Response to Anba Takla website: The issue of “I do nothing of myself”

 

The issue of “I do nothing of myself” The priest’s words: Regarding the phrase “I do nothing of myself… but as my Father taught me I speak” (John 8:28), he declares that his essence is exactly like himself, and that he does not utter anything except what is in the mind of the Father. He says I am not of myself. For the Son is God from the Father, but the Father is God, not from the Son. The Son is God from God, the Father is God, not from God. The Son is Light from Light, and the Father is Light, but not from Light. The Son is, but there is one who is from him, and the Father is, but there is no one who is from him. He did not teach him as if he had begotten him untaught. But to make him means the same as begot him full of knowledge… from him he received knowledge by being from him he received his being. Not that from him he received first his being and then knowledge. But as by his birth he gave him his being, so by his birth he gave him to know, and this is as it was said for the simple nature of the truth, so his being is nothing other than his knowledge, but it is the same. The response: The priest concludes from Christ’s saying: “I can do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me,” that this is a declaration that the essence of Christ is like the essence of the Father. Where is the evidence in this statement that can be used to say that Christ is of the essence of the Father? The opposite is true. The statement confirms that Christ is subordinate to the Father and less than him. He denies that he makes the sole decision in actions and says that he only does what the Father teaches him . So what does the word “teach me” mean? At the very least, if it does not mean that Christ does not know exactly what he is required to do, then it means waiting for the Father’s instructions. This is a sign of submission to the Father, even if we claim that they are of the same essence. The issue is clear. Christ declares that he does not do an action or speak words other than what the Father dictates to him. Do we understand from this that it is a declaration of the unity of essence? And what prevented Christ from declaring with complete clarity, beyond any room for debate, saying: I am composed of divinity and humanity, united to become God incarnate, and my divinity is equal in essence to the divinity of the Father? Then this example is not the only one of Christ’s reference to the Father as his ruling reference: Van Dyck translation - John 5:30 I can of myself do nothing; as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, in the priest’s saying: “ But as by his birth he gave him his being, so by his birth he gave him to know .” The Father gave the Son his being, just as he gave him to know, he wants to say that the Son was born from the Father and his knowledge is great, but this does not negate that the Father is the one who gave the Son being and knowledge, and this confirms two issues: * The Father’s position is superior to the Son because he is the origin from which he was born, the Father’s being does not depend on anything, while the Son’s being depended on the Father’s existence * The Father’s knowledge is eternal and not from any other source, while as the priest says the Son’s knowledge from the Father (he gave him to know) in the priest’s saying: “His being is nothing other than his knowledge, but it is the same .” The priest wants to say that the being of Christ is the knowledge of the Father himself!!


























Well, knowledge is an attribute of God, so why did the priest turn it into a being with an entity and divinity?
Can knowledge be turned into a divine being?
If that were true, there would also be a divine being that was originally an attribute of power, another of greatness, a third of mercy, a fourth of glory, and so on.
That is why you often find people saying about Muslims: "You worship 99 gods" because they turn attributes into gods.
In the priest's words:
He says I am not of myself. Because the Son is God from the Father, but the Father is God, not of the Son. The Son is God from God, the Father is God, not of God. The Son is Light from Light, and the Father is Light, but not of Light. The Son is, but there is someone who is from Him, and the Father is, but there is no someone who is from Him.

Response:
The priest justifies why Christ says I am not of myself, confirming the multiplicity of gods when he explains the difference between the Father and the Son:
* The Father is God, not of the Son
* The Son is God from the Father
Is this a riddle? No, because the priest wants to show the difference between the being of the Father and the being of the Son, but he expects to fall into polytheism, so he inserts the phrase (He is God),
so the Father is God and the Son is also God, but this is not that!! Understand it as you understand it, it is like this

* The Son is light from light
* The Father is light not from light
* The Son is but there is someone who is from Him
* The Father is but there is no someone who is from Him
This is the priest’s justification for why Christ says (I do nothing of myself), and when the priest gets rid of this (ditch) or (pit) he falls into (dahdeerah) polytheism
The third issue (and all authority has been given to me, and “I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me”)
Going back to the original question directed to St-Takla.org , we find that the priest did not respond to this topic specifically, but he fled to try to prove the divinity of Christ. Of course, because the word “gave” proves that the taker (Christ) must have taken from someone else. If the taken is the authority, this means that the giver (the Father) is of a higher status than the taker (Christ), and here we must acknowledge one of two things: Either Christ is a servant of God because he took the authority from Him, or Christ is a second god of lower status than the Father,




but the authority of Christ is less than the authority of The Father:
20-23 And he said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, and with the baptism that I am baptized with you will be baptized. But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
This confirms that Christ will be subject to the Father on the Day of Judgment, and not only in this world:
Van Dyke translation - 1 Corinthians
28-15 And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subject to the one who was subjected to him. All things, that God may be all in all.
And Christ received from the Father not only authority, but also honor and glory:
Van Dyke translation - 2 Peter
1:17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory,
and the Father magnified his name:
Van Dyke translation - in
2-9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave him the name which is above every name,
but (wonderfully) made his status a little lower than the angels:
Van Dyke translation - Hebrews
2-7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; with glory and honor you have crowned him, and set him over the works of your hands.
This is enough to prove the Father’s elevation over Christ, so I remind you that the priest did not respond at all to the subject of (the will of the Father is not the will of the Son) as well as the subject of (gave him authority),
but he was satisfied with trying to prove the divinity of Christ
.