Because God the Father and God the Son are of one substance (i.e., ‘consubstantial’). Humans are not; therefore, the ‘oneness’ found in marriage and discipleship are not the same ‘oneness’ that is found in the Holy Trinity.
Actually, we say it because that was the pronouncement of the First Council of Nicaea. Their interpretation of John 10:30 (as well as, if you want to be picky, John 1:1) was that consubstantiality (a.k.a., homoousia) was what is meant in those passages.
So, we aren’t really proving it by John 10:30, so much as asserting that this is what that verse means.
In any case, ‘consubstantiality’ really does answer your question: the Father and the Son are one because they share the same substance; you and your spouse are one body (see Genesis 2:24), and yet, you do not share the same substance.
Moreover, you ask why we interpret this verse in terms of substance rather than as mode or operation. The reason for this is that the Church determined that modalism is an erroneous approach to the understanding of God. You might want to read up on Sabellianism, Patripassianism, or ‘modal monarchism’ to learn more about what these ideas assert and why the early Church rejected them.
Not by faith, but by reason.
Not by the Church, but by the Bible alone.
Interestingly, you seem to have been asking questions of the nature of the Trinity for four years. And, way back then, you claimed only to be ‘Christian’, whereas now you self-identify as ‘Catholic’. (In fact, when you joined here, you stated, “Hi, I am Christian and I believe in Jesus as son of God, But I have several logical questions about Trinity.”)
Yet, you don’t look for the sorts of things that Catholics would identify as authoritative: the faith that we profess, and the expression of that faith as found in the teaching authority of the Church. “Bible alone” isn’t the way that a Catholic would express his faith. How confusing… :hmmm:
So as a biblical reason, we must prove that John10:30 says that “God the Father and God the Son are of one substance.”
No… we don’t. That’s the conclusion that the Church – whom Christ promised to protect, and from whom the NT proceeds, through the inspiration of God – reached in her role as our teacher.
I think it’s worth saying that John 10:30 isn’t “the best” reason we have for believing in the Trinity. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, He did and said things that belonged only to Yahweh. In other words, throughout the old testament, we see and hear Yahweh doing and saying things that only He has the ability and authority to do and say. But, Jesus does many of those things also. A simple example are His actions and pronouncements regarding the Sabbath. The Sabbath, unlike most other Jewish laws, was one of the ten commandments given directly to Moses from God. Yet, Jesus calls Himself “Lord of the Sabbath.” He is claiming the same authority as that of God, Himself.
It should be noted that no other person in history acted and spoke in this manner. Jesus had the same power and authority of the God of the Jews. Power and authority are derived from a person’s nature. Power especially. Jesus could not have had such power by any other means except as having it belong to Him, naturally.
The power and authority that priests exercise they do not exercise of themselves, but as Christ through them. When they exercise these powers and His authority, they always invoke that power in his name. For example, the priest never simply says “I absolve you, go your sins are forgiven.” Rather, he says “I absolve you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And this is how the OT priests and prophets invoked the authority and power of the Lord, by invoking His name.
Jesus never did that. He simply said, “your sins are forgiven.” In other words, He had the authority and the power, He didn’t invoke it from the Father. It belonged to Him. This implies He has the same substantive nature as that of God the Father. It wouldn’t be the same kind of unity that a husband and wife have, nor even the same kind of unity that Christ has with the Church. It is an altogether different kind of unity, that of substance.
This is why the Church interprets John 10:30 in this manner, because the rest of Scripture points to it in this way.
Like MrSnaith says, I’m not at all certain that the Church points exclusively (or even primarily) to John 10:30 as a ‘proof text’ on the nature of the Trinity. If you want to learn why the Church teaches what it does on the Trinity, then you should read up on the history of the early Church. The development of the understanding of the Trinity proceeded from the misunderstandings and heresies that arose in the early Church. So, the Church’s statements on the nature of the Trinity proceeded (initially) in the form of statements refuting others’ errors on the subject. These writings of the early Church Fathers help us recognize what they were thinking through as they developed the doctrine we know today. Over at NewAdvent.org, they have a section on the Church Fathers. I would recommend that you browse over there for insight into the thoughts of the ECFs. Remember, too, that many documents will speak about the Trinitarian controversy of ‘Arianism’ or responding to ‘Arius’.
I have no dobt in the fact that early church believed in incarnation. It is not a question on history, it can be called a question about commentary.
No… in this case, if you’re asking about the ‘hows and whys’, it’s really a historical question you’re asking. The complete answer just can’t be provided in a forum post; you’re best off picking up a book on Church history or on the theology of the Trinity. Two that I might recommend include:
Emery, Gilles. The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011.
Marmion, Declan, and Rik Van Nieuwenhove. An Introduction to the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
So you mean that to such commentary of John10:30 we have a look at other verses of Bible.
Well, as we see in Bible, some great men do what belongs to Yahoweh. For example, God created man by DUST and Moses created snake by wood! Or about bringing the dead back to life must done by God, but Elisha did it. And some laws of Judaism changed by saint paul. So a great agent can say and do what God does, by his permission, as Lord Jesus said: “I do nothing on my own”(John8:28) and we can find a simillar quote in Old Testament: "Joseph replied: “I cannot do it, but God will give pharaoh the answer he desires.” And in next chapter Joseph gives him the answer, so he said him what God said.
On the other hand, oneness between disciples must be as the oneness between Lord Jesus and father(John17:22) Is this true to say disciples had one same human nature, because they were one as Lord Jesus and Father are ond?
In Exodus 7:8-9, we see that God commands Moses and Aaron to do this. Thus, it is by His power that it is done, not theirs.
In 4 Kings (2 Kings) 4:33, Elisha prays over the child immediately before raising him from the dead. Thus, we see that it is not by Elisha’s power that the child is raised, but by God’s. Jesus, on the other hand, simply tells the girl to arise (Mark 5:41).
This power was given to the Apostles in Matt 18:18. Again, we see here that laws can be changed by Jesus’ authority.
It is incorrect to read John 8:28 the same way we read Genesis 41:16. Note, Joseph says “I cannot do it.” That is, it is not in his power to do so. This is not what Jesus says. Jesus does not say “I can do nothing on my own” (which is how you’re reading it)… He said “I do nothing on my own.” The difference here is that of choice, or power. Just because Jesus does nothing on His own, doesn’t mean He cannot do anything on His own. That He chooses to do all things with the Father doesn’t mean He has no power to do anything except by the Father’s will.
Jesus was praying that they would be one. This implies they were not one. So the answer to your question is no.
More than that, however, Jesus was calling them to a radical new form of unity. Not merely unity in cause, or unity in belief, or social unity, or even familial unity. Rather, He was calling His disciples to a unity in being, analogically like marital unity, but deeper, more like the kind of unity that the Father and Son have. Such unity could only be achieved through our Lord, who transcends human limitations and boundaries. This is why the early Church Fathers talked about human deification; that we should become little Christs and share in the Divine Life of the Trinity, by and through God’s power and will.
Lord Jesus said: “I do nothing myself; but just speak as father taught me”(John8:28) and he said: “All powers given to me.”(Matthew28:18) So it means that Father commands him and the power is just given to him and is not his power.
Absolutely, Lord Jesus did not say I cannot but said I don’t. Notice that according to John8:28 Father commands Lord Jesus and he do according his will. Just as other Prophets in Old Testament.
Yes before his prayer they was not one, but after that they must be one as father and Lord Jesus are one; So if oneness of father and Lord Jesus is in essence, their oneness must be in essence too.
But if unity of disciples was in belief or other things, why unity of Father and Lord Jesus is not so?
Read the rest of the discourse. Jesus tries again and again to explain who He is, that He is the Son of the Father. Finally, in John 8:58: “Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.”
Read that very carefully. Jesus does not say “I was” which would be proper to an ancient creature. He says “I am,” which denotes that the time before Abraham is present to Him even as He speaks. This is a quality of the Eternal God.
Furthermore, the phrase “I am” is the first part of the Tetragrammaton, the name God for Himself that He revealed to Moses. This is why the Jews picked up stones to stone Him with immediately after He says this, because the claim is quite clear: Jesus claims to be Yahweh.
So, we’re presented with a seeming contradiction. Jesus claims to be God, but at the same time claims that power was given to Him. He claims to be Yahweh, but also the Son of Yahweh. Confusing right?
One way this has been resolved is to say that Jesus here is speaking from His humanity. His human nature does not possess all power, but His Divine nature does. Note, Jesus doesn’t say that God have Him all power. Of course, who else could, right? But does that power come from the Father, or the Son? One might read this passage as the humanity of Christ saying He has received all power from His own divinity.
Alternatively, one might look at the inner family of the Trinity and see that though there is a co-equality there, there is also a hierarchy. The Father is the head of the Trinitarian family, and the Son and Spirit act in accordance or obedience to His will. Furthermore, since the Son was begotten of the Father, all that He (the Son) is, comes from the Father, including all knowledge and power.
Therefore, one might read here that all knowledge and power come from the Father, or one might also read that Jesus has been permitted to exercise all power. Either way, Jesus has all power, not necessarily because He has none by virtue of His own nature, but rather He has it by virtue of the Divine Order.
We are to be one in all things, even in being. Yes, we are called to a radical new kind of unity. We are called to be one in being through Jesus, by uniting ourselves to Him. We then share in a kind of communion with each other that is like the communion shared by the persons of the Trinity.
John 16:15 says “All that the Father has is mine”. So if the Son has everything that the Father has, there is nothing that the Father need to give to the Son.
That is the danger of taking one verse and take it to mean a specific view only. At the end of the day, you still need to defer to the Church for interpreting the Bible. The Bible came from the Church. The proclamations of the Councils came from the Church. You can’t just take one and conveniently ignore the other.
Yes before his prayer they was not one, but after that they must be one as father and Lord Jesus are one;
To pray is to ask, not an edict or command. And they were NOT one. Judas, one of them, betrayed his master. At the crucifixion, they were not one. Only John was at the foot of the cross the others dispersed. After the resurrection, Thomas doubted. If they were one, he won’t have doubted. So the “must” is not a necessary conclusion. The facts don’t even support it. Tagging any sentence with the “Father and I are one” does not make those preceding subjects into one.
So if oneness of father and Lord Jesus is in essence, their oneness must be in essence too.
That is fallacious reasoning. No reason to deduce that oneness of Father/Son in essence must lead to oneness in essence of the apostles. First define what is one is human essence. What it means. How do you deduce that is what the verse means.
But if unity of disciples was in belief or other things, why unity of Father and Lord Jesus is not so?
There is nothing to mandate that conclusion. You can extrapolate, but you can not force it to be so unless you have convincing reason to do so. There is no linkage. You can persuade me/us.
God is Spirit, the Apostles are not. The nature of Apostles are of human kind, each of them different in nature. The oneness of human kind, no matter how close, just cannot attain that of the Trinity. We suffer human death and that would not permit us to be one. Each Apostle has his own mind and freewill which they still retained after the prayer of unity from Jesus.