Of the 100 most prolific unitarian verses in Text (NT) given by Samuel Barrett, in 1825, I never before linked Jn 5 and Jn 10 together as a DISCLAIMER by Jesus that he was EQUAL to the Father. For me, it was always Jn 10 being the most prominent claim by Jesus that he was NOT GOD or EQUAL to God. How could Jesus be claiming absolute deity, by comparing himself to the “gods” of Psalm 82, WHOEVER they were, whether “Judges of Torah,” or “resurrected saints of the OT,” or “an assembly of angels?” Being beings…NOT God, there is no logical link to absolute deity…at all.
I was fully aware of the false accusation in Jn 10, of the detractor Jews.
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
I was less aware of the accusation in Jn 5:
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
In both instances, the Jewish Default View is prominent, in that their own Shema Commandment prohibits any being not YHWH as being…God. Oddly enough however, the modern-day view today views the Jewish Default View…as false. Jesus is EQUAL to the Father, by virtue of God INCARNATING as Jesus Christ, a Godman of flesh. A NEW VARIATION of God, barring the concept that God…does…not…change. Mal 3.
And yes, Jn 5 can be thought of as: along with Jn 10 Jesus’ own DISclaimer, that he is God. What does Barrett say about these two chapters?
90. Because in these two instances , when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36.
It should be obvious that Jesus is claiming INequality with his Father and God. And that the issue is DIRECTLY addressed in these two chapters by John. John the Apostle was a “subordinationist,” through and through.
WOW, I was going to “subordinationism, wiki,” to get their definition of the term, but it CHANGED, to encompass trinitarianism for this early controversy. No, TRINITARIANISM was not the first OUTLINE encompassing the concept of Jesus being SUBORDINATE to his God.
Subordinationalism is a view of the Trinity, where the Son is subordinate to the Father.[1] Subordinationism is defined as hierarchical rankings of the persons of the trinity, implying ontological subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.[2]
HAH. Defilers. Please consider the view of R.C. Hanson, in his introduction to The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God:
With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.
How could TRINITARIANISM be considered in this “mix” if it had no impact when the Arian/Athanasian debates first started? It is obvious to me that Hanson did not include TRINITARIANism with this term at all. For one thing, the Holy Spirit Filoque was a LATER ISSUE in the Creeds of Christendom. If the HOLY SPIRIT was not considered an “equal partner of YHWH” then…how could trinitarianism be the filter or overlayment upon this term, "subordinationism?" The Arian/”Athanasian” debates did not first include any thoughts OF this Holy Spirit…at all. It was in effect, a binitarian position at the time, for EITHER side.
Wikipedia bows to the democratic majority view. Wow. At least they got the FILOQUE right.
Filioque (/ˌfɪliˈoʊkwi, -kweɪ/FIL-ee-OH-kwee, -kway; Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈokwe]) is a Latin term ("and from the Son") added to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly known as the Nicene Creed), and which has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity.
I just wish I recorded the old definition of subordination, by wiki.