John 14:9 is Jesus - God the Father?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why would we need to explain it anymore than explaining how there is a Father and a Son as subjects? Jesus says we because he refers to both Father and Son.


That is completely and utterly false. First of all there are places where Hen is used to mean 1 in number and heis is used to mean a unity. Second of all if this is true...if this is really true, then when jesus quoted the Shema he was saying Here oh Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One in number.

Hen, Heis and Mia are all just different gender forms of the greek number 1

OK so my point at Jophn 10:30 is that Jesus (the Son) is not saying that he's God the Father, that's my only point at this verse. Do you concur?

Originally Posted by Chan

Let's look at the passage in context:


24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews understood Jesus to be referring to Himself as God in this passage.

Well as a Trinitarianian I agree, but that is only because he put his own name before that of his Father thereby implying equality with him in the jewish culture. Secondly, the word 'one' (hen) doesn't imply deity, it can't for the apostles are said to be one with both the Father and the Son at John 17:21-22. Thirdly, my only point at John 10:30 was to refute the erronious Oneness claim that jesus (Son) was here saying; 'I am the Father.'

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Well as a Trinitarianian I agree, but that is only because he put his own name before that of his Father thereby implying equality with him in the jewish culture. Secondly, the word 'one' (hen) doesn't imply deity, it can't for the apostles are said to be one with both the Father and the Son at John 17:21-22. Thirdly, my only point at John 10:30 was to refute the erronious Oneness claim that jesus (Son) was here saying; 'I am the Father.'

So, what is it about God that makes Him "the Father"? What is it about God that makes Him "the Son"? What is it about God that makes Him "the Holy Spirit"?

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

So, what is it about God that makes Him "the Father"? What is it about God that makes Him "the Son"? What is it about God that makes Him "the Holy Spirit"?

IMO, the need dictates the title. Whatever role He needs to fulfill determines what His title is -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit, healer, provider, Prince of Peace, lily of the valley, shepherd, etc

Originally Posted by OGIA

IMO, the need dictates the title. Whatever role He needs to fulfill determines what His title is -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit, healer, provider, Prince of Peace, lily of the valley, shepherd, etc

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I would suggest that what makes God "the Father" is the fact that He has fathered - whether figuratively as in the angels and Adam and Eve, literally as in impregnating a virgin girl named Mary so that the Christ would be born, or by adoption as in the Christian. I would suggest that He is the Son because He caused His logos to become flesh and dwell among us. I would suggest that He is the Holy Spirit because He outpours Himself into each Christian.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I would suggest that what makes God "the Father" is the fact that He has fathered - whether figuratively as in the angels and Adam and Eve, literally as in impregnating a virgin girl named Mary so that the Christ would be born, or by adoption as in the Christian. I would suggest that He is the Son because He caused His logos to become flesh and dwell among us. I would suggest that He is the Holy Spirit because He outpours Himself into each Christian.

I think we're saying the same thing. As "Father" He couldn't die on the cross. He had to have a body for that. As Son He couldn't indwell His followers. He came back in Spirit form for that.

The needs of His creation and people dictated what He became to them.

I think we're just saying it two different ways.

Originally Posted by OGIA

I think we're saying the same thing. As "Father" He couldn't die on the cross. He had to have a body for that. As Son He couldn't indwell His followers. He came back in Spirit form for that.

The needs of His creation and people dictated what He became to them.

I think we're just saying it two different ways.

Well, not only as "Father" but also as God. Divinity, by its very nature, cannot die. You and I are probably saying the same thing but I'm trying to get Iron Bladder to take a closer look at his insistence on specifically referring to "the Son" as if to say that as the Son Jesus was eternal, Jesus created, etc.

While entirely irrelevant to oneness folks, Nestorius in the fifth century raised this issue because the Church was saying that Mary was the theotokos (mother of God) and, thus, was intermixing, commingling, Jesus' divinity with His humanity. Nestorius rightly said that Mary was the Christokos (mother of Christ) and not the mother of God (because Mary did not contribute anything to Jesus' divinity. What Nestorius taught was misrepresented by Cyril (that spawn of Satan) as teaching Jesus was two persons (hypostases). What Nestorius taught, however, was Jesus' dyophysite (dual) nature that the Church affirms (that Jesus is both fully God and fully man). He also taught, however, that those things pertaining to Jesus' divinity do not pertain to His humanity and those things pertaining to His humanity do not pertain to His divinity. I agree with Nestorius. His doctrine was well explained in the Synod of Mar Aqaq in 486 A.D. (though I would have left out "copies of"): "But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving - in regard to the union of the pars\opa of our Savior - the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

OK so my point at Jophn 10:30 is that Jesus (the Son) is not saying that he's God the Father, that's my only point at this verse. Do you concur?

No I do not concur because it seems that the Jews thought that was what he was saying and Jesus never denied that was what he was saying

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No I do not concur because it seems that the Jews thought that was what he was saying and Jesus never denied that was what he was saying

At John 10:30 by putting his name before that of the Father, he was implying equality with him, that was an affirmation of deity in the jewish culture. However saying 'we are one' using the neuter word of one (hen) isn't an affirmation of deity, as the apostles were also 'One' (hen) with the Father and Son at John 17:21-23. Tell me Praxeas, where in John 10:30 do YOU see the Son making a claim for deity?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

At John 10:30 by putting his name before that of the Father, he was implying equality with him, that was an affirmation of deity in the jewish culture. However saying 'we are one' using the neuter word of one (hen) isn't an affirmation of deity, as the apostles were also 'One' (hen) with the Father and Son at John 17:21-23. Tell me Praxeas, where in John 10:30 do YOU see the Son making a claim for deity?

Prove that it was his putting himself in front of the word Father grammatically that made them think he was claiming to be God

Second the neuter form of the word for one does not mean one any less just because it is neuter and it IS used in the bible to mean one in number.

The discussion in John 17 is contextually a different one from John 10 and Jesus puts himself grammatically before believers in that context too, using you logic that would mean Jesus was claiming to be us