Okay, let's look into this...
Let’s.....
In John 10:30, Jesus said, "The Father and I are one.” and in John 17:21, He said, " As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
OK.....let’s see what Jesus actually said, not just the cherry picked verses.
John 10:30 is actually countered by John 17:20-22 if you read on one more verse....where Jesus said....
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”. (ESV)
Being “one” means being in full harmony or agreement, with the Father, the son and those who become disciples of Christ, all being ‘on the same page’. (1 Corinthians 1:10) You have to let all of what scripture says, to teach the truth. Cherry picking is dangerous.
If a person was to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of Christendom’s version of God, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? The truth is, they would not, because every single scripture they use is never a clear declaration for either God or his son that they are other than what they themselves say about their relationship.....Father and son are separate entities. A son cannot be equal to his father because his father caused his birth. A father always exists before his son, so that one who is "begotten" needs a "begetter". The pre-human Jesus was always God's "firstborn"......one used by the Father in the creation of all things. (Colossians 1:15-17) It is God and his Christ who determined their relationship....not humans.
What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, (the one Jesus called "the only true God". John 17:3) separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also a separate and distinct personage, the first of God's creations......and subordinate to his God. (John 14:28; Revelation 3:14) The son did not convey his own message, but was told what to teach by his God and Father. (John 12:48-49)
And John wrote in 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I don't know how much more proof you need than these verses. . . . .
I always shudder when people write such nonsense as the Greek word "theos" in John 1:1 does not mean what many assume that it means in English. Are you a bona fide scholar of Koine Greek? Are your credentials so impeccable that you claim that virtually every Christian scholar disagrees with you? If so, what are they?
The Koine Greek does not lie, but the scholars who interpreted it have, because they have not translated the Greek without bias creeping onto their translation.
Those "bona fide scholars" were all trinitarians, and so their translation reflected their strongly held belief.
Using Strongs Concordance in no way invalidates what I showed you.....
John 1:1 in the Greek states.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
"Theos" is translated "god" because it means basically 'a divine mighty one', "a god or goddess or divinity", which described all of the Greek gods. Since the Jews had ceased using the divine name, there was no way in the Greek language to identify the (now) nameless "God" of the Jews, so they used the definite article ('ho" meaning "the") to identify "the only true God" (John 17:3) from all other gods. You can see it in the interlinear translation above.
Only the first mention of "God" has the definite article, where the second does not. That means one is "the God" and the other is "a god" or "divine, god-like one".
Most in Christendom know "theos" as "God" (capital "G") but the Greek had no upper or lower case, and no punctuation.....so again it was open to interpretation as to whether a capital "G" was used or not. It is clear to any observer that doctrine dictated the rendering more so than correct translation.
Most also believe that John 10:31-36 is proof that the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be "God", even though he never identified himself as such. Read it in your own translation first and then read it from the Greek Interlinear.....
In Greek it reads...
"31 The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?"
The definite article identifies Yahweh (
ho theos) from the son (theos).
One little word Jim B....the omission of which is deliberate and misleading...and changes the whole meaning of this passage....as well as John 1:1.
I fully accept the scholarship that overwhelmingly translates John 1:1 as saying that Jesus was God. That fact that you have to resort to Strong's Concordance to prove your point shows the limits of your knowledge.
Here is what the Expositor's Bible Commentary has to say about John 1:1. Read it and you might just learn something...<snipped for brevity>
You are free to believe whatever, and whomever you wish.....but if this doctrine is based on poor translation, as the above scriptures prove, then shouldn't it be exposed for what it is? What benefit is there in believing something that is not true, especially something so important as the very nature of God himself?
The pre-existent Jesus was always the "only begotten son of God" because he was unique in all creation......he was the first and only direct creation of his Father, and was used as the agency "through" whom all creation came. (Colossians 1:15-17)
Just read the Bible for yourself and do some homework that is outside of the doctrines promoted by the most unchristian organizations on earth......the divided churches of Christendom....the original ones planted by the devil so long ago, that people can't see how they have been manipulated to believe his lies, rather than an unpopular truth.
We all have decisions to make.....and we will all be judged on them as expressions of our own free will.