Responding to Weak Trinitarian Apologetics ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/GCIs9XZHv8E/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to Weak Trinitarian Apologetics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCIs9XZHv8E) John 17:3 is proof Jesus is not God, which is a stupid argument. Can we just drop it already? >> All right, let's see it. >> Why are we still saying prove in 2026? Okay, we can't prove the majority of the things that we believe with a lot of evidence. Prove to me, but we're not a matrix. Oh, you can't. Why are you even saying the word then? I agree with this. A lot of people use the word prove in the sense of make a case for when usually in the narrow technical sense prove means demonstrate conclusively as in math and science and things like that. So I agree we shouldn't be talking about proving things when it comes to the interpretation of ancient texts and frequently when it comes to the reconstruction of ancient history. I think we can talk about demonstrates suggests the evidence supports the data do not support. I think that's better language than prove which hopefully you very rarely ever hear me say. >> Secondly, monos the word for only in John 17:3. Look it up in BAG and update inlinear not strongs but bag. It's an exclusion term. It can also be used to exclude based on particular context. And what is the freaking context? Okay, the context is we are putting the father up against these other gods that have the potential to be worshiped. Okay, so the context, father, other gods. In the context of the father being compared to other gods, who is the true god in that context, it's going to be the father. Thank you. That's what he's saying. It's not a proof text for unitarianism. It's not a proof text for trinitarianism. It's not a proof text for anything other than pagan idols and gods are false. That's it. That's it. So I would suggest this is problematic for a handful of reasons, but mainly because it avinces a marked lack of awareness regarding a framework for understanding the relationship of Jesus to the only true God that was operative in the first century and second and third and even fourth centuries CE. That is also something that the scholarship talks quite frequently about that this content creator seems to be rejecting and dismissing as the work of people who are low IQ. And I think that's problematic because when we look at the academic engagement and even the early Christian engagement and even the pre-Christian Jewish engagement with the concept of the logos and its relationship to the only true God, we see that the word God can be used in different ways. And there's a way to refer to God the Father as God that makes the father God in a distinct manner where applying the word God to Jesus is using the word God in a distinct way in a different way more like divine. But I want to start with this 1970 commentary from the anchor Yale Bible commentary series by Raymond Brown. And just briefly he notes in the notes on 17:3 we note that the quote one true God and quote Jesus Christ are not identified. This verse runs somewhat contrary to other verses in John that call Jesus God. And then I want to look at this doctrinal dissertation from the University of Edinburgh from 2007 by Judith Deal which is precisely on John 17. And in the red box here we have the comment first, the only true God is the father who is knowable by humanity. To know the one who Jesus calls the father is to understand that he is the one and only true and just god. Jesus is not god. The son is not the father but is sent by the only true god. Father and son are one but they are not identical. And then more recently, Joshua Siguad in a 2022 paper talking about monarchical trinitarianism in the red box explains, "According to the doctrine of the monarchy of the father, hereafter the monarchy, the one God is numerically identical to the first person of the trinity, the father, in such a manner as to establish a hierarchical structure within the trinitarian life." This specific doctrine furthered the New Testament's language about the one God as found in various scriptural passages. So A is John 17:3 and this is eternal life that they know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. B I am ascending to my father and your father to my God and your God. This is Jesus saying that the father is Jesus's God. The father's relationship to Jesus is one of God to adherence or follower. C for us there is one God, the father and one lord Jesus Christ. That's 1 Corinthians 8. And then we got a passage from 2 Corinthians, the God and father of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who is blessed forever. These paradigm scriptural passages provided a basis for the development of the doctrine that the one God was simply the father. And then we have a quote from another scholar and there are a number of scholars who endorse this monarchical trinitarian framework and it actually has support not only among the petristic authors and among other contemporary scholars but even within early Judaism and early Christianity. So I'm going to start with on dreams written by Pho of Alexandria in the first half of the 1st century CE. In the red box at the bottom Philo quotes Genesis 31:13 which is where God appears to Jacob. And this is the Greek translation where God says to Jacob, "I am the God who appeared to thee in the place of God." And then down at the bottom, "And do not fail to mark the language used, but carefully inquire whether there are two gods, for we read, I am the God that appeared to thee, not in my place, but in the place of God, as though it were anothers." What then are we to say? He that is truly God is one. But those that are improperly so-called are more than one. Accordingly, the holy word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the article saying I am the God. While it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly socalled saying who appeared to thee in the place not of the God but simply of God. Here it gives the title of God to his chief word or logos not from any superstitious nicity in applying names but with one aim before him to use words to express facts. In other words, the word theos god with the article the god specifies a specific one. Which one? The highest one, the only true one. Whereas the anarthus use of theos or the use of theos without the article is indicative of someone who is divine in some sense but is not the god. And this is actually something we see elsewhere in the gospel of John. In defending his identification as the son of god in John chapter 10. Jesus gets on the case of his enemies who say you being human make yourself divine. And that should be interpreted and translated as divine. not you make yourself God because there's no article. You make yourself divine. And Jesus says, "Wait a minute. Your own scripture Psalm 82 says you are God's." And in my opinion and the opinion of some other scholars, this is a reference to the Israelites at Sinai. That's how this passage was interpreted. In later rabbitic literature, we think it's likely in the first century CE that interpretation was already popular. So basically Jesus is saying so when at Sinai they received the law of God they were freed from the power of the angel of death. They were rendered immortal. They were rendered gods. And the scripture says you are gods. No article. In other words you are divine. You are divinities. The title God has been extended to you so that you can be referred to that way. But you are not the true God. So elsewhere within John we already have the distinction of hos the god the true god the only true god from theos or the god or gods in an extended sense these are not the true god but they are divine they are deity they are gods and so even in John 1:1 that's what we see even in John 1:18 if you are choosing to think that the author wrote monogos. There's no article there. The only time where Jesus is in any plausible way referred to as Hawthos is in John 20:28. And I've discussed in other videos at length the fact that this is not actually saying Jesus is God. It's saying Jesus is manifesting the presence of God. Thomas gets what Philip did not get in John 14. That to see Jesus is to see the father. Not because Jesus is the father, but because Jesus bears the father's presence and manifests the father to the person who sees him. And so Thomas finally says, "My lord Jesus." Oh, and look, there's my God, the father being manifested by Jesus. Not because Jesus is haos. Jesus is not hos in the gospel of John. Jesus is manifesting the presence of hos. Now, Pho is not the only one to say this. In fact, we have it down into the 4th century. Uh Justin Martyr talks about the word the logos in his dialogue with Trifo as being able to be referred to as God without the article because he is from God and he is united in mind or will with God. So he doesn't do anything that is not in accordance with the will of God. And as a result, the title God can be extended to the word the logos Jesus. Although it's just the without the article but we have more explicit references to this. We can go to origin commentary on the gospel according to John in I think this is book two I don't remember but since the proposition in the beginning was the word has been placed first perhaps it indicates some order in the same manner next and the word was with God and third and the word was God perhaps he says and the word was with God then and the word was God that we might understand that the word has become God because he is with God. John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the word, he adds the article 'the', but in the case of the noun God, he inserts it in one place and omits it in another. For he adds the article when the noun god stands for the unccreated cause of the universe, but he omits it when the word is referred to as God. And as the God and God differ in these places, so perhaps the word and word differ. For as the God who is overall is the God and not simply God, so the source of reason in each rational being is the word. That reason which is in each rational being would not properly have the same designation as the first reason and be said to be the word. Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two gods and for this reason they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the son is other than that of the father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as son in name at least or they deny the divinity of the son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the father. Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God with the article is very God. Wherefore also the savior says in his prayer to the father that they may know you the only true God. On the other hand, everything besides the very true God which is made God by participation in his divinity would more properly not be said to be the God but God. To be sure, his firstborn of every creature in as much as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself is more honored than the other gods beside him of whom God is God. As it is said, the God of gods, the Lord has spoken and he has called the earth. It was said by his ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God, that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness. The god therefore is the true god. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again the archetypal image of the many images is the word with the god who was in the beginning. By being with the god he always continues to be god. But he would not have this if he were not with God. And he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the father. And then we can even go as late as you of Cesaria in his against Markellis and on ecclesiastical theology chapter 14 near the bottom. and what beginning he attributes to him. He John clarifies immediately afterward not having said and the word was the god with the addition of the article lest he assert that the word was the god who is over all. So even according to Ucius when Jesus refers to the father as the only true god Jesus is saying I'm not the only true god only the father is the only true god that's what origin says and while Justin martyr doesn't explicitly address John 17:3 Justin martyr also quite clearly talks about Jesus as being extended the title god but not being the only true god not being the creator not being the source of all it is according to Justin martyr and multiple times the logos is another god and in pho refers to the logos as a second god. This does not compromise monotheism. This is what origin just said. This does not compromise monotheism. Just as Jesus saying, "Hey, Psalm 82 calls them gods. Why you getting on my case?" doesn't compromise what we might call monotheism in the first century. Even though the way we talk about it, it didn't exist in that time period. But let's move on to another passage whereius directly addresses John 17:3. And even if the Savior himself teaches that the father is the only true God, saying that they may know you, the only true God, one should not hesitate to confess that he the son is true God and that he has this status as in an image. So that the addition of the word only applies to the father alone as to the archetype of the image. And so even as late as you when the trinity is fairly firmly established, Jesus distinguishes himself from the father. The father is the only one who is the only true god. Jesus is not the only true god. So the christologology of the gospel of John is not the trinity. It's a lot more complex and far more interesting than the trinity. And I think we see the seeds of it in Pho. And we see John who frequently refers to Jesus as theos without the definite article picking up on what Pho regarding the omission or the inclusion of the article. We see origin doing the same. We see Justin Martyr doing the same. We see even doing the same. And today we see a lot of scholarship that acknowledges that in John 17:3 when Jesus refers to the father as the only true God, Jesus is quite explicitly excluding himself from that designation as the only true God. And that's the root of this theoretical framework of monarchical trinitarianism which tries to suggest that Jesus is not God the way the father is God. Jesus's God in a nominal sense or a qualitative sense or some kind of extended sense. And so I think it is problematic to say you are low IQ if you think John 17:3 means anything about the trinity. The earliest Christians thought that it distinguished Jesus from the only true God. Many scholars today believe that it distinguishes the logos Jesus from the only true God. It's not low IQ to be informed about not just the Greek grammar and syntax and the fact that nothing about either indicates that Jesus is to be identified with the only true God and that most likely the grammar actually distinguishes Jesus from the only true God. But also we can look at commentaries from the earliest periods of Christianity and from even before Christianity where we get a more interesting notion of the logos as a second god, as another god, as referred to as God in some different sense that is marked grammatically by the omission of the definite article. And we even get by later people who are prototrinitarians or straight up trinitarians an acknowledgment that that's going on in places like John 17:3. So, uh, this content creator doesn't know this issue very well. Is just beginning from a dogma and then is just trying to imagine what kind of rhetoric would most convincingly represent that dogma as supported by the data. But this content creator doesn't know the data, doesn't know the scholarship, doesn't know the Greek, is just performing this confidence, conviction, and academic competence. And this content creator is not a very good performer in that regard. And the fit for this video is my data overdog tea., Responding to Weak Trinitarian Apologetics, YouTube, 01kpkygshy7b88w1f9dq1jw54j.