John 14:9 is Jesus - God the Father?

Originally Posted by OGIA

As Son He couldn't indwell His followers. He came back in Spirit form for that.
.

I beg to differ from you Ogia, for at John 14:23 we read in the first person plural; “and we will make our abode with him.” The first person plural form of the verb ‘to be’ which is used in this passage is ‘we are,’ refers to both God the Father and also to the Son who is the speaker in this passage. So in order to indwell millions of Christians simultaneously all around the world, both the Father and the Son must be omnipresent, because any one who is limited to one place at one time, can’t possible indwell millions of his people as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do simultaneously. That is a uniquely divine attribute which is only possessed by Yahweh alone: Psalms 139:7 states: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?”

So, if God were just one person as you’ve claimed then Jesus wouldn’t have used the first person plural; ‘we will’ at John 14:23. Instead he would have used the first person singular; ‘I will come to him.’ So Oneness Pentecostals also need to provide an answer for this verse. How can the Son together with the Father each be omnipresent if God is only one person as you claim? Anyway that's my opinion Ogia, I'll look forward to yoru reply - if Praxeas hasn't booted me out of the forum before then!

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Well Praxeas it’s very simply, the Son was clearly claiming to be Yahweh God at John 10:30 and because the sentence is so short you only have two options;

1) Placing himself ‘I’ before his Father implied equality with him.
2) The use of the word ‘one’ in the neuter from which is ‘Hen’ in Greek implied equality with the Father.
3) I can’t see any other claim to deity within this particular verse! But if you can then please tell me about it as i'd love to know what it is.

Now seeing that the apostles were also said to be ‘one’ (hen) with both the Father and the Son at John 17:21-23, this second option is extremely doubtful indeed, unless a person is a Mormon who believes as they do that men can become Gods. Alternatively, to place your name before that of another person implies equality in ever culture that I’ve ever read about. If you think of it, it’s extremely arrogant to speak of Myself and God even in English, for by putting your own name first you focus upon yourself and not upon God as the primary subject of the sentence. To speak of yourself; ‘I’ before somebody else implies equality in Jewish culture. However, if both of my options 1 and 2 are wrong, then were on earth do you see a claim to deity within John 10:30? If it’s there and I’ve missed it because both of my options are wrong, then where on earth does the Son claim to be deity?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

That’s impossible, for the plural verb forms imply that Christ isn’t God the Father at John 10:30 and that neither he nor the Father are the apostles at John 17:21-23. If Christ had wished to claim to be the Father, then he would have instead have used the verb to be in the first person singular; ‘I am the Father.’ Yet Christ never said this, proving that he’s not God the Father at all.

Putting your name before that of somebody else doesn’t mean that you are that person, and so I never made that claim, its simply a claim to equality or superiority in Greek and in most other languages for that matter. When referring to another person, in polite conversation we’d say even in English; ‘Praxes and I’ but never; ‘I and Praxeas,’ and certainly not ‘I and God,’ for being inferior to God you always put his name first to signify yoru subordination to him. So hey whan Christ put his name first; 'I and My Father' he's saying that he's equal to the Father - to God himself.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

That’s impossible, for the plural verb forms imply that Christ isn’t God the Father at John 10:30 and that neither he nor the Father are the apostles at John 17:21-23. If Christ had wished to claim to be the Father, then he would have instead have used the verb to be in the first person singular; ‘I am the Father.’ Yet Christ never said this, proving that he’s not God the Father at all.

Putting your name before that of somebody else doesn’t mean that you are that person, and so I never made that claim, its simply a claim to equality or superiority in Greek and in most other languages for that matter. When referring to another person, in polite conversation we’d say even in English; ‘Praxes and I’ but never; ‘I and Praxeas,’ and certainly not ‘I and God,’ for being inferior to God you always put his name first to signify yoru subordination to him. So hey whan Christ put his name first; 'I and My Father' he's saying that he's equal to the Father - to God himself.

Before we continue you should prove that putting I before Father proves Jesus was making himself equal to God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Well Praxeas it’s very simply, the Son was clearly claiming to be Yahweh God at John 10:30 and because the sentence is so short you only have two options;

1) Placing himself ‘I’ before his Father implied equality with him.
2) The use of the word ‘one’ in the neuter from which is ‘Hen’ in Greek implied equality with the Father.
3) I can’t see any other claim to deity within this particular verse! But if you can then please tell me about it as i'd love to know what it is.

Now seeing that the apostles were also said to be ‘one’ (hen) with both the Father and the Son at John 17:21-23, this second option is extremely doubtful indeed, unless a person is a Mormon who believes as they do that men can become Gods. Alternatively, to place your name before that of another person implies equality in ever culture that I’ve ever read about. If you think of it, it’s extremely arrogant to speak of Myself and God even in English, for by putting your own name first you focus upon yourself and not upon God as the primary subject of the sentence. To speak of yourself; ‘I’ before somebody else implies equality in Jewish culture. However, if both of my options 1 and 2 are wrong, then were on earth do you see a claim to deity within John 10:30? If it’s there and I’ve missed it because both of my options are wrong, then where on earth does the Son claim to be deity?

Option number 2 works for us, can you prove option number 1?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I beg to differ from you Ogia, for at John 14:23 we read in the first person plural; “and we will make our abode with him.” The first person plural form of the verb ‘to be’ which is used in this passage is ‘we are,’ refers to both God the Father and also to the Son who is the speaker in this passage. So in order to indwell millions of Christians simultaneously all around the world, both the Father and the Son must be omnipresent, because any one who is limited to one place at one time, can’t possible indwell millions of his people as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do simultaneously. That is a uniquely divine attribute which is only possessed by Yahweh alone: Psalms 139:7 states: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?”

So, if God were just one person as you’ve claimed then Jesus wouldn’t have used the first person plural; ‘we will’ at John 14:23. Instead he would have used the first person singular; ‘I will come to him.’ So Oneness Pentecostals also need to provide an answer for this verse. How can the Son together with the Father each be omnipresent if God is only one person as you claim? Anyway that's my opinion Ogia, I'll look forward to yoru reply - if Praxeas hasn't booted me out of the forum before then!

But the question is HOW, in the context, do Father and Son dwell in us? Jesus, the Son is both Divine and Human, so we know He is not saying his body is inside us...

The context and Romans 8:9 shows he is referring to His SPIRIT, the comforter

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Before we continue you should prove that putting I before Father proves Jesus was making himself equal to God.

There is absolutely nothing in John 10:30 which points to Jesus being God. Secondly to put your name before that of someone else in jewish culture implies equality with them. Thirdly, the neuter word for 'one' which is hen can't prove that jesus is God at John 10:30 as it's also used for the apostles also being one with the Father and the Son at John 17:21-22. MF Blume made a highly insightful and intelligent comment upon this in another thread, he also said that you can't interpret John 10:30 in isolation from the rest of the Bible, so if being one with the Father at John 10:30 makes you YHWH, then the apostles are also YHWH at John 17:21-22.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

There is absolutely nothing in John 10:30 which points to Jesus being God.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that by putting himself grammatically before Father it made him EQUAL to God.

Secondly to put your name before that of someone else in jewish culture implies equality with them.

Again, you are just repeating what you have been asserting. If that is all can do is repeat and not answer or back up your assertions then you are just wasting our time here. I ask you again, PROVE that putting your name before someone else in Jewish culture implies equality. Prove it. just saying it over and over and over does not prove it. That's called Argumentum ad Nauseum.

Second Jesus did not use his name. He said "I".

Third, you just contradicted yourself. On the one hand you argue this verse does NOT show Jesus is God then on the other you say it does.

Thirdly, the neuter word for 'one' which is hen can't prove that jesus is God at John 10:30 as it's also used for the apostles also being one with the Father and the Son at John 17:21-22.

What difference does it make if it is neuter or not? Second the context in which these two accounts are TOTALLY different. You are ignoring the context.

MF Blume made a highly insightful and intelligent comment upon this in another thread, he also said that you can't interpret John 10:30 in isolation from the rest of the Bible, so if being one with the Father at John 10:30 makes you YHWH, then the apostles are also YHWH at John 17:21-22.

Nor can you confuse two different contexts

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Before we continue you should prove that putting I before Father proves Jesus was making himself equal to God.

I can't show you any verse of scripture which states in this way; 'Putting I before somebody elses name implies equality with them.' However something in John 10:30 is an affirmation of the Son's deity, which is why they picked up stones later on to kill him. It can't be the use of the word 'one' in the neuter (hen) as the apostles are also 'One' (hen) with both the fathe and the Son which would make them Yahweh as well. So the ball is in your court, if The Son is Yahweh God according to John 10:30 where on earth in this verse do you see any such claim to deity, it's certainly there, and you need to find it if you believe it. In Jewish idiomatic thought to put your name before that of another person implied equality with them, so that's my take on why the Son is Yahweh at John 10:30, if you understand jewish idioms, you'll see the deity of the Son at John 10:30 just as clearly as i do.

Originally Posted by Jeanie

The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father incarnate (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.

In that case Jeanie, if Jesus Christ truly is God the Father, the one person of God, as you've claimed, then how can God the Father indwell Jesus who really is himself according to John 14:10; “but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” The only possible explanation is the standard Oneness position that the Father indwells the Son because the ‘Father’ is the deity of Jesus and the ‘Son’ is the human nature of Jesus.

Now if I'm wrong Jeanie, you need to show me, or anybody else in this room needs to demonstrate to me, how Jesus can be the Father and yet then be indwelt by himself! I don't see how you can do thsi without opting for the usual Oneness claim that the father = the deity and the Son = the humanity claim, which consequently makes the Son something less than Yahweh God, namely a mere man in whom Yahweh's spirit (Father) then indwells.

The Son is God (Hebrews 1:8), the Son is Yahweh (Hebrews 1:10), the Son is eternal (John 17:5 re '|Son' at verse 1), the Son is omnipresent (John 14:23), the Son is creator (hebrews 1:2), the Sopn shares the very same essence as that Father (Hebrews 1:3 re 'Son' at verse 2). Now if anyone should deny these truths jeanie, as the JWs, Unitarians and Christadelphians do, then the Scriptures state emphatically that by denying that the Son is himself the eternal I AM (YHWH God incarnate in the flesh), that person will die in their sins (John 8:24-28). The Son is not some man who had God's spirit popping inside of him, I have God's spirit indwelling me too, but that doesn't make me Yahweh does it. The Son is ontologically Yahweh, we must affirm this jeanie, I urge you please to pray about these issues and if I'm wrong, then please do correct me from the Bible.