Well, strictly speaking, not having the knowledge the FATHER has.
I am familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim thuat when Jesus says "I and the Father are one," he means one in purpose. I never found that persuasive.
I don't usually do the 'great huge chunk o' Scripture' thing, but I think this section from the so-called "High Priestly Prayer" in the Gospel according to John, is a pretty high-falutin' way of saying "one in purpose," if that's all it means.
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
Yes, “Father” is the word used and I should’ve noted that.
“I am familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses’ claim thuat when Jesus says “I and the Father are one,” he means one in purpose. I never found that persuasive.”
As I am. Certainly when when two people say they are “one” it means far more than just purpose, ..... attitude, experience, moral character, so forth is involved for them to be “one”.
One in purpose IS an over simplification to be sure given Jesus’ statements about the closeness he has with his father.
But what we do see in this prayer is a comparison of the the relationship between Jesus and the Father and that of the disciples, as in vs. 22: “..that they may be one even as we are one”,
It follows then that Jesus could say he and his Father were “one” without it necessarily referring to a trinity.
The Middle Eastern way of expression does seem “high falutin’” to our English language speakers, doesn't it?
Mad Dawg: Well, rictly speaking, not having the knowledge the FATHER has
But Father is the only one in the NT identified as God, and the only one prayed to. So, cyc's comment that the Son is a created being, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev 3:14, KJV), goes hand in hand with "the firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15, KJV).
Furthermore, cyc's argument finds more 'meat' in Jesus' own admissions "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and, again, when Jesus refers to the Father as his God (cf. John 20:17).
Post-Nicene Church busied itself with a blatant alteration of the scriptures in order to "sneak in" evidence of the Triniatrian dogma which equates all three divine Hypostases in essence, as co-equal, co-eternal godliness.
Numerous verses have been altered in various ways for that purpose, such as 1 John 5:7 (the [in]famous Comma Johanneum), 1 Timothy 3:16 (changing he was manifest to God was manifest— an easy although blatant change in slightly different ink), Acts 20:28 (changing the church of God to church of the lord and to church of God and the Lord), John 1:18 (changing only begotten Son to only begotten God), 1 Peter 3:15 (changing Christ to God), etc.