Defensores Fidei Foundation stumbles on the Perpetual Virginity Rebuttal

Not too long ago I posted a blog titled Defensores Fidei Foundation (DFF) versus Catholic Answers (CA). In that blog I mentioned a glaring contradiction between camps on the relationship of the people mentioned in Matthew 13:55. According to Atty Llasos of DFF, these are all Christ’s cousins while CA’s Jason Evert says that it is not a Catholic teaching that these were Christ’s cousins.

Atty. Llasos posted his response in the comments section and in his blog last February 14, 2009. Before he responded to the issue of the article, Atty. Llasos wrote his disappointment with me stating that I had betrayed him because I had posted that article without even waiting for his response to my question which I previously sent by email. Before we deal with the real issue, which is about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, let me enumerate some facts concerning my email exchanges with Atty. Llasos which led up to his accusations that I allegedly betrayed him:

A. There were questions which I emailed to Atty. Llasos before I wrote the article:

1. I often quote Matthew 13:55 and other similar verses to prove that Mary had other children. I know about the Roman Catholic defense about the Jews having the same Hebrew terminology for brother and relatives, ach. We know very well that the New Testament was written in Greek and adelphos is the term they use to refer to a brother while anepsios for relatives.

Despite the Greek word used and the context, you still contend that it is not referring to uterine brothers. You argued:

It should be borne in mind that it is part of the culture in Palestine even to this day that people who are related by blood live in a given community. They practice communal living (“kibbutz” system).

The Evangelists and other New Testament writers simply wrote down the common expression of the Jews. They had the Jewish mindset although they wrote in Greek. In other words, the Evangelists were using the common parlance among the Jews at that time. Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon simply called each other “ah.” They knew that Jesus was an only child and assumed every body else knew.

Now, if your argument is based on the kibbutz system, then Matthew left something out in 13:55 and 56. It mentions Christ's parents and proceeds to detail his supposedly cousins. If neighbor’s account of Christ’s family was indeed based on communal living like you theorized, how come the parents of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and the sisters are not mentioned? Did the neighbor who questioned Jesus forget about Cleophas and his wife Mary whom you said are the parents of James and Joses? It's a bit illogical to mention Christ's parents and then proceed immediately to cousins by overlooking the parents of those cousins who are supposed to be in the kibbutz system.

2. Moving on, one of my tendencies to quote Paul for using anepsios in Colossians 4:10 to say that the NT writers in fact made a distinction between siblings and relatives despite of their audience, but you had this argument:

It should be borne in mind that it is only in Colossians 4:10 that the word anepsios is used. Remember that the Epistle to the Colossians was written by the Apostle Paul, a Jew from Tarsus (Acts 21:39 , 22:3) who was in fact a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25 -29). The Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians (who were certainly not Jews but Gentiles) in their own Greek language.

The Jews, unlike the Greeks, use circumlocution to express their idea or concept of cousin for the simple reason that they have no word for cousin.

As I understood it, you argue that if the NT writers are speaking to Jews they use circumlocution, while not so if speaking to Gentiles. For me, your argument has gone too far to the point of being biased. I don't think you will be consistent when your theory is compared with other verses. If I were to quote Galatians 1:19 which says: But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother (adelphos) of the Lord, how come Paul made use of adelphos instead of anepsios to the Greek-speaking Galatians? Why only to the Colossians did Paul make use of anepsios? Furthermore, why was James called as “the brother of the Lord”? You never mentioned the reason.

How about Luke? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia he is both Greek and Gentile. His books were written to Theophilus, who may be another Greek. If we read Acts 1:14 it appears that he didn't use anepsios like Paul did in Colossians. Since Luke is both Greek and Gentile, don’t you think he would use anepsios more often than the Jewish NT writers?

3. You also made an account of the supposedly cousins of Jesus. About Jude, you mentioned that he was a brother of James and a son of Mary the wife of Cleophas. But how come he wasn't mentioned in Mark 15:40 but only James and Joses? Let's also not forget about Simon. Your sources tell you that he was also a son of Mary the wife Cleophas. Again, how come Mark left him out in 15:40? Can you explain that?

These questions were sent last December 1, 2008. I did promise him that he could take his time to answer those questions which are up to now have not yet been answered.

B. I posted the said article which only points out a contradiction between DFF and CA. Minutes after posting the blog, I emailed him these new questions last February 5, 2009:

If I read it correctly, the author states that it is not the Catholic's position that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are cousins of Jesus. However, in your blog you explained that these were his cousins.

I am wondering if the position written in article of Catholic Answers is the official one or recognized by the Vatican. If not, then can it be implied that both of your explanations are private interpretations that your church criticizes against Evangelicals. If they are private interpretations and contrary to one another, how do you resolve this conflict?

I promised again that he could take his time answering that question. However, when I posted the blog before emailing the new questions I had no intention of putting an end to our email exchanges. The article I posted is not sufficient to report the outcome of our email exchanges since the questions have not been answered. The article is only exposing a contradiction, period. It does not give any comments to the earlier set of questions emailed to Atty. Llasos.

I will leave it to the readers to decide. Now, let me respond to his rebuttal.

He begins by stating:

I noticed that RODIMUS was only interested in my conclusion. He did not even bother to contest, much less refute, the premises on which I predicated my conclusion. It seems to me that my friend’s desire is merely to involve me in contradiction.

Guess again, Atty. Llasos. If you would recall the questions I emailed you last December 1, 2008, those questions are not only for asking but also for refuting; and I think you know that. Atty. Llasos proceeded with how the Aramaic terminology for brother works, but that was already addressed to my questions above.

Atty. Llasos asserted that I misread the statement of Mr. Evert, author of the CA article:

RODIMUS made a serious misreading of Mr. Evert’s statement. RODIMUS claims that Mr. Evert “made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception RODIMUS.” RODIMUS’ conclusion is not accurate. He clearly misrepresents Mr. Evert’s view. Mr. Evert did not categorically say, as RODIMUS would have us believe, that Jesus brothers are not His cousins. In fact, all that Mr. Evert is saying is that “we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins.”

This analysis is myopic because Atty. Llasos response is concentrated on the statement, He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins, which is not the only thing I am trying to convey in the article. If you will read on in the blog article I further wrote:

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins.

Also from the question I sent to him by email which was sent AFTER the article was posted:

If I read it correctly, the author states that it is not the Catholic's position that the brothers mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are cousins of Jesus.

Therefore, I understood Mr. Evert’s position.

Atty. Llasos tries to get out of his predicament by saying his and Mr. Evert’s position are offering alternative approaches on defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Simply, there is no contradiction between Mr. Evert’s statement and my conclusion. Both are actually correct. So, Mr. Everet is correct in saying that that it is not the official Catholic position that the “brothers” of Jesus are not actually his cousins because as we can see, the official position of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Catechism is that these “brothers” are “close relations of Jesus” and did not use the word “cousins” to refer to them. However, my position is also correct because “cousins” are also “close relations.”

That is what Mr. Evert and I precisely did! We presented alternative arguments. These alternative arguments in no way compromise the thesis that the “brothers” of the Lord were not children of Mary.

Not so fast, Atty. Llasos. Mr. Evert said, we can’t tell if any of the ‘brothers’ were cousins. Why were you able to tell that these were his cousins? That is why I am asking if what you and Mr. Evert has written are PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, which we Evangelicals are being criticized of. Moreover, if it is not the official position of your church that the brothers are cousins, then why are you teaching that they are cousins? Of course you will try to escape to a loophole by saying:

Mr. Evert and I are in full agreement that the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are not the children of Mary.

The way I understand it no matter what the explanation is, it is acceptable as long as the bottom line remains the same which is the brothers of Jesus are not Mary’s children.

This reminded me of a funny story about a defense lawyer who is trying to win an acquittal for his client on the charges of murder. The said defense lawyer brought in two witnesses who will testify that his client, the accused, was not in the murder scene which is in Makati. The first witness testified that the accused was in Quezon City. The second witness testified that the accused was in Pasig. Of course the Prosecution questioned the testimonies of the two witnesses due to inconsistency. The defense lawyer reasoned out, “Who cares? The important thing is that my client wasn’t in Makati where the murder was committed.” This is exactly what Atty. Llasos is trying to do.

Atty. Llasos further stated that there are many ways to skin a cat. Unfortunately, his way of skinning the cat is also skinning the other person who is skinning the same cat. By concluding that these brothers were cousins whereas it is not the Catholic position, anyone can say the theories concocted are not only contradictory but are also self-serving.

Now, Atty. Llasos presented historical evidences that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed even by the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. While it may be true that these Reformers believed Mary’s perpetual virginity, one has to consider their circumstances during their time. These men were reforming a 1,200 year old church from which they came (I say 1,200 year old church because I believe that the Church of Rome was founded only after 300AD and the reformation occurred after 1500AD). The focus of the Reformers was on the Lord Jesus Christ. They made sure that Christ was the one deified and not Mary. The process of changing wasn’t overnight and the task of reforming may have been extended to their successors.

Likewise, before the year 1600AD people believed that all planets revolve around the Earth until Galileo discovered it was not so. The New Catholic Encyclopedia even stated:

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it.

However, the people today know through science that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. Some Roman Catholics would respond by saying that the conflict with Galileo’s discovery was more of science and not a dogma or the popes at that time were speaking as private theologians (thus, not official). But they can’t deny that the Roman Catholic Church was involved in denouncing Galileo’s discovery which gives plenty of room to say that it was a doctrinal issue. (I will be writing later on articles about Papal Infallibility bloopers). It took a while for people to adapt to Galileo’s discovery.

Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children? Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child”, so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?

Finally, Atty. Llasos is confident that the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable that he challenged me to answer these questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”
2) Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”

If I understand it correctly, in order for Atty. Llasos to be convinced that Mary had other children, he wants Bible verses that say these people are Mary’s children. He is still not convinced of the Greek word adelphos and the context of Matthew 13:55. He wants it clear that these people were born from Mary. I’m sorry to say that the above questions of Atty. Llasos are born from prejudice.

Let me prove that. The Bible mentions of Lazarus, Martha and Mary Magdalene in Luke 10, John 11-12. We all know that these people have a sibling relationship. The Greek words used are adelphos for Lazarus while adelphi for Martha and Mary Magdalene. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms the following:

Lazarus - This personage was the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania
Martha - ... by St. John when he tells us that "Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus"
Mary Magdalene - the sister of Martha and Lazarus

Unless the Catholic Encyclopedia itself was originally written in Aramaic, it’s safe to say that they verify the sibling relationship with the use of the English words brother and sister and not cousins or relatives.

How does this concern Atty. Llasos? The Bible does not mention that the three are children of the same parents. Neither were their parents are mentioned in the Bible. Since the parents are unidentified, would Atty. Llasos say that they are cousins just like what he theorize to the brothers of Christ? Would he even follow the theory of Mr. Evert that it not the Catholic position that the three are cousins? If he ever accepts that the three have a sibling relationship, then why is he being rough on the brothers of Christ by implying that it is not enough that they are called brothers and that we should show they are Mary’s children? Prejudice at its best.

Now Atty. Llasos may say he knows that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings because of historical evidence. But that would put Mr. Evert’s position in jeopardy because the Roman Catholic scholars have exerted effort to identify the relationship of the three but failed to do so in the brothers of Christ. Wouldn’t that be ironic? A supposedly 2,000 year old infallible Roman Catholic Church cannot identify the actual relationship of the brothers of Christ in Matthew 13:55 but was able to verify that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are siblings despite the lack of biblical information concerning their parents.

Conclusion:

Theories concocted by men often lead to inconsistencies when it tested. Mary had other children after the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55-56 has stated this to be so. Sadly, Roman Catholics offer different perspectives on the verse which lead to complications. The Bible was not meant to adjust to the desires of men, but men should adjust themselves to the Bible. If we only let the Bible speak for itself, Roman Catholics would renounce the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Author’s note: Atty. Llasos has still to answer the questions I emailed him months ago. Although I have speculations on his delayed response, I shall not put my comments in writing.

James 2:14 to 28 – an Evangelical Achilles?

Evangelicals believe that salvation is attained by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 are used as evidence. However, the opponents of the Evangelical faith often quote James 2:14 to 28 to refute this belief. They emphasize on verse 24 which says:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

They conclude that man is not saved by faith alone and works are necessary. How does an Evangelical respond to this?

The reason why many Evangelicals are easily stumped by the text in James 2 is because they have in their mindset and say broad statements like, works are not needed, and salvation is by faith alone. While there is truth to these statements, limiting to these statements becomes difficult when James 2:14 to 28 is quoted by those believing that salvation is attained by works.

So when discussing about the topic of salvation, an Evangelical should use clearer statements about salvation. When Evangelicals say that salvation is by faith alone and not by works, it should mean that salvation cannot be earned by doing good works. It is not like an employee who earns his salary by working eight hours a day in the office. This is supported by Roman 4:5:

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Works cannot attain salvation by works because it is opposed to grace (which means unmerited favor):

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

The above verse from Romans 11:6 compliments Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. Some will quote Philippians 2:12 in an attempt to prove that salvation is earned by works. But the verse says “work out” and not “work for”. We cannot work out something that we do not have; we don’t work out our body to get a body, we already have a body and thus we work out by exercising to become healthier.

Evangelicals should also clarify that in James 2:14-28 is not about attaining salvation by faith and works. One approach to effectively drive this point to opposing religions is to present these two verses that appear contradictory:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Romans 4:2

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

Was Abraham justified by works or by faith? These verses are not in contradiction. Neither is James saying that salvation is attained by works. The message of Paul in Romans 4 is saying how a sinner is saved, that is by faith and not of works. On the other hand James is attacking an empty faith, or a kind of faith that has no evidence of existence. This is very clear in verses 14 to 17:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Faith is not simply uttering simple words like “I believe”. James is saying that if you believe in something your actions should compliment what you believe. If you believe that it is going to rain today you should bring an umbrella when you go out, otherwise you are making a fool out of yourself by getting wet when the rain pours. In verse 18 we read:

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Did James say he will show faith AND works? No, James will show his faith, how? By works. Moreover, pay close attention to the words “you” and “your” in the verse. James is not saying he will show God his faith by works. Rather, James will show his faith by works to his audience, people who cannot see in the heart of another. God can see what is inside a person’s heart. In fact, He already knew the heart of Abraham when he believed:

Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Romans 4:9-12

God already declared Abraham righteous by his faith even before he was circumcised. Abraham circumcision then becomes the evidence that Abraham has faith. This is the same message with James: real faith results in to works.

Conclusion:

In their desire to refute the Evangelical belief that salvation is attained by faith alone, opposing religions are quickly to take James 2:14-28 out of context. James is not saying here that salvation is attained by faith and works. James is rebuking a dead faith or a faith that does not result in to good works. James is simply saying, if you believe in something, your actions should compliment what you believe.

We shall study the other Bible verses that allegedly challenge the doctrine of salvaion by faith alone in the succeeding blog entries.

Defensores Fidei Foundation versus Catholic Answers

This about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic position is that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eventhough there are verses like Matthew 13:55 to refute this teaching, Roman Catholic argues that these were not Christ's uterine brothers because in the Jewish culture they spoke Hebrew and do not have terminologies for cousins or relatives. Despite the Greek terminologies specified for brothers (adelphos) and relatives (anepsios and suggenes), the Roman Catholics still insist that these were not uterine brothers.

However, I have noted conflicting positions from two Roman Catholic apologists. One is from the USA, Jason Evert, a writer of Catholic Answers. And the other is Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person for Mariology of the Defensores Fidei Foundation in the Philippines.

Mr. Evert's position (seen here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp) on such Greek terminologies:

Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: "Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins." That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

He made it clear that in Matthew 13:55, these men were not Christ's cousins; it's a misconception. But Atty. Llasos tells differently in his blog (seen here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Perpetual%20Virginity):

Hence, James and Joses are called “brothers” of Jesus because they are His “cousins.”

Being the brother of James, Jude’s mother was also Mary, the wife of Cleophas and not Mary, the mother of Jesus. He, too, is Jesus “brother” because he is his “cousin.”

Thus, Simon is the Lord’s “brother” because he is also His “cousin.”

Oh no! I thought it is not the Catholic's position that these men were cousins. But why is Atty. Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation telling us that these were Christ's cousins? Aren't Roman Catholics supposed to be united in these doctrinal matters?

They way I see it, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is impossible to be proven because the New Testament has many verses that proves that Mary had other children after giving birth of Christ. Matthew 13:55 and 56 is very comprehensive about it. The Roman Catholics are desperate that they concoct some spurious theories to obscure the truth without realizing it backfires on them. The glaring contradiction above is just one of the many.

Does John 17:3 deny Jesus is God?

Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This text is perhaps the most favorite of all those cults who are against the deity of Christ. Especially on verse 3 they would assert that since Christ himself acknowledged the Father as the only true God therefore Jesus cannot be God. The word “only” excludes anyone from being God. The logic therefore is:

Premise: There is only one true God.
Premise: Jesus himself said the Father is the only true God.
Conclusion: Jesus cannot therefore be God.

Although John 17:3 affirms the Father is the only true God, it does not say only the Father is God nor Jesus is not God. The cults have misinterpreted this by concluding Jesus is not God.

If the cult quoting the passage is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can dismiss their misinterpretation by asking if Jesus is a false god. To the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ is only a lesser god. However, they will not deny Jesus is false. But for them to quote John 17:3 to refute the deity of Christ is self-defeating; since to them the only the Father is the one true God, they would have to admit that any other god is a false god. Would they admit Christ is a false god? I don’t think so.

However, there are cults who absolutely do not believe that Jesus is God, nor even a god. The Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 (INC) believe Jesus is only a man. They often quote John 17:3 to prove only the Father is the one true God and thus, Christ is not God.

Let’s test the consistency of their interpretation by taking a look at Mark 10:18:

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good – except God alone.

Jesus Christ himself that no one is good except God alone. Do we conclude Jesus is not good either? Would they accept that Jesus is not good just as they concluded that Jesus is not God in John 17:3? Just as Mark 10:18 does not say Jesus Christ is not good, John 17:3 also does not say Jesus Christ is not God. Amen! Therefore, the INC has the wrong interpretation for John 17:3.

John 17:3 is merely affirming the Father is the only true God. It does not say Jesus Christ is not God. Likewise, Mark 10:18 is merely telling only God is good. It does not say Jesus Christ is not good.

Were not done yet

In an internet discussion forum I have presented Mark 10:18 to some INC members to contradict their understanding of John 17:3. All of these INC I have discussed of course have some responses, but none of them are satisfactory. Below are the INC responses which are italicized and underlined I encountered so far (please note these are responses from the internet discussion forums, not necessarily the official answers of the INC administration) and my responses to them:

1. Jesus is good but not as good as the Father. Response: It’s possible the one who is giving this answer is not reading the verse well or maybe has forgotten their comparative adjectives (good-better-best). Mark 10:18 does not say “Yes I am good but God is better”.

2. Jesus is neither good nor evil. Response: So what is he, a gray area? If Christ is not good how come he said he is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14)?

3. The context is about being a good teacher. Jesus is not a good teacher because everything he knows comes from the Father. Response: I challenge every INC member to shout, with all sincerity: Jesus is not a good teacher! The Bible makes it clear that the Son is the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3). Thus, if the Father is good, then Jesus is also good.

4. The goodness that God has is not the same goodness that Christ has. Response: I doubt if the INC can tell the difference between the goodness of God and the goodness of Christ. They won’t be able to tell the difference because Christ is the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3).

5. All those who are called “good” by the Bible are gods too. Response: The INC member giving this response is only changing the topic. It is not even your argument that because Jesus is good he must therefore be God. But this easily refuted by relating it to an erroneous argument like: all dogs are walking, Pedro is walking, therefore Pedro is a dog. This INC rebuttal has the same error committed. Just because Pedro is walking doesn’t mean he is a dog. So even if other people are good, goodness is not the only characteristic God has.

6. Mark 10:18 refutes your deity of Christ and Trinitarian beliefs because Jesus already declared God alone is good. Response: this one made me laugh as the INC member didn’t see the implication of Mark 10:18 (Jesus is not good) are similar to the conclusion they want their listeners to arrive for John 17:3 (Jesus is not God).

7. The meaning of the word “only” is absolute if referring to a nature, but not so when referring to a characteristic; thus, even if only God is good, anyone can also be good because goodness is a characteristic. Response: I call this too prejudicial. If you say that only Maria is beautiful then it should follow that Jane is not beautiful. Some INC members go to the extent to argue that in a given place only Maria is beautiful but there is another girl in a different place who is beautiful. However, when Christ was speaking in Mark 10:18 he was in a place talking about the Father.

Some INC members will offer you complicated explanation for Mark 10:18. In order to prevent any deviation due to this complicated explanation, simplify your argument by asking, “Is Jesus good?” and require only a yes or no answer. After all, they will immediately give you a “no” answer if you ask them, “Is Jesus God?” In my experience, the INC has difficulty explaining Mark 10:18 because they are one-sided with their interpretation of John 17:3.

Here is another verse that is similarly structured with Mark 10:18 and John 17:3:

Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. Revelations 15:3-4

Ask any INC member, is Jesus Christ not holy? I doubt they will answer yes.

Conclusion:

John 17:3 does not refute the deity of Christ. This passage is often misinterpreted by those who are against the deity of Christ. Although this verse says that the Father is the only true God, it is not saying Jesus is not God. Jesus is indeed affirming monotheism (the belief that there is only one God). But he is not denying his deity.