What It Really Meant for Jesus To Be Theon

In a debate group, between Christians and Muslims, 
A Muslim posted this:

A Christian responded by saying:
"John 10:30-33

30- I and the Father are one.”

31- Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,

32- but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33- “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man,

> claim to be God.” <

bwuhahahahaha"

My thoughts on this:

 Actually, neither the biblical Hebrews nor earliest Christians
had a single word that automatically meant "God".

Those words (like Theon/Theos, elohim, etc) only meant "God" when the subject being described by that adjective ... was considered to be a deity.

Otherwise, such words could mean something like:
* "was the will of (whichever) god",
or
* "godly",
or
* "like god",
or
"equal to" (whichever) god ... in some specific way.
--
It is worth noticing 
that:
 Throughout the stories about Jesus in the gospels, 
Jesus keeps insisting that the current Jewish religious leaders (especially the Pharisees) lacked the ability to correctly understand him, his words, and the words in their own texts.

This is worth noticing, because Trinitarians trying to prove that Jesus was making himself out to be their "God" ... are quoting the Pharisees ... as people that readers can-and-should RELY UPON, 
to tell us who Jesus was and what his words meant.

Clearly, that mode of thinking runs directly contrary to what the "Jesus" character (in those stories) told us about himself
and about the Pharisees. 

If you read further, you'll see that Jesus (the character called "Jesus" in the story, at least) ...
corrected them.

He likened the WAY in which he was "theon" to the way in which they themselves can rightly be regarded as "elohim".

|He was quoting Psalm 82:6;

- where the Hebrews considered all proper Jews "divine" (or "gods"; in a non-literal sense), by virtue of manifesting divine qualities (having been "made in the image of their god"), and further "divine" by appointment (granted authority) whenever they spoke and acted on behalf of their deity.

He also clarified: 

John 17:22 ►

New International Version

"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one".

So according to the author(s), 

Those people can be "one" in the exact same way Jesus and the Father are "one".

Last time I checked, no one has gone on record to say: "I think he meant we can all be part of a Triune Godhead". 

Also,
what he was accused of:
was not "claiming to be (their) God (the Father)", but rather:

The more careful way to express the accusation was found earlier in the same book, at:
John 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 part, they reasoned that a literal and direct offspring of their "God" would naturally be a deity himself.

This was a common idea in that culture; where offspring of gods could be considered gods themselves.
--
They clearly also felt that he was making himself
"Equal with (their) God" ... in regards to his authority over the law; to decide which laws are binding, and how they should be interpreted and enforced.

He corrected them
by reminding those Jewish religious leaders that:

They have made an entire career out of:
deciding how people should interpret the law, and how to enforce it.

So he was only doing what they do; and by the same authority.

He even reminded them of some laws that Jewish religious leaders themselves ... had always declared non-binding;

- citing the example of the law that requires all Jewish parents to literally kill their own kids ... if their kids are unruly and do not quickly become (and remain) obedient from physical "discipline" (beatings).

So again, he was only speaking within the Jewish tradition of how much authority they had over the law.

He never went further than they did.
They just didn't like him publicly challenging their authority and interpretations.

Religious fundamentalists (especially those in leadership roles) lack the ability to emotionally discern where they end and "God" begins.

They assume there is such a line of distinction between the speaker and their deity. But that line, in their head, is blurry.

So then, when you question them ... you are "questioning your God".

When you doubt them, you are doubting your God.

When you challenge or ridicule them, you are challenging or ridiculing your God.

So they imagine that their own basic instincts, deeper emotions, and moral narratives/perceptions ... are those of their "God".

Modern Christians call this mental phenomenon "being led by the Spirit".

So whenever someone else claims the same thing ... but speaks a contrary set of doctrinal claims:
They are accused of challenging the "true God's authority".

That means the accused person is seen as trying to make themselves "equal to God", and functioning as their own God, and even attempting to function falsely as a "God" over others.

This was why they were so angry.

They felt threatened and offended "on God's behalf"; without realizing that "God" was their own ego.

That's the real reason they can't tell where they end and "HE" begins.

"He" is an alternate persona of their own narcissistic ego;
- including their own narcissistic sense of entitlement over others.
--

They felt protective of the people; of course.

They didn't want to see their sheep "led astray".
- But only as owned and exploitable assets.

After all, ...
"shepherds" don't tend sheep as beloved pets; but as commodities they intended to regularly fleece and eventually lead to slaughter. 

They imagined that as their "right"; because they imagined it as a god's right.

They imagined themselves as extensions of that god;
- when really ... that "god" was an extension of them.
--

Just as today,
"God", for them,
 was the ultimate "Narcissist's Mask".

Through that mechanism,
they are able to artificially and arbitrarily inflate the social power of themselves (over others). 

They could recognize that problem in "Jesus";
as someone speaking OVER the law, rather than under it.

But they didn't realize that it's the exact same thing happening inside of themselves.
--

To be fair,
Jesus (that character; in those stories)
was their superior, as someone taking the next step towards human enlightenment; with a more compassionate and fair application of their texts. 

But he was very much like them, in most other respects.
In principal and in practice,
he was doing exactly what they do. 
They just didn't want to admit that to themselves.