I saw the following meme on Facebook and I responded to it with what I wrote below it. It's my very brief refutation:
Sunday, August 31, 2025
Can One Be Justifiably Incredulous of the Trinity Based On This Meme?
Wednesday, July 9, 2025
Answering the Unitarian Use John 17:3 from a Trinitarian Perspective
By Artison Rex from Facebook
John 17:3— in Trinitarian Light
Answering John 17:3 from a Trinitarian Perspective
📖 John 17:3 – “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Unitarians often cite this verse to argue that Jesus excludes Himself from being God by referring to the Father as "the only true God." However, from a Trinitarian perspective, this passage does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, it aligns with it when properly understood in context.
Contextual Considerations:
1. Jesus’ Statement Affirms Monotheism, Not Unitarianism
🔹 Jesus, as a Jew, affirms monotheism—that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4).
🔹 Trinitarians also affirm one God, but understand that the one divine essence is shared by three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
🔹 Jesus calling the Father “the only true God” does not exclude Himself from divinity, just as saying “Jesus is the only true Lord” does not exclude the Father from being Lord.
💡 Parallel Argument:
✅ 1 Corinthians 8:6 – "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."
• If calling the Father "one God" excludes the Son, then calling Jesus "one Lord" would also exclude the Father.
• But Trinitarians understand this as distinguishing persons, not denying deity.
2. Jesus is Included in the Identity of the "Only True God"
🔹 Jesus is described throughout the Gospel of John as fully divine and one with the Father:
• John 1:1 – "The Word was God."
• John 10:30 – "I and the Father are one."
• John 20:28 – Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God."
🔹 Since Jesus is the divine Son of the Father, acknowledging the Father as "the only true God" does not exclude Jesus but affirms their relationship within the Trinity.
💡 Key Point:
✅ John 17:3 does not deny Jesus' deity—it defines eternal life as knowing both the Father and the Son.
3. The Context: Eternal Life Requires Knowing Both the Father and the Son
🔹 Jesus does not stop at saying "that they may know You, the only true God." He adds:
• "and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
🔹 If Jesus were merely a human prophet, it would be blasphemous to put knowing Him on the same level as knowing God.
🔹 In contrast, throughout Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 43:10-11), God alone is the source of salvation—yet here, eternal life depends on knowing both the Father and the Son.
💡 Conclusion:
✅ If knowing Jesus is essential for eternal life, then Jesus must be divine, not merely a created being.
4. Jesus Shares the Father's Glory (John 17:5)
📖 John 17:5 – "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed."
🔹 Jesus speaks of a shared eternal glory with the Father—something that no mere human or created being can claim.
🔹 Isaiah 42:8 – God says, "I will not give My glory to another." Yet, Jesus asks to be glorified alongside the Father.
🔹 This confirms that Jesus shares in the divine nature.
💡 Key Point:
✅ Jesus is not separating Himself from the Father’s deity—He is affirming His eternal relationship with the Father.
Conclusion: John 17:3 in a Trinitarian Framework
✔ Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" in distinction of person, not exclusion of essence.
✔ Jesus is included in the identity of the one true God throughout John’s Gospel.
✔ Eternal life depends on knowing both the Father and the Son, affirming Jesus’ divine status.
✔ Jesus claims preexistent glory with the Father, confirming His divine nature.
John 17:3, when read in context, supports rather than contradicts the Trinity. The context supports the Trinitarian understanding of the passage!
Answering Unitarian Objections and Argument:
Refuting Unitarian Grammatical Arguments
A. The "Appositional Phrase" and "only" Argument
Unitarians claim that "the only true God" in John 17:3 is an appositional phrase, meaning they suggest, that it restricts divinity exclusively to the Father.
Why This Argument Fails
• Greek Syntax Does Not Demand Exclusivity
• The phrase "the only true God" (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν) does not necessarily exclude Jesus.
• In Greek, an appositional phrase simply identifies the subject but does not automatically exclude others from also being true God. It simply identifies or explains the subject more precisely.
• Similar Constructions Exist Without Exclusivity
• Jude 4: Jesus is called "our only Master and Lord" (τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν)
• But God the Father is also called "Lord" throughout Scripture (e.g., Luke 1:32, Matthew 11:25).
Conclusion: Just as Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from being Lord, John 17:3 does not exclude Jesus from being the true God.
B. The Use of "Only" (μόνον) Restricts Divinity to the Father
• The Greek word for "only" (μόνος) is an exclusive term, meaning "alone, without another."
Since μόνος modifies "the true God" (τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν), it means that the Father is the only true God, excluding Jesus from this category, Unitarians would argue. But is this so?
• Parallel Uses of "Only" in Greek
• Mark 2:7 – "Who can forgive sins but God alone (μόνος)?"
• Matthew 4:4 "live by bread alone, (μόνῳ) but by every word"
• Matthew 12:4 "for them which were with him, but only (μόνος) for the priests"
• In these passages, "only" Gr. μόνος doesn't always exclude all else, clear exceptions are made in the immediate context. Men do not "only" "live by bread," for example, they eat fish, fruit, and vegetables. These passages, just as Jude 4, have clear exceptions to the word "only" made elsewhere. (See also Bengel's Gnomen cited below *¹)
• Likewise, in John 17:3, we should not take the passage to exclude Jesus Christ from the "only true God" phrase, rather we should accept the passage as Jesus Christ rightly pointing to the Father as the true God as opposed to the false gods of the heathen.
🔷️John 17:3 in Light of 1 John 5:20
A. John 17:3 Does Not Exclude Jesus from Being the True God
"And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3)
Unitarians claim that Jesus is distinguishing the Father as "the only true God," thereby denying that He Himself is God. However, this interpretation is flawed because:
• John 17:3 does not say "the Father alone is God"—it only affirms that the Father is the true God, without denying Christ’s divinity.
• 1 John 5:20 explicitly calls Jesus "the true God and eternal life," which completes the picture of John 17:3 by showing that both the Father and the Son share the divine identity.
• Eternal life requires knowledge of both the Father and the Son, meaning that Christ is essential for salvation (cf. John 5:23).
B. 1 John 5:20: Jesus Is Also the "True God"
"And we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
Since 1 John 5:20 directly applies "the true God" to Jesus, the Unitarian interpretation of John 17:3 collapses. Instead of contradicting John 17:3, 1 John 5:20 shows that both the Father and the Son are included in the divine identity. (See Barnes and Matthew Poole at the bottom who also make this parallel*²)
🔷️Hebrews 1:8-10: The Father Calls Jesus "God" and "Lord"
One of the most striking affirmations of Jesus' deity comes from the Father Himself:
"But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever’." (Hebrews 1:8)
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning." (Hebrews 1:10)
Key Points:
• The Father explicitly calls Jesus "God."
• Jesus is called "Lord" in the sense of YHWH, since Psalm 102:25-27 (applied here) refers to YHWH creating the heavens.
• No one argues that Jesus is above the Father, yet the Father Himself calls Jesus both God and Lord.
🔷️ Other Arguments of Exclusivity Favor the Trinitarian Perspective
• The Bible in numerous places adamantly teaches Monotheism-the belief in only one true God. For example: Deut 4:35, 6:4, 32:39, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6. It is also taught in the NT just as strongly: 1 Cor 8:4; Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 1:17, John 17:3. Lest there be doubt that there is one, and only one, true God, according to the Bible. For example, Isa 45:5, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God." Despite the above, the NT repeatedly calls Jesus God, Matt 1:22, 23; John 1:1, 18, Col 2:9, and not just any god, but uses the phrase, "ho theos" so that there can be no doubt, John 20:28, Heb 1:8. The implication here is that both God the Father and Jesus are the one true God.
• We have the same situation with the title, "Creator". For example in Isa 44:24, "I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" See also Isa 45:18. Yet in the NT we have similar assertions that Jesus created all things, John 1:3, Col 1:16, 17. Again, the implication is that both Jesus and God constitute the One true creator.
• There is an almost identical situation with Saviour and Redeemer; for example, Isa 43:11 says: "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior." See also Isa 43:3, 45:18. Yet in the NT we often have Jesus referred to our true Saviour and Redeemer: Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11. Once more, the implication being that both God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus constitute the One True Saviour of mankind.
• The same is true of the One "Rock" as per Isa 44:8, "Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." See also Deut 32:3,4,15; Ps 92:15. In the NT we find that 1Cor 10:4 says, "for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." The implication is that both God the Father and Jesus constitute the One true Rock.
• Another point, for example, is God the Father does not share His glory (Isa 42:8, 48:11) yet we find in John 17:5, 24 Jesus shares the Father's glory.
• In Isa 41:4; 44:6 The Father (YHWH, LORD) is called, "First and Last" and so is Jesus, Rev 1:17, 18; 22:13
• Jehovah is the declared the only One who is deserving of worship in Ex 20:3, 34:14; Deut 8:19; 2 Kings 17:35-38; (see also Matt 4:10; Acts 10:25, 26; Rev 19:10, 22:8, 9), yet the NT records numerous times when Jesus was worshipped Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 4:8; 24:52; John 9:38; Rom 10:9; Heb 1:5, 6; Phil 2:10, etc.
🔷️Patristic Considerations and Arguments from the Saints
John 17:3 was used by Arius to maintain that Jesus Christ was not of the same nature as the Father; however this objection was resolved.
St Thomas excellently writes in his commentary on the Gospel of John (17):
Secondly, we should explain the phrase, you the only true God. It is clear that Christ was speaking to the Father, so when he says, you the only true God, it seems that only God the Father is true God. The Arians agree with this, for they say that the Son differs by essence from the Father, since the Son is a created substance, although he shares in the divinity more perfectly and to a greater degree than do all other creatures. So much more that the Son is called God, but not the true God, because he is not God by nature, which only the Father is.
Hilary answers this by saying that when we want to know whether a certain thing is true, we can determine it from two things: its nature and its power. For true gold is that which has the species of true gold; and we determine this if it acts like true gold. Therefore, if we maintain that the Son has the true nature of God, because the Son exercises the true activities of divinity, it is clear that the Son is true God. Now the Son does perform true works of divinity, for we read, "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19); and again he said, "For as the Father has life in himself," which is not a participated life, "so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26); "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" [1 Jn 5:20].
According to Hilary, he says, you the only true God, in a way that does not exclude another. He does not say without qualification, you the only, but adds and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. It is like saying: that they know you and Jesus Christ whom you have sent to be the one and only true God. This is a pattern of speaking that we also use when we say [in the Gloria]: "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the most high, together with the Holy Spirit." No mention is made of the Holy Spirit because whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, and especially in matters pertaining to the grandeur of the divinity, the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the Father and Son, is implied.
Or, according to Augustine in his work, The Trinity, he says this to exclude the error of those who claim that it is false to say that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; while it is true to say that the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are one God. The reason for this opinion was that the Apostle said that "Christ [is] the power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Now it is clear that we cannot call anyone God unless he has divine power and wisdom. Therefore, since these people held that the Father was wisdom, which is the Son, they held further that the Father considered without the Son would not be God. And the same applies to the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In summary:
• Hilary’s Response:
• Something is "true" based on its nature and power (e.g., true gold has both the properties and actions of gold).
• Since the Son performs divine works (John 5:19, 5:26), He possesses the divine nature and is true God.
• 1 John 5:20 states: “This is the true God and eternal life,” referring to the Son.
• Jesus’ phrase "you the only true God" does not exclude the Son but includes Him as sharing in the one divine essence.
• Hilary’s Linguistic Argument:
• The phrase "you the only true God" is structured in a way that does not exclude Jesus.
• Example: In the Gloria, we say, "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the most high, together with the Holy Spirit," implying shared divinity.
• The Holy Spirit is not mentioned explicitly but is always implied when the Father and Son are referenced.
• Augustine’s Explanation (from The Trinity):
• The phrase guards against a misunderstanding that denies the distinct persons of the Trinity.
• Some falsely claim that only the Trinity as a whole is God, rather than the individual persons being fully God.
• Since Christ is called the Wisdom and Power of God (1 Cor 1:24), and only a being with divine wisdom and power can be God, both the Father and Son must be fully God.
• Thus, the Father is not God apart from the Son, and vice versa, preserving Trinitarian unity.
🔷️ Commentator's on John 17:3
🔅Bengel's Gnomen (*¹)
μόνον, the only, the alone) The Son and Holy Spirit are not excluded by this word. Comp. μόνος, ch. John 8:9, “Jesus was left alone, and the woman.” But those meant to be excluded are the false gods, with the idolatrous worship of which the world was crowded.
🔅Barnes writes: (*²)
The only true God - The only God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called "the true God and eternal life."
🔅Matthew Poole writes: (*²)
the only true God. But divines answer, that the term only, or alone, is not to be applied to thee, but to the term God; and the sense this: To know thee to be that God which is the only true God: and this appeareth from 1Jo 5:20, where Christ is said to be the true God, which he could not be if the Father were the only true God, considered as another from the Son. The term only, or alone, is not exclusive of the other two Persons in the Trinity, but only of idols, the gods of the heathen, which are no gods; so 1 Timothy 6:15,16, and many other Scriptures: so Matthew 11:27, where it is said, that none knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any the Father, save the Son; where the negative doth not exclude the Holy Spirit. Besides, the term alone is in Scripture observed not always to exclude all others, as Mark 6:47. Our Saviour saith, it is life eternal to know him who is the only true God, that is, it is the way to eternal life, which is an ordinary figure used in holy writ. He adds,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent; by which he lets us know, that the Father cannot be savingly known, but in and by the Son.
🔅Pulpit Commentary
The life eternal, of which Jesus has just spoken, is this (cf. for construction, John 15:12; 1 John 3:11, 23; 1 John 5:3), that they might know - should come to know - thee, the only veritable God. All ideas of God which deviate from or fall short of "the Father" revealed to us by Christ, are not the veritable God, and the knowledge of them is not life eternal. The Father is here set forth as the fens Deitatis. This does not exclude "the Son," but is inconceivable without him. The Fatherhood expresses an eternal relation. The one element involves the ether as integral to itself: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me."
🔷️ Conclusion: John 17:3 Does Not Deny Christ’s Deity
• 1 John 5:20 explicitly calls Jesus "the true God and eternal life."
• Greek syntax does not exclude Jesus from being God.
• Unitarians misinterpret "only" (μόνος), ignoring exceptions like Jude 4.
• The Father and Son share divine attributes.
• Hebrews 1:8-10 shows that the Father calls Jesus "God" and "Lord."
Thus, John 17:3 does not contradict Christ’s deity but affirms the unity of the Father and Son. Jesus Christ is truly the True God and Eternal Life.
Monday, April 21, 2025
Review of the Dialogue Between Rabbi Tovia Singer and New Testament Unitarian Sam Tideman
Someone in the comments of this Blog asked me to review a dialogue between a New Testament Unitarian named Sam Tideman and the well known anti-missionary rabbi Tovia Singer. Here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/Jg40zoYJIrM . The following are some of my comments and observations.
I listened to the entire dialogue and I didn't hear anything particularly new or devastating to Trinitarianism. It was a long video, I can only give comments on highlights. I can't review every video everyone asks me to review. I would like to, but I don't have the time. I agreed to do it in this case because in the past I've found both speakers interesting.
Every objection I heard in the dialogue/discussion I can or have refuted or have heard Anthony Rogers address and refute before. Though, not being fluent in the Biblical languages, I wouldn't be able to address the detailed arguments based on Hebrew or Greek. But Anthony Rogers can and has addressed the linguistic issues. There are a lot of good defenders of Trinitarianism alive today, but I think Anthony Rogers is the best one around. I recommend his videos and debates located in his YouTube channel, and in other people's channels. Also his older articles. He has a number of videos addressing rabbi Tovia Singer's objections. I've linked to many of Anthony's videos in this Blog. People can browse or search Trinity Notes.
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ousias1/videos
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html
Many (if not All) of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w
Unless otherwise indicated, I'll be quoting the ESV for the most part. I'll sometimes quote other translations that are less biased [e.g. for Josh. 5:14 where "worshipped" isn't used in a biased manner, so that the idea of obeisance might be a possible and optional interpretation].
- At 0:07:40 into the video Tovia relayed asking some students, if they were God, and wanted to convey to mankind there's only one God, what would they put in the Bible. After he gives his usual spiel, he then goes on to contradict himself [or at least cause tension in his views] by admitting the Tanakh sometimes refers to creatures representing God [whether humans like Moses or angels] as God. He called it an "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanach. Exactly.
Well, to answer his original question about how I would inspire the Bible if Unitarianism were true, I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT use "elohim" or "adonai" to refer to God as the Tanakh does. Why? Because, as Anthony Rogers points out, in the Bible the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; *both of these words are PLURAL nouns in Hebrew*. This BY ITSELF doesn't prove the Trinity, and not all instances can be used to support the Trinity [e.g. sometimes it refers to men or angels, etc.], but some can. If God were absolutely singular, then it would have been wise for God to not use "elohim" and "adonai."
Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:
1. Plural Verbs
o Genesis 20:13
English Translation: God caused me to wander
Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They caused me to wander
o Genesis 35:7
English Translation: God appeared
Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They appeared
o 2Samuel 7:23
English Translation: God went
Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They went
o Psalms 58:12
English Translation: God that judges
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
Literally: Gods that judge
2. Plural Adjectives
o Deuteronomy 5:26
English Translation: living God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
Literally: Living Gods8
o Joshua 24:19
English Translation: holy God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
Literally: Holy Gods
3. Plural Nouns
o Ecclesiastes 12:1
English Translation: thy Creator
Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
Literally: Creators
o Isaiah 54:5
English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
Literally: Makers, Husbands9
o Malachi 1:6
English Translation: Master
Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
Literally: Masters10
o Daniel 7:18
English Translation: Most High
Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
Literally: Most High Ones
footnotes:
8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.
END QUOTE
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. Pretty unwise for God to do that, if there's no sense in which God is multiple in His unity.
Regarding Tovia's admission of the "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanakh that someone other than the Father is called God, he can't just chalk it up to it always referring to creatures. Sometimes the Angel of Yahweh is worshipped [or at least bowed down to in obeisance ] in ways seemingly only Yahweh is supposed to be. And the Bible claims or describes the Angel of Yahweh to have done things or to do things other passages [sometimes in the same book] say Yahweh did. Rogers goes into this very well and in-depth. Just Watch Rogers' videos (including his debates). I don't have time to elaborate much. For example these passages:
Judges 2:1-2 [COMPARE with the first of the 10 Commandments where Yahweh says He did it.]
1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And HE SAID, "I BROUGHT YOU UP FROM EGYPT and brought you into the land that *I SWORE* to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break *MY COVENANT* covenant with you,
2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done?
Joshua 5:13-15 NASB95
13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?"
14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"
15 The captain of the LORD's host said to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so.
Presumably, this commander of the LORD's army is the Angel of the LORD, yet Joshua takes his sandals off in reverence, or even worship. Similar to what Moses did at Burning Bush.
- At 1:38:52 into the video this passage of Jos. 5:13-15 is addressed. But neither Sam nor Tovia addresses or even mentions the issues of Joshua being commanded to take off his sandals because he's on Holy Ground [presumably due the commander's presence]. The answer Tovia and Sam the host give about it being reverence/obeisance [while true in other circumstances] doesn't seem to fit here because of the issue of Holy Ground and the removal of sandals. About 20% way through the video Sam [with Tovia's approval and encouragement] plays/pretends to be a Trinitarian to help Steelman the Trinitarian position and arguments, rather than Strawmanning them. However the host doesn't play the part of Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with the Burning Bush incident where something very similar happens. And where a similar command to remove one's sandals is given. So much so are the similarities apparent, that it almost self-prompts the question of whether the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh in the Burning Bush is the same person here in Joshua 5. Compare Exo. 3:2 and the entire chapters with each other. Sam failed at Steelmanning and Tovia failed anticipating Trinitarian rebuttals.
Exodus 3:2 And the ANGEL of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
A plausible case could be made that the Angel of the LORD is worshipped there. Again, see Rogers' videos for more details.
- At 0:29:40 into the video they address Gen. 1:26. The answers they give don't anticipate or overcome Rogers' arguments in this video Here:
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections (The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
https://youtu.be/6Yf2t3TnTRg
- At 1:11:25 Sam, and then at 1:13:12 Tovia, address the issue of whether God can be seen or not. Sam mentioned the apparent contradiction of Ex. 33:11 and 19 [same chapter!]. Tovia gives his answer, but Sam again didn't play the Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with Num. 12:16.
Exo 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
COMPARE WITH THE SEEMING OPPOSITE
Exo 33:19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Sam should have brought up, and Tovia should have addressed, this passage:
Num.12:6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and HE BEHOLDS THE FORM OF THE LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Or passages like:
Exodus 24:10 ESV [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Trinitarianism can easily explain the apparent contradiction. When God was seen in the Old Testament, they only saw the pre-incarnate Son. But never the Father. That's how God was both seen and never seen in the Old Testament.
Somewhere in the video they mention Jacob's encounter wrestling an angel. Then Tovia says that Hos. 12 makes it clear it's only a mere angel. But he doesn't address, nor does Sam [playing Trinitarian] mention how and why that passage seems to teach the opposite in the opinion of many Trinitarians. Tovia is probably referring to Hos. 12:4, but the very next verse seems to give further clarification that implies it was YHWH Himself. Which fits perfectly well with versions of Trinitarianism that identify the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Jesus.
Hosea 12:4-5 ESV
[4] He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us— [5] the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is his memorial name:
- At 1:24:42 Sam brought up John 20:28 where Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." Again Sam doesn't play the Trinitarian Advocate very well. He should have given pushback to Tovia by pointing out the text says Thomas "said TO HIM" [i.e. said TO Jesus]. See also Andrew Schumacher's opening statement in his debate with Sean Griffin Here: https://youtu.be/ljaGlmu4XZU. It starts at 9:23, but the relevant part is at 13:15 where Andrew starts talking about the Jewish use of the possessive "our" or "my" with respect to God and its significance in the New Testament in calling Jesus OUR Lord [as well as here in John 20:28 "MY Lord and MY God.]. Andrew makes an interesting case that the possessive was reserved for Yahweh alone. In which case, this suggests or is at least very consistent with Jesus' full and proper Deity.
- At 1:45:13 Sam says Jesus in Hebrews worships God. That's consistent with ALL [AFAIK] models of the Trinity without detriment to Christ's true and proper Deity. Then Sam says at 1:35:37 that Jesus is not worshipped anywhere in the New Testament. But Heb. 1:6 [in the very book under discussion!] commands Jesus is to be worshipped by the angels. As many [most?] scholars point out, based on the Greek of Heb. 1:6, that the author of Hebrews in this verse is clearly alluding to two places in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament [viz. Deut. 32:43 & Ps. 97:7]. Places where the angels and/or the members of the Divine Council are commanded to worship Yahweh. What can this be but an Old Testament command for the most exalted created creatures to give full-orbed WORSHIP [in the FULLEST sense] to Yahweh. That these passages are applied to Jesus would be bewildering if Unitarianism were true and Jesus weren't proper/full Deity. It would be blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews doesn't even flinch or show any scruples in making such a connection and application. No hesitation, no reservation and no moral unease despite possible perceived IDOLATRY in the minds of his audience. The author(s) of Hebrews was likely a Second Temple Jew who wished to avoid any semblance of idolatry. And, as I understand it, while 2nd Temple Jews sometimes had exalted creatures as mediators [Metatron, Enoch, et al.], they almost never [or absolutely never] made the idolatrous mistake of directing worship to their mediators.
This fact, that the worship of Yahweh in Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 in the LXX is applied to Jesus, along with the Hebrews author in verses 10-12 applying Ps. 102 [which was originally about Yahweh] to Jesus ought to be near definitive proof of Jesus' proper/full Deity. The author not only seems to predicate Jesus as Yahweh, but also applies to Jesus the divine attributes of Yahweh described in Ps. 102 [immutability, eternality, Creatorship, & perpetual unfading ever "youthful" LIFE]. The common Unitarian rebuttal that it refers to the New Creation rather than the Original Creation seems to me patently Ad Hoc/contrived.
BTW, Sam is mostly correct about church history and Trinitarian history IN THIS VIDEO (not necessarily in other videos), but with his own bias. But he was fairly objective. Some Trinitarians are more biased on these subjects of history by comparison. I recommend reading Daniel Waterland's defenses of the Trinity. I've read most of what he's written on the subject of the Trinity and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND them. I've linked to his works on this Blog Here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/daniel-waterland-on-christs-divinity.html
A lot of people criticize Waterland for a number of things. But he's more reliable than his opponents claim. Don't just take someone's word against him.
Friday, August 11, 2023
Sunday, July 9, 2023
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus by J.P. Holding
J.P. Holding (James Patrick Holding, Also Know As Robert Turkel) is a
controversial figure in Christian apologetics (for various reasons). He
nevertheless does make some informative contributions to apologetics.
Here's a link to his article: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus by J.P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.php
See Also:
Jesus, as God's Word and Wisdom, was and is eternally an attribute of God the Father
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php
More related articles:
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.php
The Holy Spirit and the Trinity
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.php
The Nicean Creed and Wisdom Christology by J.P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/verynice.php
Unitarianism and the Trinity
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/unitresp.php
Skeptics and the Trinity
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/skepticsandjesus.php
Christ the Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren
https://web.archive.org/web/20160429052910/http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html
Mormons and Jesus
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mormonsandjesus.php
Christadelphians, the Trinity, and Jesus
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cdelsandjesus.php
L. Ray Smith's "bibletruths.com" on the Trinity -- A Critique
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithlr02.php