0:08hello my name is Georg Kaplan welcome to

0:12ask an apologist this is a continuation

0:15of the Greek grammar surround

0:16convertible proposition a previous video

0:19entitled Greek scholars who say that God

0:22is not Jesus introduces the concept and

0:24the video if Trinitarian say that God is

0:27not Jesus than why is God the Father

0:29expands on it

0:31when the Jehovah's Witness apologist

0:34Robertson

0:35first originated a grammatical argument

0:37it proved to be unpopular among clean

0:40Italians on theology forums Trinitarians

0:44denied that the convertible proposition

0:46described in Daniel Wallace's Greek

0:48grammar beyond the basics would apply to

0:50John chapter 17 verse 3

0:54Robert chips and wrote a paper on the

0:55grammar and presented it online a man by

0:59the name of Kevin tini was motivated to

1:01study the subject the paper can be found

1:04on Kevin teenies website de theology it

1:08is entitled pre grammar and the unity of

1:10God here is the URL

1:21with the correct understanding of this

1:23grammar

1:24it will require

1:25Trinitarians to change their arguments

1:27the popular argument which treats the

1:30statement you the only true God as a

1:33subset proposition is no longer tenable

1:35it can no longer be said that the father

1:39is the only true God and the son is the

1:41only true God in the Holy Spirit is the

1:43only true God

1:45Kevin teenie was encouraged to email Dan

1:47Tallis by Trinitarians this presentation

1:50outlines the email exchange Kevin

1:53obtained permission from Daniel Wallace

1:55to share them it shall be seen that

1:58there is no longer any doubt that Rob

1:59Richardson correctly interpreted dan

2:01Wallace's grammar when he identified

2:03John 17:3 as containing a convertible

2:06proposition the email exchange between

2:09Kevin tini and Daniel Wallace is also

2:11found on Tina theology at this URL

2:21damn I hope you do not mind an

2:24unsolicited email

2:26adjusted at viable dot-org from a

2:28moderator in the Greek languages section

2:30that I asked if you would share the list

2:32of verses that you identified as object

2:34compliment in your paper on the same

2:36subject best regards

2:39Kevin teenie

2:46Kevin I wrote the paper in 1981 long

2:50before personal computers were in vogue

2:52all the research I did was manually I

2:55went through Mullen and Jaden's Greek

2:57concordance and looked for any and every

2:59verb that could possibly take an object

3:02complement construction then I looked up

3:05all the verses I wrote down all the

3:08references and constructions on legal

3:10tags

3:10I found 300 such constructions which no

3:14doubt lacks a good portion of what

3:16really is they're using I think 60

3:19different verbs those verbs are in a

3:21footnote in my extent achill syntax but

3:24I have not typed up the list

3:26sorry DBW thank you very much for your

3:30reply Wow that must have been quite a

3:34challenge doing it the hard way

3:35the reason I asked was that a poster on

3:38a Bible discussion board said that John

3:4017:3 was an example of this and I wanted

3:43to see if it was in your list or not it

3:46appears to meet all the criteria would

3:49you classify John 17:3 in this manner

3:51Kevin which words does he suppose are in

3:55the object complement construction he a

3:58poster by the name of Rob Richardson

4:00gives this list of translations to

4:02illustrate that the double accusative to

4:04the verb now are related in this

4:06construction what either as or to be you

4:09identify this verb in your paper on

4:11object compliment is an example of one

4:13which takes the construction in the

4:15Greek New Testament and I could not find

4:17any other example besides John 17:3 with

4:20two accusative x' which could be object

4:23compliment

4:30Oh got it I would probably take that as

4:33oppositional but it could be object

4:35compliment Thanks damn according to the

4:39argument being floated by Richardson if

4:41this is not an example of object

4:43compliment then it must be simple a

4:45position and therefore also an example

4:47of the convertible proposition is there

4:50an alternative Kevin not that I know of

4:54Thanks damn how about this someone who

4:58posted against this interpretation of

5:00the grammar noticed at the explicit

5:02language in examples for simple a

5:03position being convertible proposition

5:06in Greek grammar beyond the basics where

5:08to be found spread out amongst the

5:10treatment in the different cases the

5:12genitive and simple opposition is the

5:14most explicit however in the discussion

5:17on the other cases including the

5:19accusative there are footnotes to look

5:21at the discussion for genitive at

5:23nominative is there any difference with

5:26respect to case as to whether or not

5:28simple a position as a convertible

5:29proposition no not that I know of

5:34purpose of this presentation was to show

5:36that in John chapter 17 verse 3 the

5:39phrase you the only true God is a

5:42convertible proposition since you refers

5:46to the Father the only true God is the

5:48father it is not a subset proposition

5:51therefore it cannot be said that the

5:54term only true God is a reference to the

5:56divine being of God in which three

5:58persons share in the video Greek

6:01scholars who say that God is not Jesus

6:03scholars such as Mary Harris teach that

6:05a Trinitarian cannot say that God is

6:08Jesus for this reason therefore if

6:11Trinitarian theology is possible why can

6:14it be said that the only true God is the

6:16father for a technical explanation of

6:19the convertible proposition and

6:21references from Wallace's exegetical

6:23grammar see the video if Trinitarians

6:25say that God is not Jesus then why is

6:27God the Father I will conclude with the

6:30slide which gives the abstract and link

6:32to dan Wallace's paper on the object

6:35compliment