John10:30

[javid]

Hi, I learned many things and I hope learn more.

Read the rest of the discourse. Jesus tries again and again to explain who He is, that He is the Son of the Father. Finally, in John 8:58: “Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.”

Read that very carefully. Jesus does not say “I was” which would be proper to an ancient creature. He says “I am,” which denotes that the time before Abraham is present to Him even as He speaks. This is a quality of the Eternal God.

Furthermore, the phrase “I am” is the first part of the Tetragrammaton, the name God for Himself that He revealed to Moses. This is why the Jews picked up stones to stone Him with immediately after He says this, because the claim is quite clear: Jesus claims to be Yahweh.

Can’t it be revelation? I mean Lord Jesus in revelation saw him self in a time before Abraham made.

In addition, Can’t it mean his soul existed before Abraham?

Lord Jesus makes distinction between his willing and father’s willing(Matthew26:39), And he shows difference between his knowledge and father’s knowledge(/matthew24:36) and divine will and divine knowledge are in God’s Essence. If Essence of lord Jesus is Yahweh’s Essence why he does not have Yahweh’s essential attribute?

So, we’re presented with a seeming contradiction. Jesus claims to be God, but at the same time claims that power was given to Him. He claims to be Yahweh, but also the Son of Yahweh. Confusing right?

One way this has been resolved is to say that Jesus here is speaking from His humanity. His human nature does not possess all power, but His Divine nature does. Note, Jesus doesn’t say that God have Him all power. Of course, who else could, right? But does that power come from the Father, or the Son? One might read this passage as the humanity of Christ saying He has received all power from His own divinity.

Dear sir, what is Essence of Lord Jesus? Does he have two essences and in one is human and in other is God? Absolutely not, He has one essence, because there is one Jesus in the world. Well, Does he have all powers in his essence? If yes, so why all given to him? (if no, he can’t be the God)

Alternatively, one might look at the inner family of the Trinity and see that though there is a co-equality there, there is also a hierarchy. The Father is the head of the Trinitarian family, and the Son and Spirit act in accordance or obedience to His will. Furthermore, since the Son was begotten of the Father, all that He (the Son) is, comes from the Father, including all knowledge and power.

Therefore, one might read here that all knowledge and power come from the Father, or one might also read that Jesus has been permitted to exercise all power. Either way, Jesus has all power, not necessarily because He has none by virtue of His own nature, but rather He has it by virtue of the Divine Order.

If God the son is God, can we accept that his Power comes from God the Father?

John 8:28 does not use the word command. But even if it did, as I’ve noted above, that doesn’t necessarily imply a disequality in essence, but rather a disequality in order, according to the inner communion of the Trinitarian family.

However, in direct contradiction to your phrase “Just as other Prophets in Old Testament”, I say go back to John 8:51-55:

“Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.”

Note that the Jews recognize Jesus is placing Himself above the prophets. Jesus doesn’t deny this, but takes it further, as I’ve shown above, and claimed to be the Lord God, Himself.

Yes, Lord Jesus is greater than prophets of Old Testament. I just said He is like other prophets in this verse.

You said: “a disequality in order, according to the inner communion of the Trinitarian family” But as a perfect God, Can God the son say “I do nothing on my own”? Is this wrong to say God does every thing on his own?

We are to be one in all things, even in being. Yes, we are called to a radical new kind of unity. We are called to be one in being through Jesus, by uniting ourselves to Him. We then share in a kind of communion with each other that is like the communion shared by the persons of the Trinity.

So oneness of disciples is like oneness of Father and Lord Jesus. So if Father and Lord Jesus share one essence then disciples must share one essence?

 

[javid]

John 16:15 says “All that the Father has is mine”. So if the Son has everything that the Father has, there is nothing that the Father need to give to the Son.

That is the danger of taking one verse and take it to mean a specific view only. At the end of the day, you still need to defer to the Church for interpreting the Bible. The Bible came from the Church. The proclamations of the Councils came from the Church. You can’t just take one and conveniently ignore the other.

No sir, Bible is Bible including all verses, and I know it. But if Lord jesus has all that the Father has, so he has every thing including all powers, and so He must say: “I have all powers”, not: “All powers given to me”

To pray is to ask, not an edict or command. And they were NOT one. Judas, one of them, betrayed his master. At the crucifixion, they were not one. Only John was at the foot of the cross the others dispersed. After the resurrection, Thomas doubted. If they were one, he won’t have doubted. So the “must” is not a necessary conclusion. The facts don’t even support it. Tagging any sentence with the “Father and I are one” does not make those preceding subjects into one.

We can this did not happen for Judas, but can we say it about the others? On the other hand, when Lord Jesus prayed it, it means that they could be one as He and Father are one, and so I have that problem with this.

That is fallacious reasoning. No reason to deduce that oneness of Father/Son in essence must lead to oneness in essence of the apostles. First define what is one is human essence. What it means. How do you deduce that is what the verse means.

Dear Sir it is not my claim, Lord Jesus said “that they may be one as we are one”(John17:22)

There is nothing to mandate that conclusion. You can extrapolate, but you can not force it to be so unless you have convincing reason to do so. There is no linkage. You can persuade me/us.

God is Spirit, the Apostles are not. The nature of Apostles are of human kind, each of them different in nature. The oneness of human kind, no matter how close, just cannot attain that of the Trinity. We suffer human death and that would not permit us to be one. Each Apostle has his own mind and freewill which they still retained after the prayer of unity from Jesus.

I do not force any thing, I just know that disciples could be one as Father and Lord Jesus are one. He said oneness of disciples is in belief, and I said why oneness of father and Lord Jesus is not so?

 

[MrSnaith]

Can’t it be revelation? I mean Lord Jesus in revelation saw him self in a time before Abraham made.

No. Jesus here is using the same words as are used in God’s revelation of His name. Furthermore, by using the phrase “I am,” rather than “I was,” He denotes a continuity of being. In other words, He is before Abraham “now.” This is true of the Eternal presence of God, and cannot be true of a finite human.

In addition, Can’t it mean his soul existed before Abraham?

No, for the reason I noted above.

Lord Jesus makes distinction between his willing and father’s willing(Matthew26:39), And he shows difference between his knowledge and father’s knowledge(/matthew24:36) and divine will and divine knowledge are in God’s Essence. If Essence of lord Jesus is Yahweh’s Essence why he does not have Yahweh’s essential attribute?

The Church has always interpreted these passages as Jesus speaking out of His humanity, not His Divinity.

Dear sir, what is Essence of Lord Jesus? Does he have two essences and in one is human and in other is God? Absolutely not, He has one essence, because there is one Jesus in the world. Well, Does he have all powers in his essence? If yes, so why all given to him? (if no, he can’t be the God)

Jesus has two natures: human nature and Divine nature. He has these two natures fully. Jesus is not God appearing in human form. He is God who has taken on human nature. He has both. I’m not 100% sure what metaphysics apply regarding His essence. I would guess that He has two essences, one belonging to each of His natures. He is one, yes, and this the Church calls the hypostatic union. So, He has all power in His Divinity, but His humanity is as limited as human nature is.

If God the son is God, can we accept that his Power comes from God the Father?

Yes.

You said: “a disequality in order, according to the inner communion of the Trinitarian family” But as a perfect God, Can God the son say “I do nothing on my own”? Is this wrong to say God does every thing on his own?

Yes, to both questions. Because the Trinity has no disunity. God the Father does not act independently of the Son or the Holy Spirit. All that they do, they do as one.

So oneness of disciples is like oneness of Father and Lord Jesus. So if Father and Lord Jesus share one essence then disciples must share one essence?

My use of “like” here is that of analogy.

 

[adrift]

The word used for a man and a woman becoming one is mia (only one someone) and the word used for The Father and Son being one is heis ( numeral 1) one )
Although I am not an expert in Greek, I can see that there is a difference between the intent of what is being said in the two usages of the word. It may translate the same into English but they have different meaning in the Greek words used.

 

[ericc]

No sir, Bible is Bible including all verses, and I know it. But if Lord jesus has all that the Father has, so he has every thing including all powers, and so He must say: “I have all powers”, not: “All powers given to me”

I think you missed the point I am trying to make. John 16:15 says “All that the Father has is mine”. It includes everything. I was attempting to show the dissonance when you put Matthew 28:18 and John 16:15 side by side. Actually my Bible for Mat 28:18 says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” . It didn’t say the Father gave him the authority. Was it given by consensus i.e. mutual assent? Can’t tell. Can it be self given ? Possible. But to assumed that it is the Father giving to the Son whereas John 16:15 alludes co-ownership is the dissonance I am highlighting. Mat 28:18 itself didn’t say the Father gave it to the Son, you assumed it perhaps without putting thought in other possibilities. All I am pointing out is how do you reconcile both verses so that both are equally true without sacrificing any one of them. So in Mat 28:18 does it mean that since the Son has all the authority, then the Father and the Holy Spirit has none? Or all 3 persons can correctly claim they have all the authority as well because they are one in nature and what goes for one also goes for the other?

We can this did not happen for Judas, but can we say it about the others? On the other hand, when Lord Jesus prayed it, it means that they could be one as He and Father are one, and so I have that problem with this.

Didn’t you read the rest of my response? They were not one at the foot of the cross. Thomas wasn’t one when he doubted. Jesus prayed that “the chalice will pass from me” but he didn’t get his wish. Mat 26:39. Praying doesn’t mean it will be done. After all pray is to ask. It is not an edict for something to happen.

Dear Sir it is not my claim, Lord Jesus said “that they may be one as we are one”(John17:22)

But one in what? The conclusion that it must be one in essence for the apostles is not warranted. Father and Son(with the HS as well) is one in Godhood. You can not based upon this fact to extrapolate that to other subjects. That is what is called fallacious reasoning.

I do not force any thing, I just know that disciples could be one as Father and Lord Jesus are one. He said oneness of disciples is in belief, and I said why oneness of father and Lord Jesus is not so?

Like I mentioned before, that correlation is not necessary. The disciples can be one, the Trinity is one, husband and wife becomes one. But each of these can have oneness for different aspects of their relationship. The oneness need not be the same for all. If you accept that each Apostle has his own mind and freewill, how do you reconcile a oneness in essence? Why must the oneness of the Father/Son be brought down to the level of mortal human beings? There is no necessity.

 

[javid]

No. Jesus here is using the same words as are used in God’s revelation of His name.

Dear sir,

God said “I am who I am” and Lord Jesus did not say that. On the other hand, I don’t think it belongs to God! You are who you are and I am who I am, and both we both are humen!

Furthermore, by using the phrase “I am,” rather than “I was,” He denotes a continuity of being. In other words, He is before Abraham “now.” This is true of the Eternal presence of God, and cannot be true of a finite human.

Several problems:

1)Well in a revelation, person can see himself in a time in past or in future.

2)In Bible, God is not in past! Past is past, even for The God, because God said: “I have heard what people said to you”(Deuteronomy5:28). As you see God does not say: “I hear what people said to you” And God never said “before someone, I am”.

3)Lord Jesus could say: “In the beginning, I was” to show pre-existent, as Saint John said: “In the beginning was the word”

4)It is like a contradiction!(I mean your commentary, not what Holy Bible says) When in present tense, you are; you are not in yesterday! And Contradiction is impossible.

5)God is timeless. We can’t say God is on this time or God is in that time! Even if we say that God is in time on time every time, we limited God in the time!

6)If existing in past is possible, How can we prove that only God can exist in past? I mean how can you prove that God can’t create a creature in such possible condition!

The Church has always interpreted these passages as Jesus speaking out of His humanity, not His Divinity.

Sir, knowledge and will are in essence and Lord Jesus has one essence! Even if he is speaking out of humanity, he has divine will and divine knowledge in his Essence. In what Essence he had human knowledge and human will, to say that?

Jesus has two natures: human nature and Divine nature. He has these two natures fully. Jesus is not God appearing in human form. He is God who has taken on human nature. He has both. I’m not 100% sure what metaphysics apply regarding His essence. I would guess that He has two essences, one belonging to each of His natures. He is one, yes, and this the Church calls the hypostatic union. So, He has all power in His Divinity, but His humanity is as limited as human nature is.

Dear sir, two essences can’t be true, because there must be two beings called Jesus! Each being has its own Essence.

Yes.

It means that God the Son needs God the Father to give him power!

Yes, to both questions. Because the Trinity has no disunity. God the Father does not act independently of the Son or the Holy Spirit. All that they do, they do as one.

I did not say they must do as three, but as a perfect God each person must do of his own, if other person says him what to do, so how can we say such person has divine will?

My use of “like” here is that of analogy.

OK. Analogy; but if oneness of Father and Lord Jesus means they have same essence, meaning of oneness of disciples must be similar to it!

 

[javid]

I think you missed the point I am trying to make. John 16:15 says “All that the Father has is mine”. It includes everything. I was attempting to show the dissonance when you put Matthew 28:18 and John 16:15 side by side. Actually my Bible for Mat 28:18 says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” . It didn’t say the Father gave him the authority. Was it given by consensus i.e. mutual assent? Can’t tell. Can it be self given ? Possible. But to assumed that it is the Father giving to the Son whereas John 16:15 alludes co-ownership is the dissonance I am highlighting. Mat 28:18 itself didn’t say the Father gave it to the Son, you assumed it perhaps without putting thought in other possibilities. All I am pointing out is how do you reconcile both verses so that both are equally true without sacrificing any one of them. So in Mat 28:18 does it mean that since the Son has all the authority, then the Father and the Holy Spirit has none? Or all 3 persons can correctly claim they have all the authority as well because they are one in nature and what goes for one also goes for the other?

Dear Eric, my problem is if someone has something then needs nobody to give it to him! Lord Jesus as God the son must “have” all authority, but he said it has been given to him. divine will is in Essence and nobody gives it to God, even his father or himself, because he has it in essence.

But about John16:15, Can’t it be after “giving”? I mean God the Father gave him all that he has, and then He can say: All that Father has is mine. Lord Jesus didnot say nobody gave it me, I had it from beginning.

Didn’t you read the rest of my response? They were not one at the foot of the cross. Thomas wasn’t one when he doubted. Jesus prayed that “the chalice will pass from me” but he didn’t get his wish. Mat 26:39. Praying doesn’t mean it will be done. After all pray is to ask. It is not an edict for something to happen.

I read it. At least disciples “could” be one as Father an Lord Jesus are one. But if such oneness could be in essence, then there must be 1 disciples not 12! because each being has one essence. So really I need know: “One in what?”

But one in what? The conclusion that it must be one in essence for the apostles is not warranted. Father and Son(with the HS as well) is one in Godhood. You can not based upon this fact to extrapolate that to other subjects. That is what is called fallacious reasoning.

You said one in Godhood for Father and Son, and then it must be in Humanity for disciples, but they were one in humanity before it! All humans are one in humanity. So the most people say "oneness is in Essence. not in Godhood.

Like I mentioned before, that correlation is not necessary. The disciples can be one, the Trinity is one, husband and wife becomes one. But each of these can have oneness for different aspects of their relationship. The oneness need not be the same for all. If you accept that each Apostle has his own mind and freewill, how do you reconcile a oneness in essence? Why must the oneness of the Father/Son be brought down to the level of mortal human beings? There is no necessity.

Sir, Lord Jesus prayed this, and it means that it is possible.

 

[MrSnaith]

Dear sir,

God said “I am who I am” and Lord Jesus did not say that. On the other hand, I don’t think it belongs to God! You are who you are and I am who I am, and both we both are humen!

Except that this is the name of God. There’s a big difference. And in Aramaic, the words were specifically avoided, for fear of offending God by use of His Divine Name. Jesus used the words from God’s name, which is why the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy. He was clearly denoting His Divine origins here. It is nothing at all like me saying I am who I am. That’s an English rendering.

Furthermore, the Tetragrammaton denotes that God’s identity is being itself. When I say, I am who I am, it’s an entirely different statement, because my being does not correlate to being itself. I have a kind of being, with particular attributes and powers and appetites. This is not true of God. Jews would laugh at you for interpreting God’s Divine Name in the same way as saying of yourself “I am who I am.”

2)In Bible, God is not in past! Past is past, even for The God, because God said: “I have heard what people said to you”(Deuteronomy5:28). As you see God does not say: “I hear what people said to you” And God never said “before someone, I am”.

5)God is timeless. We can’t say God is on this time or God is in that time! Even if we say that God is in time on time every time, we limited God in the time!

You accuse me of limiting God right after saying God cannot be in the past? Actually, God’s being is the only actually infinite being. That infinitude is in all possible aspects, including temporal extension. God is in time, God is outside of time, and God is beyond time. Eternity is the duration of simultaneity. All time is present before God.

6)If existing in past is possible, How can we prove that only God can exist in past? I mean how can you prove that God can’t create a creature in such possible condition!

Because to be throughout all time is an aspect of an infinite being, and impossible for a finite being.

Sir, knowledge and will are in essence and Lord Jesus has one essence! Even if he is speaking out of humanity, he has divine will and divine knowledge in his Essence. In what Essence he had human knowledge and human will, to say that?

Knowledge and will are in spirit, not essence. A plant has an essence, but has no knowledge or will. Since intellect and will are spiritual aspects, then there is a Divine intellect and will in Jesus, as well as a human intellect and will in Jesus. This is because Jesus has a human spirit (since He is fully human), as well as the pure Divine Spirit (since He is fully God). The whole knowledge and power of God cannot be contained in a human vessel. Thus, both the Divine and Human natures remain intact, and necessarily distinct.

Dear sir, two essences can’t be true, because there must be two beings called Jesus! Each being has its own Essence.

You’re equating essence and being. I’m not sure these are the same.

It means that God the Son needs God the Father to give him power!

The Son has this power out of His own being. But the Son received His being from the Father. He is begotten. Not created or made. The Father is the ultimate source. So yes, everything comes from the Father. Nevertheless, the Son’s knowledge and power are complete, deriving from His being.

I did not say they must do as three, but as a perfect God each person must do of his own, if other person says him what to do, so how can we say such person has divine will?

He does not have to be obedient to the Father, but He is, of His own choosing. Obedience does not imply lack of will.

OK. Analogy; but if oneness of Father and Lord Jesus means they have same essence, meaning of oneness of disciples must be similar to it!

Yes, similar through the Communion of the Saints.

 

[ericc]

Dear Eric, my problem is if someone has something then needs nobody to give it to him! Lord Jesus as God the son must “have” all authority, but he said it has been given to him. divine will is in Essence and nobody gives it to God, even his father or himself, because he has it in essence.

But about John16:15, Can’t it be after “giving”? I mean God the Father gave him all that he has, and then He can say: All that Father has is mine. Lord Jesus didnot say nobody gave it me, I had it from beginning.

You are arguing from silence. The 3 Persons are eternal. There is no “time” that the Son didn’t have prior to the Father giving him. Meaning the possession of everything between Father/Son is eternal. There wasn’t a time that the Son didn’t possess it. Underlying the Trinity is that the 3 persons are co-equal. What you are proposing is moving away from that dogma. You are hinting strongly that there was a time the Son is not coequal with the Father, just “before” receiving this authority.

Obviously we have a conundrum between John 16:15 and Mat 28:18. One possibility without sacrificing either verse is Phil 2:6-8. Christ humbled himself as the son of Man in Mat 28:18 and a few other verses.

I read it. At least disciples “could” be one as Father an Lord Jesus are one. But if such oneness could be in essence, then there must be 1 disciples not 12! because each being has one essence. So really I need know: “One in what?”

Typically, in human thinking, when we say we are one, we tend to mean we are united in some common purpose. As a group, we act together in unison. We share the same views, same objectives ,we think similarly, our actions although may be different lead to the same objectives.

You said one in Godhood for Father and Son, and then it must be in Humanity for disciples, but they were one in humanity before it! All humans are one in humanity. So the most people say "oneness is in Essence. not in Godhood.

Again, you have portray this being a either “essence” or “godhood” situation. But I am saying there are perhaps other options other than these 2. You have to think hard about the other possibilities. Perhaps you might want to reflect the reason for your insistence that only 2 possibilities is available .

Sir, Lord Jesus prayed this, and it means that it is possible.

I am not denying that. But that is not much of an argument. He is God, therefore he could do it while not wrong doesn’t require that must be the end result.

 

[javid]

Except that this is the name of God. There’s a big difference. And in Aramaic, the words were specifically avoided, for fear of offending God by use of His Divine Name.Jesus used the words from God’s name,

Furthermore, the Tetragrammaton denotes that God’s identity is being itself. When I say, I am who I am, it’s an entirely different statement, because my being does not correlate to being itself. I have a kind of being, with particular attributes and powers and appetites. This is not true of God. Jews would laugh at you for interpreting God’s Divine Name in the same way as saying of yourself “I am who I am.”

Let’s think it is God’s name. I how no problem with that, but According to Exodus3:14 God’s name is “I am who I am” and Lord Jesus did not say it, he said before Abraham made I am. And God never used “before someone I am” as his name, before.

which is why the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy. He was clearly denoting His Divine origins here. It is nothing at all like me saying I am who I am. That’s an English rendering.

Jews even think that Lord Jesus is not their Messiah. We don’t think what they believe is true!!

Furthermore, All jews do not think in same way!! Gerald Segal, as a jew searcher, believes that this verse do not say that: jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/trinity/what-is-the-claim-where-jesus-says-qbefore-abraham-came-into-being-i-amq-john-858

You accuse me of limiting God right after saying God cannot be in the past? Actually, God’s being is the only actually infinite being. That infinitude is in all possible aspects, including temporal extension. God is in time, God is outside of time, and God is beyond time. Eternity is the duration of simultaneity. All time is present before God.

I did not mean that God can’t be in past, but I said past is past in Bible. You said “All time is present before God” but The Holy Bible does not show that, and time is a creature of God, and as you said God is beyond time.

Because to be throughout all time is an aspect of an infinite being, and impossible for a finite being.

Do you mean, God can’t create a creature that is infinite in time and finite in other things?

Yes, God is infinite, but he is infinite in all things. infinity in one thing is not equal to divinity

Knowledge and will are in spirit, not essence. A plant has an essence, but has no knowledge or will. Since intellect and will are spiritual aspects

How you can prove that “Knowledge and will are in spirit, not essence”?

And God is simple so his spirit is his Essence, so even if his knowledge and will are in his spirit they are in his Essence. Then Lord Jesus as a divine person of Trinity who has the divine Essence, must have divine and

then there is a Divine intellect and will in Jesus, as well as a human intellect and will in Jesus. This is because Jesus has a human spirit (since He is fully human), as well as the pure Divine Spirit (since He is fully God). The whole knowledge and power of God cannot be contained in a human vessel. Thus, both the Divine and Human natures remain intact, and necessarily distinct.

Dear Sir, I think we we must continue it on John10:30 and John8:58. As you said “a Divine intellect and will in Jesus” then we have two possible conditions: 1.Jesus in human says “I don’t know” “I do nothing of my own” etc 2.Jesus really did not knowledge and will to do so.

If we can Prove Bible mentioned him as God, the first will be true.

You’re equating essence and being. I’m not sure these are the same.

If you say Lord Jesus has two Essences, then it will be like Nestorianism. show me a Catholic philosopher who says Lord Jesus had two Essences.

The Son has this power out of His own being. But the Son received His being from the Father. He is begotten. Not created or made. The Father is the ultimate source. So yes, everything comes from the Father. Nevertheless, the Son’s knowledge and power are complete, deriving from His being.

Problem is not on the words to use “created” or “made”! As perfect God, another person gave him his being and so he needs other one to exist. Does God need any one?

He does not have to be obedient to the Father, but He is, of His own choosing. Obedience does not imply lack of will.

Is not any problem if God another person by his own choice?

Yes, similar through the Communion of the Saints.

They were so in the Communion of the Saints, So why Lord Jesus prayed so?

 

[javid]

He does not have to be obedient to the Father, but He is, of His own choosing. Obedience does not imply lack of will.

In addition, it may mean a own choosing in John8:28, but in John5:30 Lord Jesus said: “I can do nothing on my own” so it is not a choice.

 

[javid]

You are arguing from silence. The 3 Persons are eternal. There is no “time” that the Son didn’t have prior to the Father giving him. Meaning the possession of everything between Father/Son is eternal. There wasn’t a time that the Son didn’t possess it. Underlying the Trinity is that the 3 persons are co-equal. What you are proposing is moving away from that dogma. You are hinting strongly that there was a time the Son is not coequal with the Father, just “before” receiving this authority.

Dear Sir, it is not arguing from silence, it is what Lord Jesus said. I am not talking on the time, OK God the Father gave it to him, As perfect God, he must have it by own not from another person. Saint Paul said: “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”(Romans11:35) OK God the son had it since the beginning but in the beginning his father gave it to him, and question is: how can it be true for God?

Obviously we have a conundrum between John 16:15 and Mat 28:18. One possibil"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?"ity without sacrificing either verse is Phil 2:6-8. Christ humbled himself as the son of Man in Mat 28:18 and a few other verses.

These verses are not about getting the power and I have another problem on it but I think I must ask it in another threat.

Typically, in human thinking, when we say we are one, we tend to mean we are united in some common purpose. As a group, we act together in unison. We share the same views, same objectives ,we think similarly, our actions although may be different lead to the same objectives.

OK. Why we can’t think oneness of Father and Lord Jesus is such things and it must be in Essence?

Again, you have portray this being a either “essence” or “godhood” situation. But I am saying there are perhaps other options other than these 2. You have to think hard about the other possibilities. Perhaps you might want to reflect the reason for your insistence that only 2 possibilities is available .

OK, several possibilities: but remember that we are here trying to prove that John10:30 is about Essence, so while we can’t prove that only true commentary is that oneness in this verse is in Essence, we can’t prove it. One possibility is that Father and Lord Jesus are not one in Essence as disciples were not one in Essence, but father and Lord Jesus are one and disciples are one in other things.

Remember my friend, I am a catholic and try to find good proofs and I am not going to deny my faith.

I am not denying that. But that is not much of an argument. He is God, therefore he could do it while not wrong doesn’t require that must be the end result.

Well I just wrote it about possibilities.

 

[ericc]

Dear Sir, it is not arguing from silence, it is what Lord Jesus said. I am not talking on the time, OK God the Father gave it to him, As perfect God, he must have it by own not from another person. Saint Paul said: “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”(Romans11:35) OK God the son had it since the beginning but in the beginning his father gave it to him, and question is: how can it be true for God?

The arguing from silence is for the “before” and “after” that you assumed that the Father gave to the Son. The Scripture is silent on the before/after. The Scripture clearly said the Son has everything the Father has. And I will have to repeat there wasn’t a time before/after that the Son did not have. That is the concept of eternal co-equals. He and the Father are one must therefore lead to the conclusion that whatever the Father does, the Son does and vice versa. The oneness is such that you cannot split them up at all. The Father dwells in the Son, as the Son is in the Father, so is the Father in the Son. John 14:10-11.

These verses are not about getting the power and I have another problem on it but I think I must ask it in another threat.

It says everything.

OK. Why we can’t think oneness of Father and Lord Jesus is such things and it must be in Essence?

No one is stopping you! But you must be prepared to defend it that it is one and only possible interpretation. I don’t see it as one and only possible interpretation as I mentioned before. There is no necessity that it must be so.

OK, several possibilities: but remember that we are here trying to prove that John10:30 is about Essence, so while we can’t prove that only true commentary is that oneness in this verse is in Essence, we can’t prove it. One possibility is that Father and Lord Jesus are not one in Essence as disciples were not one in Essence, but father and Lord Jesus are one and disciples are one in other things.

Remember my friend, I am a catholic and try to find good proofs and I am not going to deny my faith.

Well I just wrote it about possibilities.

The rest I will leave you to reflect on. Just bear in mind that you can not sacrifice the truth in one verse for the sake of promoting the truth in another. When you have reconciled these verses, perhaps you may wish to share your findings. Just so that we can have a standard answer to those pesky questions!

 

[MrSnaith]

Let’s think it is God’s name. I how no problem with that, but According to Exodus3:14 God’s name is “I am who I am” and Lord Jesus did not say it, he said before Abraham made I am. And God never used “before someone I am” as his name, before.

I think you missed my point. Obviously, Jesus didn’t speak the full Tetragrammaton. My point was that the Aramaic words that make up the Tetragrammaton were not used by the Jews. They used other words to refer to themselves, etc. Jesus, here, uses the word for “I am” from the Tetragrammaton. The connotation was clear.

Jews even think that Lord Jesus is not their Messiah. We don’t think what they believe is true!!

No, we don’t. Not everything, anway. But we also don’t disregard everything they think/say/interpret, because our religion is the fulfillment of theirs.

Furthermore, All jews do not think in same way!! Gerald Segal, as a jew searcher, believes that this verse do not say that: jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/trinity/what-is-the-claim-where-jesus-says-qbefore-abraham-came-into-being-i-amq-john-858

The reaction of the people Jesus was talking directly to, or the reaction of a scholar two millennia later… I’ll stick with what the text actually depicts.

I did not mean that God can’t be in past, but I said past is past in Bible. You said “All time is present before God” but The Holy Bible does not show that, and time is a creature of God, and as you said God is beyond time.

I don’t understand your argument here.

Do you mean, God can’t create a creature that is infinite in time and finite in other things?

I do mean that, because time is a dimension of finite beings. Time itself is, by definition, finite, because it measures progression.

Yes, God is infinite, but he is infinite in all things. infinity in one thing is not equal to divinity

Show me anything, anything at all, that is actually infinite, but is also a creature, and I’ll concede this point.

How you can prove that “Knowledge and will are in spirit, not essence”?

The essence of spiritual beings contains knowledge and will, but knowledge and will are not, properly speaking, attributes of essence, but of spirit. This is true in the same way that sight is an attribute of a body (eyeballs), not of essence. It’s a matter of category.

And God is simple so his spirit is his Essence, so even if his knowledge and will are in his spirit they are in his Essence. Then Lord Jesus as a divine person of Trinity who has the divine Essence, must have divine and

I already went over this. Jesus has two natures, and therefore two essences. He has the Divine Nature (or Divine Essence) and the human nature (or human essence). So, even if you say that intellect and will are part of essence vs spirit, it doesn’t matter to this question, because Jesus has two wills and two intellects, the Divine Will and Intellect, and the human will and intellect.

Dear Sir, I think we we must continue it on John10:30 and John8:58. As you said “a Divine intellect and will in Jesus” then we have two possible conditions: 1.Jesus in human says “I don’t know” “I do nothing of my own” etc 2.Jesus really did not knowledge and will to do so.

If we can Prove Bible mentioned him as God, the first will be true.

Right, and the Church has always taught that at times Jesus speaks out of His humanity, and at other times, Jesus speaks out of His Divinity.

If you say Lord Jesus has two Essences, then it will be like Nestorianism. show me a Catholic philosopher who says Lord Jesus had two Essences.

This is incorrect. Nestorianism didn’t merely assert that Jesus had two natures. Nestorianism asserted that Jesus was not identical to the Son, but was personally united to the Son. That is not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that of dyophysitism.

If your position is that Jesus had only one nature (or one essence), that is the heresy of monophysitism.

Problem is not on the words to use “created” or “made”! As perfect God, another person gave him his being and so he needs other one to exist. Does God need any one?

This is a loaded question. The assumption that underlies this is that God the Son is somehow separate from God the Father. Their being is one. So the answer is no. God does not need anyone. The Son is begotten by the Father, but His being is the Father’s being.

Is not any problem if God another person by his own choice?

I’m not sure what your question is here.

They were so in the Communion of the Saints, So why Lord Jesus prayed so?

While on earth, the Communion of the Saints in imperfect, because people enter into it, and leave it, throughout their life. Jesus prayed that they may be one because of this.

 

[MrSnaith]

In addition, it may mean a own choosing in John8:28, but in John5:30 Lord Jesus said: “I can do nothing on my own” so it is not a choice.

This is a problem of taking a quotation out of context. Finish the verse:

[30] I cannot of myself do any thing. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

 

[javid]

The arguing from silence is for the “before” and “after” that you assumed that the Father gave to the Son. The Scripture is silent on the before/after. The Scripture clearly said the Son has everything the Father has. And I will have to repeat there wasn’t a time before/after that the Son did not have. That is the concept of eternal co-equals. He and the Father are one must therefore lead to the conclusion that whatever the Father does, the Son does and vice versa. The oneness is such that you cannot split them up at all. The Father dwells in the Son, as the Son is in the Father, so is the Father in the Son. John 14:10-11.

Dear sir, If Lord Jesus has every thing that his father has, then there is nothing to be given to him.

It says everything.

I said it about Phil 2:6-8.

No one is stopping you! But you must be prepared to defend it that it is one and only possible interpretation. I don’t see it as one and only possible interpretation as I mentioned before. There is no necessity that it must be so.

No I don’t think so. I am not denying the Holy Trinity, I am looking for a good prove for it. So possibilities make problem for my target. I need a way to deny these possibilities to prove What church teaches to us is only true way of understanding the Holy Bible.

The rest I will leave you to reflect on. Just bear in mind that you can not sacrifice the truth in one verse for the sake of promoting the truth in another. When you have reconciled these verses, perhaps you may wish to share your findings. Just so that we can have a standard answer to those pesky questions!

I may forget some verses but I never sacrifice any verse of Holy Bible.

 

[javid]

I think you missed my point. Obviously, Jesus didn’t speak the full Tetragrammaton. My point was that the Aramaic words that make up the Tetragrammaton were not used by the Jews. They used other words to refer to themselves, etc. Jesus, here, uses the word for “I am” from the Tetragrammaton. The connotation was clear.

Tetragrammaton is the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. Yes, Jews were not used it to refer themselves, But “I am” does not only mean Tetragrammaton. Humans can use it to refer to themselves, Saint Paul says: “I am free, Am I not? I am an apostle, Am I not?”(1Cor9:1 New American Standard Bible) and he said: “That is why I am suffering as I am.”(2Tinothy1:12; NIV) Even in Old testment: “But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman”(Zechariah13:5)

What Lord Jesus said is similar to What God said to Moese, but He did not say that.

No, we don’t. Not everything, anway. But we also don’t disregard everything they think/say/interpret, because our religion is the fulfillment of theirs.

Yes, but everything they think/say/interpret as they did think that they must stone Lord Jesus but disciples as jews did not think so.

The reaction of the people Jesus was talking directly to, or the reaction of a scholar two millennia later… I’ll stick with what the text actually depicts.

Well, we don’t have reaction of all jew people, just several Jews who were around Lord Jesus and they could take mistake. According to New Testament, Jews did not understand many times what Lord Jesus said.

I don’t understand your argument here.

It is clear, Bible does not say God is present in every time.

I do mean that, because time is a dimension of finite beings. Time itself is, by definition, finite, because it measures progression.

Can’t God create a being that is not in it’s progression?

Show me anything, anything at all, that is actually infinite, but is also a creature, and I’ll concede this point.

I did not say infinite at all, I said infinite in time or timeless.

The essence of spiritual beings contains knowledge and will, but knowledge and will are not, properly speaking, attributes of essence, but of spirit. This is true in the same way that sight is an attribute of a body (eyeballs), not of essence. It’s a matter of category.

Is there any Catholic Philosopher who says that?

I already went over this. Jesus has two natures, and therefore two essences. He has the Divine Nature (or Divine Essence) and the human nature (or human essence). So, even if you say that intellect and will are part of essence vs spirit, it doesn’t matter to this question, because Jesus has two wills and two intellects, the Divine Will and Intellect, and the human will and intellect.

Yes, two wills and two intellects because of his natures, but I do not think he has two Essences! And my question was what is his Essence? and if will and knowledge are in Essence, he as God, must know every thing.

Even if he has two Essences, at list he knows every thing because of one of his intellects, So why he said: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”(Matthew 24:36) As the son he did not know about that day.

Right, and the Church has always taught that at times Jesus speaks out of His humanity, and at other times, Jesus speaks out of His Divinity.

Yes, but we are talking about Church’s reasons.

This is incorrect. Nestorianism didn’t merely assert that Jesus had two natures. Nestorianism asserted that Jesus was not identical to the Son, but was personally united to the Son. That is not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that of dyophysitism.

Dear sir, I said “like Nestorianism”. And please give a evidence that Catholic Church believes that Lord Jesus had two Essences.

If your position is that Jesus had only one nature (or one essence), that is the heresy of monophysitism.

No, My Position is that he had two natures. But I don’t think he has two Essences.

This is a loaded question. The assumption that underlies this is that God the Son is somehow separate from God the Father. Their being is one. So the answer is no. God does not need anyone. The Son is begotten by the Father, but His being is the Father’s being.

If their being is one, so God the Son must exist without begetting of Father.

I’m not sure what your question is here.

Sorry, I meant Can God follow another person by his choose?

While on earth, the Communion of the Saints in imperfect, because people enter into it, and leave it, throughout their life. Jesus prayed that they may be one because of this/.

Dear sir, problem is similarity of oneness, not its conditions.

 

[MrSnaith]

Tetragrammaton is the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. Yes, Jews were not used it to refer themselves, But “I am” does not only mean Tetragrammaton. Humans can use it to refer to themselves, Saint Paul says: “I am free, Am I not? I am an apostle, Am I not?”(1Cor9:1 New American Standard Bible) and he said: “That is why I am suffering as I am.”(2Tinothy1:12; NIV) Even in Old testment: “But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman”(Zechariah13:5)

What Lord Jesus said is similar to What God said to Moese, but He did not say that.

Yes, but everything they think/say/interpret as they did think that they must stone Lord Jesus but disciples as jews did not think so.

Well, we don’t have reaction of all jew people, just several Jews who were around Lord Jesus and they could take mistake. According to New Testament, Jews did not understand many times what Lord Jesus said.

It is clear, Bible does not say God is present in every time.

Can’t God create a being that is not in it’s progression?

I did not say infinite at all, I said infinite in time or timeless.

Is there any Catholic Philosopher who says that?

Yes, two wills and two intellects because of his natures, but I do not think he has two Essences! And my question was what is his Essence? and if will and knowledge are in Essence, he as God, must know every thing.

Even if he has two Essences, at list he knows every thing because of one of his intellects, So why he said: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”(Matthew 24:36) As the son he did not know about that day.

Yes, but we are talking about Church’s reasons.

Dear sir, I said “like Nestorianism”. And please give a evidence that Catholic Church believes that Lord Jesus had two Essences.

No, My Position is that he had two natures. But I don’t think he has two Essences.

If their being is one, so God the Son must exist without begetting of Father.

Sorry, I meant Can God follow another person by his choose?

Dear sir, problem is similarity of oneness, not its conditions.

I’m going to bow out of this conversation. We’re talking in circles. I’ve already answered half of these objections, and I don’t see any evidence you’re hearing what I’m saying. I feel like at this point we’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of arriving at truth.

As far as the question of essence vs nature, I investigated their relationship a few days ago. I assumed you would do the same. For your reference, they are synonyms according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm