So we move on.
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”
The discussions between trinitarians are extensive and full of arguments and counter arguments. The experience of the Trinity is really what the New Testament mentions most rather than doctrinal formulas for theological debate.
And just because John Calvin had a problem with something does not mean that all other Bible scholars have to have the same opinion.
John 1:1,14 prologue is the governing statement about the relationship between the Word and God.
1.) He was with God
2.) He was God.
3.) He became flesh.
Discussions on disputes about John 10:30 do little to effect this.
Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.
This does not make Robbie's case that the Word is not God and the Word being God did not became flesh.
Neither does this ANYTHING to Isaiah's prophecy that the child born is called Mighty God and the son given is called Eternal Father.
Jehovah is the Mighty God -
"The Mighty One, God Jehovah, Speaks and summons the earth" (Psalm 50:1 RcV)
" Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible. " (Webster Bible Translation)
"Thou shalt not fear them, because the Lord thy God is in the midst of thee, a God mighty and terrible: " (Douay Rheims Bible)
Nehemiah 9:32 -
"And now, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God ..." (RcV)
And of course there is only one divine Father who is eternal.
Verse 35 says
"If He said they were gods, to whom the word of God cane, and the Scripture cannot be broken, Do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God ? "
This is significant on two grounds.
1.) Scripture cannot be broken. Therefore the child who is Mighty God and the Son who is Eternal Father is ALSO a scripture that cannot be broken.
2.) God did call angels gods in
Psalm 82:6. He exposes their hysteria and ignorance of their own scripture in their over reaction.
But I think what is more important to the meaning of John 10:30 -
"I and the Father are one" and them RIGHTLY asserting that He was making Himself God is what Jesus says in the following verse 37 -
"If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; But if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father."
In other words if He ACTS like God then they can believe that He is God.
What Jesus stresses is His life is manifested as being one with God.
He lives like His Father. So they should believe based on the testimony of His living. He does the things that God does.
If they cannot fathom how the Son of God is there they should believe the works that He does. But so doing they will also come to realize that He and the Father are one - they mutually co-inhere one another.
It is evident by the testimony of His life that He has been consecrated and sent into the world by the Father as His Son.
Nothing in Robbie's appeal to verse 35 undermines John's foundational prologue that the Logos was with God and was God and became flesh.