Here is true eisegesis at work DJ. Let common sense and context prevail. If one in "purpose" was Jesus' intent - the Jews would not have reacted as they did. Didn't the Jews have unity of purpose with the father? Therefore, his argument fails from an internal standard.
Jesus did not mean that He and the Father were the same person of the Godhead. If He had meant that, He would have used the masculine form of the word translated "one" (Gr. heis). Instead He used the neuter form of the word (Gr. hen). He meant that He and the Father were one in their action. Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vs. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
AT Robertson states regarding "hen"
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP).
In The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible we read, "Heis means one numerically while hen means one in essence, as in John 10:30; 'I and My Father are one (hen)' (i.e., one in essence although two different personalities). Had it said heis, it would have meant one person" (Zodhiates, p. 1711).
“What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” — New International Version. “God’s Son,” not God.
Note - not ONCE did Jesus deny the charge. Infact, in His discussion in vs 32-39. In fact, Ps 82 may have sent them into deep thought so when He made the proclamation a second time, they concluded, "He's blasphemed again!" (vs 39).
Other verses make it clear that the Jews had other reasons for wanting to stone Jesus, including performing miracles on the Sabbath, and fear of loss of their political positions.
Once again this gets the context wrong. Jewish law permitted stoning for specific offenses - even the Jewish leadership knew their hands were tied and the accusation for Jesus' execution was blasphemy.
(The above blog is not mine.) bar_enosh
Are you that concerned regarding a blog that you are a significant contributor to Solomon?
What I see bar_enosh trying to do is neuter God. Cut Him down to size. I see no love of God in what the JW's try to do to His fullness.
And I suppose that bar_enosh thought that I wouldn't know what exegesis and eisegesis is. But the JW's use eisegesis as do all cults, read into the Word whatever you want.