Following can assist us in determining the probability or likelihood of whether or not Jesus is God solely according to what we find in John 17:3.
Pr = the prior probability so-called, the probability or likelihood before considering relevant biblical data outside of John 17:3
G = Jesus is only true God or God in the same exact sense as the Father is
Non-G = Jesus is not only true God or God in the same exact sense as the Father is
B = background information or data found in John 17:3
Pr(G/B) = the prior probability that Jesus is God—in the same exact sense as the Father is—based solely on background data found in John 17:3
Pr(non-G/B) = the prior probability that Jesus is not God—in the exact same sense as the Father is—based solely on background data found in John 17:3
In my exchange with Rob Bowman I aimed to establish that John 17:3 excludes others—for example, our Lord Jesus Christ—as 'only true God' and 'true God' or 'God' in the same sense as the Father is, in light of four considerations.
1. The language of John 17:3 appears to exclude Jesus (and others) as true God.
2. Jesus includes only the Father and not himself (and anyone else) as the only true God.
3. The appositive in John 17:3 allows an interchangeability of 'Father' and 'only true God' as subject and predicate, which points to the only true God being just is the Father.
4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge in attaining eternal life, then he would have stated it.
1. The language of John 17:3 appears to exclude Jesus (and others) as true God.
2. Jesus includes only the Father and not himself (and anyone else) as the only true God.
3. The appositive in John 17:3 allows an interchangeability of 'Father' and 'only true God' as subject and predicate, which points to the only true God being just is the Father.
4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge in attaining eternal life, then he would have stated it.
If in fact I made a good case, at best it renders Pr(G/B) extremely low and Pr(non-G/B) extremely high. Such a case does not completely establish that Jesus is not God in the same sense as the Father is. For, to that end, we would need to consider other relevant biblical data that might sound like Jesus is God in that same exact sense (e.g., John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8). If we are able to successfully demonstrate that that data fails to amount to Jesus being God, then the belief that Jesus is God is established as unbiblical.
In his attempt to neutralize my claim, Rob did raise a number of good points. I remain confident, however, that I have been able to make a good case for my claim using those four considerations. I intend to further develop each of them in my future blog posts in light of the points Rob raised.
