Nestle GNT 1904 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Iohonnon 10:30 This Greek sentence is used to prove Trinity. ἐγὼ means I,καὶ means and,Πατὴρ means father ,ἕν means one and ἐσμεν means are. This is correctly translated as follow: I and Father are one. Trinitarians and Athanasians argue as follow:= The Greek word for “one” i.e" ἕν " is neuter. So oneness /unity of any thing which is not neuter cannot be accepted. Therefore it cannot be Oness of Thought. Since the thought is not neuter. Similarly the person is also not neutet therefore, neither the oness of Person nor the Oness of Thought can be meant.Essence is however neuter. Therefore the word means " in one par se subsistent essence/ousia or one in per se subsistent essence/ousia. This mean Iesous and Father are in one Essence/ Ousia and One in Essence/ Ousia. The word And ,and the word Are in the plural form the assert of distinctness. as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. Note: There is no word for My in Greek.
First Discussion: In the John there is an other sentence which is as follow: Nestle GNT 1904 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. Greek Orthodox Church 1904 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσί, καὶ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.17:11 GRK: ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν καθὼς
The word ἓν is the same as in 10:30. So if the neuter word implies One in Essence /Ousia or In One Essene then the same meaning is in 17:11. “NT itself EXPLAINS its meaning.,” . In the Seventeenth Chapter of Iohn’s Gospel, it is reported that Iesus prayed to God for his followers.: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.” A number of Commentators and Translators insert the English word May in the meanings of the word. One of them is as follow:= 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. Kings Iames version Does this means Iesous was praying that his followers may be added in the Divine Ousia/Essence as Hypostases. Does it mean that Iohonnon believed that there are two types of Hypostases in tge Per Se Subsistent Godhead of God?:= 1)Eternal Hypostases. 2) Non Eternal Hypostases. Does Iohonnon mean that Iesous was praying for the addition of new hypostases in the Divine Essence? If the Trinitarian Argument is correct in the sentence 10:30.then it answers of these question are also correct in affirmative mood. But this is not where things end . If these are correct it may be the case that Logos and Pneuma are just two Made Hypostases in the Divine Per Se Subsistent Ousia/ Essence. Ieous or Logos was just praying for the addition of some more Not Eternal Hypostases. But if this sentence 17:21 .is not in this meaning then what so ever the meaning of this sentence (17:21) is it is the meaning of the sentence I and Father are One (17:21). A Trinitarian at this point lis likely to owe to Trinitarian Theology that making of a Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia in Supreme Being is Impossible anf even Omnipotent God cannot make a Hypostasis in His Ousia/Essence even of He wants to do it. But this is just a Theology and not Explicit sentences of Hebraic Bible and New Covenant. So the demand is just to provide Explicit sentences proving the impossibility of addition of Not Eternal Hypostases in the Per Se Subsistent Divine Essence/Ouisa. But if one see that there are some more meanings which are given in translations:=
1]that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. Net Bible. The translator has changed the word May by the word Will. This shew that the Greek word can mean Will or Shall. But this translator added the word "Pray". 2] Aramaic Bible in Plain English translates by the word Shall to make some emphasis. “That they all shall be one, just as you, my Father, are in me, and I am in you, so that they also shall be one in us. “ But one may also translate as follow rjecteing the deceptive verbs like May, Will Shall as follow. That they all be one; as Thou, Father, Art in me, and I in Thee, that they also be one in us: that the world believes that Thou Hast sent me ( in them ). If the word Be be replaced by the words like Are ,is [which are different forms of the word Be and are Verbs to be , one may get the following meaning. That they all are one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also are one in us: that the world believes that Thou Hast sent me ( in them ). ωσιν verb - present subjunctive - third person be -- + appear, are,be, may be, might be, should be, would be, will be, shall be be, have, is, + pass the flower of her age, should stand, were.
Even in this meaning it is clear that they all were in the Divine Essence/Ousia as Hypostases, in the Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia. If 17:21 . means what Trinitarians and Athanasians take , then the meanings of these sentences must be the same , and this say that either Iesous was praying for the addition of new Hypostases in Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of God or they were already in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia at the time of Iesous was saying these sentences from his own mouth and tongue, and not an Trinitical Interpretation ascribed to lord Iesous.
SECOND DISCUSSION A lot depend upon the meaning of the word "Father". In more clear words and sentence , it depend upon the Subject of the word Father.
In Trinitarian and Athanasian system Father is a Per Se Subsistent Rational Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence /Ousia of Supreme Being. So if some one is one in Essence/Ousia or In One Essence/Ousia of Supreme Being then that one is an other Rational Hypostasis. So one has to admit however unwillingly that if the word or noun Father is used for a Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of the Supreme Being then the argument of Trinitarians and Athanasians is in support of Trinity or a paert of the dogma of Trinity is correct. One may elaborate the Athanasian and Trinitarian argument for the Trinitical Dogma as follow: The word Father is used for a Per Se Subsistent Rational Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia Of the Supreme Being. The word I is used for Iesous for Iesous Himself. The Greek word (H)EN is used in neuter which means either One In Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia or In One Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia or both in Real meaning.( 1 ) The words And and Are [Conjunction and Verb] are used not to mean Seperation and Alienation but for Incommucablity and Distinction /Distinctness. So Iesous is in the Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence/ Ousia of Supreme Being yet Distinct and Incommunicabel from the Father a Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis. This imples that Iesous is an other Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the stated above Per Se Subsistent Ousia/ Essence in Supreme Being. So this sentence not only refutes Sebellism but also Arianism. But if some one considers the word Father as a Noun Of Supreme Being instead of a Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence of the Supreme Being then the argument is certainly incorrect even on the a and Athanasian Systems. The words Are and And are general words and can be used for Distnction and Seperation alike. In Trnitarian system Distinction is more general then seperation. One that is Seperate from Supreme Being is also distinct frome the Supreme Being. But the Converse is not True. If a thing is Distinct it may not be seperates. Like the Hypostases are mutually distinct but not seperate from one an other. So if some thing is disinct from Supreme Being then that thing is seperate from Supreme Being. So if the words like And and Are are used to shew simple distinction even then they imply Speration if the word father is used as for the Supreme Being either as a Noun or as an Epithet or Active Participle (Noun Of Doer like worker,player, maker,watcher ,doer etc) or else. So both Trinitarians and Unitarians are even once again since there is an equal possibility for each of the two type of sects to chose a subject of the word Father . As both of the meanings are equally Possible and it is just a matter of choice .
As both of them are possible it is not the argument is at best weak and at worst invalid. How even the question is in what neuter meaning the Supreme Being and Made Being are one. They are certainly not in Per Se Subsistent Essence / Ousia. Now there is a trick often played and that is when an Unitarian states a meaning what so eveir it may be or how so ever accurate it may be , some [Not All] Trinitarians try to refute this meaning to prolong the discussion and to shift it from its actual position. Since the Unitarian attempts to refute the refutation and this results in the change of the topic of the discussion.[See Dicussion Three]. So the best responses to this question are:= 1] A Question is neither an objection nor an Argument. 2] It is in the same meaning Iesous used the word in the following sentence:=
GRK: ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν καθὼς So no need to ask this question, if you do know the meaning of the Greek sentence immediatley above. Thus the answer is accurate . It may still be said that although the word father may be taken for the Supreme Being but it is probable that it is taken for a Par Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the Ousia/Essence of the Supreme Being to which the Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essnce in the Supreme Being is highly Comminicable, a proper answer is that how so ever it is improbable and unlikely that the word Father is used for Supreme Being in the Tradition reported by Yohonnon/Iohn it is still not impossible. So an Improbable is still Possible. An Article of faith must be based on Certainty ; neither On Most Probable nor On Almost Certain but on pure Certainty. So this is an incorrect argument. But this response is from the perspective of Athanasianism and Trinitarianism. From the perspective of Nutralism both are atleast equally probable and possible and from the perspective of Unitarianism the use of the word father for Supreme Being is more preferabe and more Probable.
Sabellianism and Sabellian Trinity Trinitarians try to refute Sabellian Trinity by arguing that Iesous and Father are not one inPerson since the word One In Greek is En which is Neuter.The answer to this argument may be given by a Sabellian that if Iesous and Father are one in Essence/Ouisa even then they may be different modes of one and same Ousia/ Essence of the Supreme Being. The words like And and Are can be used between any two modes of the Supreme Being. So it is incorrectly assumed that Father and Iesous/Logos are one and the same Modes in Sebellian Trinitical System. The are two distict
modes. Further to claim that the words And and Are cannot be used between two modes but only between two natures is incorrect and it is very difficult to provide any explicit proof from Hebrew Bible or from New Covenant for this claim. Trinitarian theology may not be conSo the argument against Sabellian Trinity is not so powerful. A two or three Modes of God are One In Per Se Subsistent Essence. I t is not necessary for two or modes to be Immament , they may yet be External.Also there are some more answers which may be provided by a Sebellian.Ask some simple Question:=Are Father and the Per Se Subsistent Godhead One?Are Logos/Iesous and Per Se Subsistent Godhead One?Are Godhead and God One?Are Divine Per Se Subsistent Nature and Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia One.Are Divine Substance and Divine Essence One?Are Divine Form and Divine Per Se Subsistence One? Are Human Nature and the Hypostasis Logos One?Are the Hypostatic Union and the Hypostasis Logos One? Such questions if answered in affermative form implies that Sabellian argument is not so easy to refute. Modes if Eternal still share the Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of God. [It must be noted that a question is not an argument yet their answers do shew that they are one in majority of answers ].
Further it may be said that One and Only Hypostasis in Divine Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence Menifested in Three Non Eternal Persons. As these persons are Non Eternal and External they are distinct . As these are Manifestations they do not have Essences and Ousie of their Own and they owe to the Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence /Ousia for their continuation and Existence. It may be said that Father ,Logos and Pneuma are just three Super Natures assumed by the Only Hypostasis in Godhead. These assumed nature are mutually distinct yet Assumed by one and only; and one and the same the same Hypostasis. Soif Logos was Crucified it is not implied that Father was Crucified. Many things can be said which can prove that Sabellian can still response Athanasian and Trinitarian argument and equally reject their theological aproach. For example according to Trinitarian Theological System a the Human Nature is not a Rational Hypostasis [i.e Person] but A Sebellion may say that in their temonnological system or nomeclature the term person can be applied upon both of them. For example the human nature of Christ is not a Human Person. How ever if the Hypostatic Union is supposed to ceased it immediately be upgraded to a Human Person or It Imeediately Cease to exist. But what is the difference between a Human Person and the Human Nature Of Christ/Logos/Iesous. Answers are once again different. Yet all agree there are some known or unknown differences what so ever they are, and what so ever they may be. But a Sabellian Theologians can say that he/she uses the word Person in more general meaning or defination which can be applied to Trinitarian Human Persons and Trinitarian Human Nature . So what is once again the point. The argument of Sabellians is not so weak if the argument of Athanasians and Trinitarians is some what stronger then theirs.
If so then Trinitarian argument is not so strong it has some weakness. This is sufficient to prove that this Greek Sentence can not be used for making arguments for trinity based upon it. Since it lacks the required strenght. It may be noted that required strenght is the certitute which it lacks. So one must not use this Greek Sentence as a convincing proof for the Dogma Of Trinity or a Part of the Dogma Of Trinity. Consider that there is Only One Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of Supreme Being. Suppose that Iesous did say that He and Father are One in Per Se Subsistent Neuter Essence/Ousia. He remain silent on the issue whether he is That Hypostasis or not. But if there is Only One Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence Of God then the only conclusion is that Iesous is the Only Hypostasis in Per Se Subsistent Divine Hypostasis. So the difference between Father and Iesous becomes some what like OR exactly like the difference between Logos and Iesous or Son and Logos or Son of God and God the Son etc. One may also say that Father is the Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia [Godhead] and Iesous is the Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the said Ousia/Essence. Even in Trinitical Philosophy Logos and Godhead stated above are not two but one. So in the very same meaning They can be called one. Presenting this thing it is just tried to shew that this Greek Sentence can be used not only by Athanasians but by Sabellians as well. Only the latter have less Philosopher to defent their position. But if this is the case then one can see that Greek Orthodox lacks Philosophers like Aquanas Thomas , Augustine etc. but it does not mean that they are in a weak position against Roman Catholocs. Similarly Sebellion are not so weak in their position as they are claimed to be by Athanasians. WHAT IF THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSE SUBSISTENT HYPOSTASIS IN PERSE SUBSISTENT GODHEAD OF GOD. Actually Sabellians believe that there is Only One Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis the Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence of God. So if Iesous and that Hypistasis are One then they are one and the Same Hypostasis.So the word ONE does not make any problem for them in neuter form of Greek. Since it is equal for them . Since according to them Iesous and Father are One in Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence, which implies that they are One in Hypostasis. Yet different modes or assumed natures etc. There argument is that three Hypostases in Godhead/Divinity was unknown to Judaism just like the forth Hypostasis in Godhead is unknown to Trinitarians and Athanasians. There is no explicit
sentence in New Covenant that claims that there is no forth Hypostasis in Godhead yet it is believed so in Athanasianism and Trinitarianism. Similarly if there is no sentence in Hebraic Bible which says that there is no second or third Hypostasis in Godhead it means that their is no second or third Hypostasis in Judaism. An Athanasian must have to accept that Judaism did believe that there is Atleast one Hypostasis in Godhead and they did not know whether there are Other Hypostases in Gohead or not. Yet they fully understand That Iesous is claimimg to be a Hypostasis in Gohead. While accepting room for other Hypostases they rejected the claim of Iesous. On the contrary the Sabellians believe that Judaism believed in only One Hypostasis and the believed that Iesous is claiming to be Only Per Se Subsistent Hypostasis in the Divine Per Se Subsistent Ousia/Essence. [This shall be discussed in Discussion Four] But latter on much more subtle thoughts were presented making Sabellianism more and more invincible for Athanasianism.
THIRD DISCUSSION Every thing reduces to find a neuter word so that Iesous and Father are One in that meaning of that neuter word. Substance or Ousia or Essence are not the only neuter words. Any neuter word in which they can be called One /En is a proof that there is equal possibility for both Uniterians and Trinitarians to take their respective meanings. If an argument is correct if one of the meaning is chosen and incorrect if any other is chosen then in principle the argument is neither certain nor convincing. But it is better to decide trinitarian in what meaning they take the word En in the
: [
sentence. 17 21 Iohonnon
]
FORTH DISCUSSION
COMMENTARY OF THE SENTENCE. I and Father are One This means I and Supreme Being are One. This implies that Iesous and Supreme Being are distinct and Seperate Since One that is Distinct From Supreme Being is a Created Being and All Created Beings are Seperated from Supreme Being. In what meaning Iesous was one with Supreme Being? As one that is Distinct from Supreme Being is a Creation and a Made Thing , it implies that if the
Word Father is used for the Supreme Being by Iesosu then it is impossible that he used the neuter word En/Hen for Oness in Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia of Supreme Being. Exodus 7:1 says
I have made thee God to Pharaoh; If God to a single human being then God to all things. Even a Trinitarian accepts that Moses was not a God in the meaning of Supreme Being.[ Any how the following sentences are quite relevent thought borrowed from The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible with changes by the present author].
So the same thing may be said for the Oness of Iesous and Supreme Being. Iesosu was not one in Divine Per Se Subsistent Essence /Ousia/Nature/Form/Substance/Divinity but made so; he was so by commission and office, granted with powers and authority from God to act under God in all things He should direct; [not for ever EVEN TRINITARIANS ACCEPT KNOSIS], as angels are gods/ Gods, but for a time; not in an ordinary way, as magistrates are gods, but in an extraordinary manner; how ever where Moses was made not to any other human being but to Pharaoh (
2 ),Only, being an ambassador of God to him,Iesous /Logos was made one to a
number of things. [ Some Changes from: The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible]
(Borrowed and slightly changed from The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible) Conclusion: Whether the Noun Father was used for Supreme Being or a Hypostasis in the Per Se Subsistent Essence Of the Supreme Being is the actual question. If it is used for the said Hypostasis in Per Se Subsistent Essence/Ousia /Divinity in Supreme Being then Athanasian Trinitarians may argue yet they have to combat Sabellian Trinity and Sabellian Trinitarians. But if the word/noun is used for Supreme Being they cannot argue. So to claim that Unitarian Sects like JW etc. are in a weaker position is incorrect at least in regard to this Greek Sentence.
FIFTH DISCUSSION A number of Athanasians and Trinitarians argue that Jewish audiance correctly understood his claim so they tried to hurt Iesous. The Greek term `equal' (ison) cannot be used in favour of homoousia .
The sentence structure clearly shows that Iohn is reporting or writing the false accusation made by audiance of Iesous even if he is writing the report under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not the view of the Holy Spirit/Ghost. One may see the entire chapter him/herself . It may be said that No serious scholar or commentator has ever questioned it. This may be modified as follow:= No Trinitarian scholar or commentator has ever questioned it. Since they know the problem of the Trinitarianism and accusation argument. But we began to analyse the entire situation of event occured. Iesous' Audiance either misunderstood him and were unable to understand Iesous or the deliberately made a false accusation on Iesous. The question is why Iesous did not corrected them immediatley. Once again a question is not an argument for Trinity. But things are quite clear. A number of time Audiance of Iesous did not understood him. Proof: This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.[Iohonnon10:6] His audiance made this accusation as according to the Non Synoptic Gospel in New Covenant: 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. Iesous then tries to clearify his position he says:
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Iesous definitzes his position. He again said: 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. But his audiance did not understood him once again. They misunderstood him once more and attempted to hurt him. Proof: 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand. So in such a situation it was not possible to explain his words. He had to escape. Athanasians think his audiance understood him correctly. But this is not the first time he was misunderstood as proved above. Yohonnon did anticipated it that is why he reported the Evengelion Tradition in 17: In the words of Iesous Himself to prove that the allegation stated above was false and wrong. Consider the answer of Iesous: 35 If he called them gods/Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; What IESOUS did want to say that He is One in the meaning the word of God did come to him. QED ============================================================================== ============================================================================== ( 1 ) Or Both. Actually both are exactly one in meaning a Tautology.
( 2 ) One may differ at this point. Since if God to one human being then God to all Human Being. But this is not Henotheism. Please not it.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. 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. that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. “That they all shall be one, just as you, my Father, are in me, and I am in you, so that they also shall be one in us. “ I pray that all of these people continue to have unity in the way that you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they may be united with us so that the world will believe that you have sent me. that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. ωσιν verb - present subjunctive - third person o o: e ay; etc. be -- + appear, are, (may, might, should) be, have, is, + pass the flower of her age, should stand, were.
“That they all are one, just as thou, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so that they also are one in us. “