META AI Conversation On The Likelihood of Jesus Claiming To Be Divine

 

 

All artificial intelligence conversations should be taken with a grain of salt. They don't really settle anything. Nevertheless, the following is an interesting informal conversation I had with Facebook's META AI. My statements are highlighted like this sentence.

What is your probability that a historical Jesus existed?

META AI: As a neutral and informative assistant, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an overview of the scholarly consensus and the types of evidence that historians consider when evaluating the historicity of Jesus.

Most scholars agree that a historical figure named Jesus likely existed, given the following points:

- *Multiple attestation*: Jesus is mentioned in various independent sources, including the New Testament, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Tacitus.

- *Historical context*: The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are set within a plausible historical context, reflecting the politics, culture, and religious practices of 1st-century Judea.

- *Criterial methods*: Scholars use criteria such as the criterion of embarrassment (events or details that might be embarrassing to the early Christian community are likely to be historical), the criterion of multiple attestation (events or details that are attested to in multiple sources are more likely to be historical), and the criterion of coherence (events or details that fit with the broader historical context are more likely to be historical) to evaluate the historicity of Jesus.

While there's ongoing debate among scholars about the details of Jesus' life and teachings, the majority consensus is that a historical Jesus likely existed. If I had to provide a probability based on the scholarly consensus, I'd say it's high (>90%), but this is not a personal opinion, rather a reflection of the prevailing scholarly view [1].

But you gave a probability assessment on the moon landing. Be consistent and not hypocritical and Do that same for a historical Jesus.

Given the scholarly consensus and evidence, I'd give a probability of *95%+* that a historical Jesus existed. This assessment is based on the multiple attestation, historical context, and criterial methods mentioned earlier. However, the probability is not as high as the moon landing due to the differences in the nature of the evidence and the complexity of historical interpretation [1].

What is your probability assessment that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'd give a probability assessment of *0%* that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal, metaphysical sense. This assessment is based on the lack of empirical evidence and the supernatural nature of the claim, which falls outside the realm of historical or scientific verification.

The concept of Jesus being the Son of God is a matter of faith and theological interpretation, and probabilities would vary widely depending on one's worldview, religious beliefs, and personal perspectives.

Guven that you gave a high probability that a historical Jesus existed, What's your probability assessment that he claimed to be the Son of God?

Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations, I'd assess the probability that the historical Jesus claimed to be the Son of God as follows:

- *Low to moderate probability* (around 20-40%): Some scholars argue that Jesus might have seen himself as a divine agent or a messianic figure, but the explicit claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense is more likely a product of early Christian theology and Christology.

- *Higher probability in certain contexts*: If one interprets certain biblical passages (e.g., Mark 1:1, John 10:30-33) as reflecting historical events, the probability might be higher. However, these interpretations are subject to scholarly debate.

Keep in mind that historical assessments of Jesus' claims and self-understanding are complex and nuanced, and probabilities would depend on one's evaluation of the sources and historical context [1].

How about the probability of his having claimed to be the "son of man"?

The phrase "Son of Man" is a complex and multifaceted title in the context of Jesus' teachings and identity. Given the historical context and scholarly interpretations:

- *Higher probability* (around 70-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus likely referred to himself as the "Son of Man," given the phrase's presence in multiple Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark, Q source) and its Aramaic origins (Bar Enasha). The phrase could have been used by Jesus to convey his humanity, his role as a mediator, or his connection to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7:13-14.

The probability assessment depends on one's evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, the linguistic and cultural context, and the potential layers of meaning in the phrase "Son of Man" [1].

What's your assessment probability that His claim to be the "son of man" was a reference and allusion to the Danielic Son of Man of Dan. 7?

Given the scholarly discussions and interpretations:

- *Moderate to high probability* (around 60-80%): Many scholars believe that Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" was indeed influenced by the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14). This connection is plausible due to:

    - *Linguistic and thematic parallels*: The Danielic Son of Man receives dominion and glory from God, which might be echoed in Jesus' use of the phrase.

    - *Apocalyptic context*: Jesus' teachings often contained apocalyptic themes, and the Danielic Son of Man fits within this context.

However, the exact nature and extent of the allusion are subject to ongoing scholarly debate, which affects the probability assessment [1].

Would you grant that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE [ancient Near East], and that the danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity?

*Cloud riding as a prerogative of deities*:

Yes, in the Ancient Near East (ANE), cloud riding was often associated with divine beings or gods. This motif is seen in various ancient texts, where gods are described as riding on clouds or having control over the clouds.

*The Danielic Son of Man and worship*:

Regarding the Danielic Son of Man (Daniel 7:13-14), the Aramaic word used to describe the service or presentation to the Ancient of Days is indeed often translated as "brought" or "presented," but it can also carry connotations of worship or homage. The word "qrb" (קרב) in Aramaic can imply a sense of reverence or obeisance, which might suggest a divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.

These observations are relevant to understanding the cultural and theological context of the Danielic Son of Man and its potential influence on Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man."

Given that the danielic Son of man rides the clouds, and given that cloud riding was a prerogative of deities in the ANE, and given that that danielic son of man is served using a word that has religious connotations of worshipping/serving a deity, and given your previous probability assessment of a historical Jesus existing and his self-designation as the Danielic son of man, what now is [re-assessment] your probability assessment that Jesus claimed to be divine and/or the Son of God?

Given the additional context and connections you've outlined:

- *Re-assessment of probability*: Considering the Danielic Son of Man's divine connotations, cloud riding prerogatives, and the potential implications of the word "qrb" in Aramaic, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

    - *Moderate probability* (around 40-60%): Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man" might have been intended to convey a sense of divine authority, agency, or identity, given the Danielic context. This could have been interpreted by his contemporaries as a claim to divinity or a unique relationship with God.

    - *Increased likelihood*: The connections you've highlighted increase the likelihood that Jesus' self-designation as the Son of Man was more than just a humble or human reference, and might have been intended to convey a more exalted status.

This re-assessment takes into account the complexities of historical interpretation, the nuances of ancient language and culture, and the potential implications of Jesus' words and actions in their original context [1].

Remind me what your previous assessment was.

My previous assessment was that the probability of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God was around *20-40%*. Given the new context and connections, I've reassessed the probability to be around *40-60%*, indicating a slightly higher likelihood that Jesus might have claimed or implied a divine identity or relationship [1].

Now factor in how the earliest Christian documents by the apostle Paul have an Early High Christology. Could the early followers of Jesus have been so mistaken as to his claims? Make a reassessment.

*Early High Christology in Paul's writings*:

The apostle Paul's letters, some of the earliest Christian documents, do indeed reflect an Early High Christology, portraying Jesus as a divine or quasi-divine figure (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 9:5).

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *Higher probability* (around 60-80%): The early Christian community's understanding of Jesus, as reflected in Paul's writings, might have been rooted in Jesus' own claims or actions. It's possible that Jesus' teachings, actions, and self-understanding led his followers to develop a high Christology relatively quickly.

- *Less likely that the early followers were entirely mistaken*: Given the proximity of Paul's writings to Jesus' lifetime and the fact that Paul interacted with other early Christian leaders who knew Jesus (e.g., Peter, James), it's plausible that the early Christian understanding of Jesus was informed by Jesus' own identity claims or implications.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential connections between Jesus' life, teachings, and the early Christian community's understanding of him [1].

Now factor in hostile witness like the early Jewish arguments against Jesus. Re-assess.

*Hostile witness: Early Jewish arguments*:

The early Jewish arguments against Jesus, as recorded in the Talmud and other sources, often focus on Jesus' claims to divinity or his perceived blasphemy (e.g., b. Sanh. 43a). Although these sources are later and may not directly reflect the earliest Jewish responses, they might preserve elements of early Jewish criticism.

*Re-assessment*:

Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:

- *High probability* (around 80-90%): The fact that both Christian and Jewish sources (albeit with different perspectives) seem to converge on the idea that Jesus' identity or claims were central to the controversy surrounding him lends credibility to the notion that Jesus' self-understanding or claims were extraordinary.

- *Increased likelihood that Jesus' claims were perceived as divine*: The hostile witness of early Jewish arguments might suggest that Jesus' words or actions were seen as making divine claims or implications, which would have been considered blasphemous by some.

This re-assessment takes into account the potential historical kernel preserved in both Christian and Jewish sources, despite their differing perspectives and agendas [1].

You wrote: "Considering this additional factor, I'd reassess the probability that Jesus claimed to be divine or the Son of God as follows:"

Is the "or" meant in the sense of 1. either X or Y; or 2. as equivalent to?

In this context, the "or" is meant in the sense of equivalence, implying that claiming to be divine or claiming to be the Son of God are being treated as similar or related claims. In other words, I'm using "or" to connect two phrases that are roughly equivalent or overlapping in meaning, rather than presenting mutually exclusive alternatives.

Can One Be Justifiably Incredulous of the Trinity Based On This Meme?

I saw the following meme on Facebook and I responded to it with what I wrote below it. It's my very brief refutation:

MY RESPONSE:

Nearly Every other doctrine in the Bible needs to be systematized. Whether the attributes of God, eschatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, atonement theories, how and in what sense the OT laws continue and/or are abrogated under the New Covenant, the relationship [if any] between Israel and the Church, etc. Why think that wouldn't be the case for Christology and theology proper [i.e. the doctrine of God in particular]? Most of the New Testament books are occasional letters. Meaning letters written on an occasion to address a particular issue the author deems necessary to focus on. They weren't written to teach the very basics of the faith.

The rudimentary elements and concept of the Trinity are presupposed in the New Testament Scriptures, and strongly hinted at in the Old Testament. The Trinity makes most sense of the comprehensive data and evidence we find in the Bible. It's the best abductive explanation. Abduction is inference to the best explanation. Or reasoning to that theory that has the greatest explanatory power, explanatory scope, is least Ad Hoc, fits best with already established facts, et cetera. 

For example, it only makes sense that the Holy Spirit is in some sense divine if Christians are the temple of God due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [1 Cor. 6:19; 3:16-17] . It only makes sense that Jesus is fully divine if He's worshipped to the same degree as the Father [John 5:23; Heb. 1:6 citing the LXX of Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:43]. These, and many other thing, are things that don't make sense in various types of anti-Trinitarian Unitarianism. 

Why for example does the New Testament teach all three persons dwell in believers [Father and Son: John 14:21-23; Son: Rev. 3:20; John 17:23], if it's not the case that all three persons are divine. Why are ALL THREE said to be INVOLVED in creation [Jesus: John 1:1ff.; 1Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Spirit:Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30], and redemption [Spirit: Eph. 4:30; Rom. 8:23], sanctification [Jesus: 1 Cor. 1:2, 30; Heb. 10:10; 13:12; Spirit: 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 15:16] and the resurrection of Christ [Christ: John 2:18; 10:17-18; Spirit: Rom. 1:4; 8:11]? Why are all three taught to be followed and obeyed [Jesus is obvious; Spirit: Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51]? Why all three are said to give spiritual gifts [Jesus: Eph. 4:7ff.; Spirit: 1 Cor. 12:11]? Why all three said to be mentioned and invoked in the initiation rite of entrance into the church [Matt. 28:19ff.]? Why all three invoked in a benediction [2 Cor. 13:14]? Why all three are said to be objects whom we ought not to blaspheme [Mark 3:28-29; Matt. 12:31-32; Luke 12:10]? Why all three objects whom we are to seek fellowship [Jesus: 1 John 1:3; Spirit: 2 Cor. 13:14]? Why all three teach and guide us [Jesus: John 13:14; 8:12; Spirit: John 14:26; Luke 12:12; 1 Cor. 2:12-13, Heb. 9:8; Job 32:8]  Why all three are a source of grace [Jesus: 1 Thess. 5:28; 1 Cor. 13:14; Phil 4:23; Spirit: Heb. 10:29; Zech 12:10]? EXAMPLES COULD BE MULTIPIED. But they will never be enough for a hard headed Unitarian.

The Athanasian Creed: Christianity’s Most Controversial Statement of Faith by Gavin Ortlund

 
As I've written I'm open to various models of the Trinity. The following is a video by Gavin Ortlund on the Athanasian Creed.

The Athanasian Creed: Christianity’s Most Controversial Statement of Faith 
https://youtu.be/qpekHClbGjI

 

 

 

 

James White Explains Why John Chapter 1 Affirms the Eternal Preexistence of Christ

 

James White explains why John chapter 1 affirms the Eternal Preexistence of Christ in the following YouTube video starting at 33:10 minutes.

https://youtu.be/g88Bu9MO4DA?si=wyba1x9RODhbx-N3

Trinitarianism Is More Monotheistic Than Unitarianism

 

Unitarians often argue that the understanding of monotheism of the Jews during the Biblical periods precludes Trinitarianism and Binitarianism because it's a strict understanding of the unity and singularity of God. 

But we Trinitarians argue that that approach doesn't go far enough in explaining the radical nature of Jewish monotheism. Because Biblical Jewish monotheism was so extreme that it would not permit any similarly and association between YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah and any other being or person with near or exact status. It made sure to distance YHWH and all other things and beings. The very fact that the New Testament so identifies Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Father's attributes is a strong telling sign that Trinitarianism is true. Because it would have been blasphemous to Biblical Jews to so associate something else with YHWH with YHWH's unique attributes, honors, prerogatives, name, deeds/works, and authority if the Son and Spirit weren't full, true and proper deity along with and united to the Father.

Note that I'm talking about orthodox Jewish theology during the Biblical periods. Extra-biblical and post-Biblical Jews did sometimes associate other beings to near status of God. But often still distinguishing the Most High with the exalted mediator. 

Given that, either the Jesus of the New Testament is a heretical mutation of Biblical Judaism, or something like Trinitarianism or Binitarianism must be true.

Here are some examples of attributes and prerogatives that only belong to YHWH, yet the New Testament also assigns to Jesus:

Jesus will judge the world, despite the Old Testament teaching that YHWH will judge the world [John 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10 compare Gen. 18:25; Rom. 14:10; Ps. 7:8; 9:8, 18; 58:11; 67:4; 82:8; 96:10-13; 98:9]

Jesus tests hearts and rewards according to works [Rev. 2:23 compare Jer. 17:10;  Ps. 62:12]

Jesus is the First and Last [Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:12-13 compare Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12]

See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/revelation-2212-13-and-deity-of-christ.html

The Fear of the Lord Jesus is tantamount to the Fear of YHWH. See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-reverence-for-jesus-is-fear-of.html

The "Day of YHWH" is associated with the "Day of the Lord (Jesus)" [1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2]

God's angels are Jesus' angels [Matt. 13:41; 16:27]

God's Spirit is Jesus' Spirit [Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; 1 Pet. 1:11]. 

This makes sense given the Trinitarian doctrine of perichoresis/circumincession.

See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-spirit-of-jesus.html

Jesus is to be Worshipped by all the angels with the highest form of worship. The Septuagint of Deut. 32:43 and Ps. 97:7 is applied to Jesus in Heb. 1:6 even though the original context is of the Supreme worship given to YHWH.

Jesus was involved in creation despite Isa. 44:24 saying only YHWH was involved in creation [compare John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16]

Jesus trods the winepress of the wrath of God Rev. 19:15 despite Isa. 63:3 saying YHWH alone does so.

Testing Jesus amounts to testing YHWH as per 1 Cor. 10:9

See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-temptingtesting-of-christ-is.html

The Will of Jesus is paramount as God's is. [Cf. 1 Cor. 4:19; 16:7; Acts 21:13-14; 2 Cor. 2:12-13; Acts 16:6-7]

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/lord-jesus-christ-willing-gods-will-and.html

Trusting in Jesus is tantamount to trusting in YHWH. See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/trust-in-jesus-is-apparently-trust-in.html

Jesus may work on the sabbath as YHWH works on the Sabbath:

See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-breaking-sabbath-as-evidence-of.html

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath as YHWH is the Lord of the Sabbath. See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-lord-of-sabbath.html

Jesus is omniscient as YHWH. See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/12/jesus-omniscience.html

The table of Jesus is the table of YHWH. See my blog:

http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cup-and-table-of-lord-as-evidence.html

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.

Job's Redeemer and the Lord Jesus Christ. "Agency" can't answer this one either!

 By Artison Rex From Facebook 

Job's Redeemer and the Lord Jesus Christ. "Agency" can't answer this one either!

The Book of Job anticipates a final, personal encounter with YHWH as the cosmic judge, and Job insists that no other—meaning, no intermediary or agent—will fulfill this role. Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus claims that all judgment is given to Him (John 5:22). This creates a powerful theological connection: if only YHWH is the final judge, and Jesus is the one who judges, then Jesus must be YHWH.

Let's break this down step by step.

1. Job’s Expectation: Seeing YHWH as the Final Judge

In Job 19:25-27, Job expresses his deep conviction that, at the end of time, he will see YHWH himself—not through another, but with his own eyes:

“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!”

(Job 19:25-27, ESV)

Key Points:

• YHWH is the one Job expects to see.

• "Not another" rules out the possibility that Job is expecting a mere angel, agent, or prophet.

• This happens "at the last", indicating an eschatological, end-times fulfillment.

• Job refers to YHWH as his "Redeemer," a term later applied to Jesus.

2. Jesus as the Exclusive Judge in the New Testament

Now, compare Job’s statement with John 5:22-23, where Jesus makes a staggering claim about judgment:

“The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

(John 5:22-23, ESV)

Key Points:

• The Father does not judge anyone.

• Jesus is given all judgment.

• Honoring Jesus is equal to honoring the Father.

3. Implications: Jesus Must Be YHWH

A. Only YHWH Is Judge

• The Old Testament consistently affirms that YHWH alone is the cosmic judge:

• Isaiah 33:22 – “For YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; He will save us.”

• Psalm 9:7-8 – “But YHWH sits enthroned forever; He has established His throne for justice, and He judges the world with righteousness.”

If YHWH is the only judge, and Jesus says all judgment has been given to Him, then Jesus is not a mere agent—He is YHWH.

B. Job Expects to See YHWH, and the NT Says We Will See Jesus

• Revelation 22:3-4 – “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will worship Him. They will see His face.”

• Matthew 25:31-32 – Jesus describes Himself as the Son of Man who sits on His glorious throne and judges all nations.

If Job expected to see YHWH as judge, and the NT affirms that Jesus is the one we will see and be judged by, then Jesus is YHWH.

4. Parallels Between Job’s Redeemer and Jesus

Job calls his final hope his "Redeemer" (גֹּאֲלִי, Go'ali), a term used for YHWH as Israel’s savior in the Old Testament:

• Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.’”

• Psalm 19:14 – “O YHWH, my rock and my Redeemer.”

Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus is explicitly called Redeemer:

• Titus 2:13-14 – “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness.”

If Jesus is the Redeemer whom Job longed for, and if Job expected this Redeemer to be YHWH Himself, then Jesus is YHWH.

5. Jesus, the Judge of All Nations, Fulfills the Day of YHWH

The Day of YHWH in the Old Testament describes the final judgment of the world by YHWH:

• Joel 3:12 – “Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side.”

• Zechariah 14:5 – “Then YHWH my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.”

In the New Testament, this role is given to Jesus:

• Matthew 25:31-32 – “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate people one from another.”

• "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28-29, ESV)

• While Job says clearly that his eyes will behold Yahweh in the Resurrection and "not another." The Bible clearly relates that it is Jesus Christ the Lord who will be present and visible in the "last day." 

• Speaking of Jesus Christ the NT says, that "every eye will see Him."

• "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." (Revelation 1:7, ESV)

This verse emphasizes the visible and undeniable nature of Christ’s Second Coming. Since Job prophecies that he would behold God and "not another" and since the Bible relates the dead are raised by Christ and it is Him they behold.

 Agency is refuted! It is impossible to reconcile "agency" with Job's words.

Moreover, Revelation 1:7 references Zechariah 12:10, which prophesies that those who pierced Him [God] (a reference to His crucifixion) will mourn when they see Him again.

Thus, it becomes impossible; considering the words on the page to argue that Jesus is anything but God. Or, else Job's prophetic words are devoid of truth.

6. Conclusion: Jesus Is the YHWH Job Longed to See

• Job expected to see YHWH Himself as Judge and Redeemer.

• The Old Testament says YHWH alone is the Judge.

• Jesus says the Father judges no one, but all judgment is given to Him.

• Jesus is the Redeemer, the one whom Job longed to see.

• Jesus is the one who judges the nations in the NT, fulfilling the "Day of YHWH."

Thus, if Job expected to see YHWH as judge and no other, yet Jesus is the judge of all, then the only conclusion is that Jesus Christ is YHWH, the Cosmic Judge and Redeemer.