Gawd, I love the gospel of John!!!
Well, in the first instance these are passages of scripture that fly in the face of WTS doctrinal explanation. John doesn't present us as tidy a little package as they would like, especially in chapter ten. That's my main purpose in posting this thread.
I'll try to iterate a number of explanations that could be presented, some of which [are / are not] supported by the language to a greater or lesser extent:
1. One in purpose and mutual appreciation
I think it would be clear to say that the text supports that concept at a bare minimum, but actually goes far beyond this. One of the stumbling blocks is the concept that a God could appreciate a "mere" man or angel in the same manner that God is appreciated, or vice-versa. Unless you are to anthropomorphise and reduce "God" down to the level of a man or angel, the kind of comparison suggested by the text is too small in scope.
Maybe Paul was tackling some of this by suggesting that we cannot know the mind of God but we can know the mind of Christ. If that were to be the case, however, then his argument also falls short of the breadth of the texts in question. Unless we take his comments on currently "knowing only partially" to be waystops on the path to "seeing him face to face" and "knowing him, for we shall be like him", and taking that leap of faith that Paul seems to be suggesting...
2. One in the same person
There are various versions of this, including that presented by the Modalists, which certainly help us with the predicament about Jesus claims on status with the Father, but miss out on how others might attain that illustrious status. They would hold that Jesus is just one "Mode" of God, as it the Father above, but usually shy away from the further implications for the church herself.
3. One in the sense of being equal, as a contemporary God
Verses 34-36 certain have Jesus playing with that concept from the Judaisers own literature. This is a tad dissatisfying, however, as the general thrust of the text doesn't lend itself to polytheism. The label "God" kind of loses something if there are a number of distinct beings that all share top spot in omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. Or am I rather juggling with the idea that words such as "omnipotence" start to lose their meaning in such a construct. Given that omnipotence is only an implied and described attribute of God, rather than something overtly stated in a single term, perhaps I go too far.
4. One in the same "God"
This category is perhaps a little more diverse, and it was this one with which the early church juggled for a few hundred years before concluding with a creed that was generally inclusive of most parties beliefs.
a) The Trinity (and Binity/Duality) would fall into this category, in that Father and Son [and Holy Spirit] are held to be distinct personalities held within a transcendant "God". At it's rawest most anthropomorphised level it might be viewed as a family within the "kind" or genus of a being that is omnipresent, etc. The doctrine generally accepted by most of the church goes a little further, however.
For the sake of the elaboration of how the church might also be "one", this becomes unthinkable for many. They are content for the church to be a bride, without always taking into account what is implied in such a marital union by the Genesis announcement of spouses becoming "one flesh", or maybe in this case "one spirit".
b) In pantheism everything is part of God and God is part of everything. Ergo all the criteria are satisfied. The only difficulty I would permit is that often this concept yields a sense of identity, whereas this seems to fly in the face of what we perceive, wherein we have distinct thoughts from our neighbour and suspect that it will always be so.
c) I would suggest that there is a further elaboration on that view that submits that we are shards of existence of an omnipresent "Divine". That while those shards are conjoined with "God", they also hold their own distinction and personality, reflecting and refracting an ever-present light.
d) Then there is the view of the atheists that at best would hold that "God" should be replaced with a "personless" universe out of which everything comes and to which everything belongs. Functional, but not very romantic - that not being a reason in and of itself to reject it, however.
I'm no Leo or Didier, but I think I've generally captured the essense of a variety of points of view. They are generally held by the following groups:
- JWs
- Oneness Pentecostals
- Mormons
- Trinitarians / Pantheists / Mystics / Atheists
Please feel free to pick holes in my statements, and/or correct where you feel I may have misrepresented.
Just a little more mental-masturbation for you, as you consider all those angels on the end of that pin. For those disinclined, perhaps you might like the task of rearranging the following words into a popular contemporary saying or phrase:
cat / the / pigeons / amongst / that / the / set / has
