The answer is found in Deut. 19:15, which basically says that ONE “person” by him/herself is NOT a true witness, and that you need a SECOND person for them to be a true witness. In John 5:32-33, we learn that that second person is John the baptist.

Now, following along to John 8, in verses 17-18, we read again that Jesus is a “true witness”, but this time, the second “person” is NOT John the baptist, but rather the Father. But WAIT . . “Jesus IS the Father”, right?

Hmmm, so now the Father has gone from being a DISTINCT “second person” (which makes Jesus Christ a “true” witness) to being just one of the two “natures” WITHIN the ONE “person” of Jesus Christ.

I guess that means that Jesus Christ has suddenly become “exempt” from Moses law of witnesses, which “DEMANDS” that the two witnesses (“PERSONS”) be DISTINCT. But since Jesus Christ came NOT to “abolish” the law, but rather to “fulfill” it, the law of wtinesses still applies. so you need to decide if Jesus Christ, as both the Father (Divine) and the Son (flesh), is a “false witness”, or, if Jesus Christ, as the Son (Divine) and as a man (flesh) is a “true witness”

Let me know what your decision is.

Lastly, remember that your theology DOES NOT give you the luxury of calling the Fatherr distinct from the Son, (as do the Trinitarians).

One more point regarding “Sherrif Sam” and “Deputy Dan”, I’ve got a better one. “Judge Jim and Tim.”

Judge Jim (to Tim): Mr. Timothy Jones, as the President of Jones Contracting (one of Mr. Jones’ “roles”), you are claiming that the other driver hit YOU. Is that correct?

Tim: Yes, your honor

Judge Jim: Who do you have as a witness?

Tim: I have my wife, Mrs. Jones’ husband (meaning HIMSELF in his other “role” as a husband)

Judge Jim: Mr. Jones, you cannot be your own witness. Now, do you have ANOTHER witness who witnessed the incident?

Tim: Uh, uh, uh, No, your honor.

Judge Jim: Case dismissed!