Can the context of John 17 v 22 be imposed upon the context of John 10 v 30?

Prayer for all Believers

John 17 v 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Islamic apologists superimpose verse 22 as a context upon the words of Jesus in chapter 10 v 30:

John 10 v 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.

However this is invalid because the word of God has not been revealed in such a way that we need to seek for the truth in a different context than that in which it has been given. God does not speak with holes in his logic. He does not have a speech impediment. This is not the Koran where you have bits and pieces of a logical argument left isolated that have to be pieced together to make any sense out of them. Neither does anyone have the authority to tamper with the words of God in this way. Islam sees itself as a corrector of all other religions but it is only deceiving itself.

The reaction of the Jews shows that they understood clearly the context of Jesus words claiming unity with the Father. They understood Jesus to be claiming a unity of greatness with the Father thus making himself equal to God:

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.

If Jesus was claiming a unity of purpose or some other harmless and lawful unity with God the Jews would not have reacted as they did.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Can the context of John 17 v 22 be imposed upon the context of John 10 v 30?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Jesus really played with the religious anger of Jews when saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) because several moments before he talks about comparison between his mortality and his followers’ immortality.
    (i) Jesus appears to be ridiculing Jehovah that Jehovah is “one” with that mortal Jesus who shall lay down his life. Jews happen to be correct on accusing him of trying to be a blasphemer.
    (ii) Jesus’ followers will be made immortal (shall never perish), hence they could be gods.
    (iii) Although Jesus confessed his mortality that he shall perish – hence, he openly refuses his divinity – he just doesn’t stop there, unfortunately he makes his followers equal in immortality with the Father.
    Hence, it is very much understandable that the Jews are angry at him. Jesus just played with their logic and religious emotion.
    Jn 10
    18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.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.

  2. θ says:

    The story of John 10:18-30 may explain the reason why Jews had tried to stone Jesus as well.
    Jn 8
    22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

    How can Jesus be Jehovah after he confirms that he is just an ordinary mortal who shall return to Jehovah like others?
    By referring to his mortality, Jesus openly refuses to claim any divinity.

  3. θ says:

    John 20:28 also raises a doubt of the intention of Thomas when saying “the God of mine”. How can a staunch Jew like him have audacity to call the person coming from death after three days “the God”? Does Thomas just tell a joke that Jehovah the Most High of Jews is revealed to be a dead person?

    How can Jesus be Jehovah even after he proves to Thomas face to face that he is just an ordinary mortal who ought to taste the inevitable like others?

    By referring to his mortality, Jesus openly refuses to claim any divinity.

  4. θ says:

    Is it a What or a Who that begot the word?
    Concerning John 1:1, it is quite mythical, if not fantasy, to believe that the Nature (a what) generates the Word which turns out to be a living person (a who). Now the question on John 1:1, if the Nature (the Theos) begets the 2nd person (the Word) thru so-called eternal generation, why doesn’t the same Theos’s Nature beget the 1st person of the Father and the 3rd person of Spirit?

    It is truly unequal that the Nature of Theos just begets one person (hypostasis) only, that is the Word (Logos) only, but not two other persons of the Father and Spirit.

    Moreover, since we humans are God’s image, why don’t our words become other person of us in the same human nature like ours?

  5. Anonymous says:

    From philosophical sense, the Trinitarian version of John 1:1 is a flawed logics. It is true that human begets humans, dog begets dogs, nature begets nature: The begetting is passing over the nature, not person.
    Hence John 1:1 of the Trinitarians is a pure mythology that a Nature (ousia) begets Person (hypostasis), yet that person is the Word one and only.

    In other example, in the Trinitarian myth, the human nature (ousia) begets or generates a person (hypostasis) of Adam.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The Trinitarian third person of God is the most personless since for 2,000 years such a person of the Spirit has not gotten a Name yet. Is it nameless? How can a person be nameless? Is his name “unknown god”?
    The Unitarians point out that the fact how Jesus just teaches his disciples the name of the Father (Jn 17:6, 12, 26) – but not the name of Spirit, not even once – is evidence that the Spirit is just a property of the Father whose name is Jehovah.

  7. Anonymous says:

    For 2,000 years til now person of the Spirit has not been distinct from the person of the Father concerning the Name they are differentiated each other, known distinctly, addressed separately, or referred to unambiguously.

  8. θ says:

    How many witnesses are in one? Two or Three (1 Jn 5:7)?
    When Jesus is being challenged by Jews to provide other witnesses that could agree altogether on confirming his doctrine, Jesus just dismisses the Spirit as if it isn’t existent as a person. By so, Jesus infers that the Spirit is simply the feature belonged to person of the Father.
    Consistently Jesus refers to both the Father and his works when providing two other witnesses required to justify his teaching. The Father is a person indeed, but the works that Jesus does are not the persons at all.
    Jn 8:18
    I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
    Jn 10:25
    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.

    Works which Jesus does to prove his doctrine are his property. Not another person. The Holy Spirit without name which Jehovah sends forth in Jehovah’s name (rather than in Spirit’s name) is Jehovah’s property. Not another person.

  9. Anonymous says:

    In the NT Bible, the Holy Spirit is always depicted with a Non-human feature less than humanhood: figuration of a dove, tongue of fire, stream of water, and seven eyes. A dove doesn’t have a full characteristics of person.
    Worse, even it has no Name at all to ensure validity of its witnessing, or to make its bearing records distinctive than two others’.
    Jn 1:32
    And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

    In most church’s icons that illustrate the Holy Spirit, it has no a heavenly throne to sit. Just like angels, the Spirit is shown far less and much lower than a group of the sitting saints of heavens. Hence Spirit is figuration, not a person.

    Worse than angels and saints of heaven, Spirit is still nameless. It is called with a definite article “the” to signify its role, such as “the Comforter”, “the Intercessor”, “the breath”. Hence Spirit is a figuration, not a person.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s