarians focus on him saying *he came from heaven* and as god the son(Words they would insert.)

But Jesus is not saying he literally came from heaven as the son at all.

Trinitarins Like the Jews missed what was spiritual and go for the obvious, to miss the spiritual, just like Nicodemus did when Jesus told him spiritual things in John 3:4-5 How can a man be born when he is old, can he enter the second time into his mothers womb?

The Glory was The plan of God for redemption through his sinless sacrifice and it would be God himself manifest in the flesh.

That was the glory he had with the father before the world was. It was not as two persons of God in some weird lovingly staring into each others eyes throughout eternity.