The problem will then be contradictions from Jesus. If he is God or prophet, he must not contradict himself clearly like this. Unless the gospels are stories that have been canonized by the Church Fathers and rejected other stories.
Ken most scholars including conservative ones do not think Jesus said either. John’s Jesus is the product of the imaginative interpretation of ‘John’ who put words in Jesus’s mouth. So say your own scholars Ken.
Would you like a list of distinguished conservative Christian scholars who have concluded this Ken? They are experts in the gospels.
If Jesus did say both, then clearly it would be a contradiction, as intellect pointed out. He can’t be lesser than the Father and yet one with Him as well.
The only way it’s not a contradiction is if one saying is not from Jesus. It’s one or the other. You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
“The Evangelist records words which were really spoken, actions which were really performed. His record of these words and actions includes their interpretation, in which their inward significance is disclosed and faith is quickened in Jesus as the Revealer of the Father and the Saviour of the world.”
“The source of the Evangelist’s interpretation of Jesus’ words and actions is clearly indicated in his record. He reports Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, would come to guide his disciples into all truth, especially by bringing to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them and making it plain to them. ” (F. F. Bruce, from his commentary on John, p. 17 – I got this from your extended large quote from Bruce.) [you had it at your old blog.]
F. F. Bruce is saying it does not take divine inspiration to record historical fact; and he says that John is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
” It does not take divine inspiration to provide a verbatim transcript; but to reproduce the words which were spirit and life to their first believing hearers in such a way that they continue to communicate their saving message and prove themselves to be spirit and life to men and women today, nineteen centuries after John wrote – that is the word of the Spirit of God. It is through the Spirit’s operation that, in William Temple’s words, ‘the mind of Jesus himself was what the Fourth Gospel disclosed’; and it is through the illumination granted by the same Spirit that one may still recognise in this Gospel the authentic voice of Jesus. (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John,1983, Eerdmans, pp. 15-17.)
It is not a contradiction since one is speaking of the Father’s greater role as Father to Son;
and
the other is speaking of their equality in nature / substance as each having the nature of God.
Hence, different roles, persons, but one Divine Nature. Hence one God, in three persons (with the Holy Spirit)
Ken, you cannot see the clear contradiction because you don’t want to. How can the Father have a “greater role” and yet be “equal” to the so-called “son”?
Furthermore, we know that Jesus is not “equal” with God. He said so and he also behaved in a way as to show his clear inferiority to his God.
FF Bruce does not believe the historical Jesus actually said the distinctive words John attributes to him. The longer quote I have cited before makes that clear.
Blogging Theology 
Problem with that drawing is that Jesus said both.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
The problem will then be contradictions from Jesus. If he is God or prophet, he must not contradict himself clearly like this. Unless the gospels are stories that have been canonized by the Church Fathers and rejected other stories.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken most scholars including conservative ones do not think Jesus said either. John’s Jesus is the product of the imaginative interpretation of ‘John’ who put words in Jesus’s mouth. So say your own scholars Ken.
Would you like a list of distinguished conservative Christian scholars who have concluded this Ken? They are experts in the gospels.
There is FF Bruce, Richard Bauckham…
LikeLike
If Jesus did say both, then clearly it would be a contradiction, as intellect pointed out. He can’t be lesser than the Father and yet one with Him as well.
The only way it’s not a contradiction is if one saying is not from Jesus. It’s one or the other. You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
LikeLike
Jesus can be ‘one’ with God in will and purpose
LikeLike
Good point brother Paul.
LikeLike
“The Evangelist records words which were really spoken, actions which were really performed. His record of these words and actions includes their interpretation, in which their inward significance is disclosed and faith is quickened in Jesus as the Revealer of the Father and the Saviour of the world.”
“The source of the Evangelist’s interpretation of Jesus’ words and actions is clearly indicated in his record. He reports Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, would come to guide his disciples into all truth, especially by bringing to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them and making it plain to them. ” (F. F. Bruce, from his commentary on John, p. 17 – I got this from your extended large quote from Bruce.) [you had it at your old blog.]
F. F. Bruce is saying it does not take divine inspiration to record historical fact; and he says that John is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
” It does not take divine inspiration to provide a verbatim transcript; but to reproduce the words which were spirit and life to their first believing hearers in such a way that they continue to communicate their saving message and prove themselves to be spirit and life to men and women today, nineteen centuries after John wrote – that is the word of the Spirit of God. It is through the Spirit’s operation that, in William Temple’s words, ‘the mind of Jesus himself was what the Fourth Gospel disclosed’; and it is through the illumination granted by the same Spirit that one may still recognise in this Gospel the authentic voice of Jesus. (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John,1983, Eerdmans, pp. 15-17.)
LikeLike
It is not a contradiction since one is speaking of the Father’s greater role as Father to Son;
and
the other is speaking of their equality in nature / substance as each having the nature of God.
Hence, different roles, persons, but one Divine Nature. Hence one God, in three persons (with the Holy Spirit)
LikeLike
I wonder if William Temple is a relative of mine. 🙂
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Hence, different roles, persons, but one Divine Nature. Hence one God, in three persons (with the Holy Spirit)
I say;
Role is attribute.
God is 1.
If God is 1 and possesses all his role/attributes then
No any other person or persons will possess His role/attribute.
Unless they are 3 Gods to have roles/attributes that the other God number 2 or number 3 God will not have.
Every person is a being whether God or man.
So Jesus is person 1 being
God the Father is 1 person 1 being
Any one will count 2 persons 2 beings.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken, you cannot see the clear contradiction because you don’t want to. How can the Father have a “greater role” and yet be “equal” to the so-called “son”?
Furthermore, we know that Jesus is not “equal” with God. He said so and he also behaved in a way as to show his clear inferiority to his God.
LikeLike
FF Bruce does not believe the historical Jesus actually said the distinctive words John attributes to him. The longer quote I have cited before makes that clear.
LikeLike