Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK.
John's Gospel is presented as his eyewitness account of what he saw and what Jesus taught. It is presented as fact, not John's opinion. There is no supposition or conjecture. Therefore, if what he wrote is wrong he is either a liar or crazy.
What he wrote is that the Spirit "will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears." That doesn't sound like God. He will glorify Jesus because he will take what Christ's, and that is the same as the Father's. That doesn't describe someone co-equal.
In the proper context it is fully consistent with co-equality. Many times the Bible explains concepts that are in truth beyond our complete comprehension in terms we can best understand. What is described here are roles of Persons, for our benefit, not superior-subordinate relationships. Throughout all of the Gospels Jesus says that He is there to do the will of the Father, yet no Christian interprets this to mean the Son is inferior to the Father. To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face.
You're not a trial lawyer, are you! ten eyewitnesses almost invariably tell ten noticeably different stories, FK, without any of them being either a liar or crazy.
"In the proper context it is fully consistent with co-equality. Many times the Bible explains concepts that are in truth beyond our complete comprehension in terms we can best understand. What is described here are roles of Persons, for our benefit, not superior-subordinate relationships. Throughout all of the Gospels Jesus says that He is there to do the will of the Father, yet no Christian interprets this to mean the Son is inferior to the Father."
Very good, FK. +Gregory Palamas would be pleased!
"To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face."
But it's OK to deny the "monarchy" of the Father by an embrace of the filioque clause?