Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “Communicate” Telepathically?

Theology
21

I think we need to slow down a bit before making pronouncements about who is or isn’t “faithful to biblical revelation.” You keep stating as a conclusion the very thing that’s still under discussion—namely, that Scripture teaches two divine persons. I don’t grant that premise, and I haven’t seen you demonstrate it from the text itself without importing later theological categories into the passages. So saying, “Oneness isn’t faithful to biblical revelation” only works if you assume a Trinitarian framework beforehand. From my perspective, the exact opposite is true: the biblical revelation consistently presents one God, not two divine minds speaking to each other.

But even beyond that, this idea that rejecting the Trinity is automatically a “serious error” is only true if the Trinity is actually taught in Scripture. You can’t call something an error for not affirming doctrines the Bible never explicitly reveals. The New Testament never uses the phrase “God the Son,” never presents three divine centers of consciousness, and never speaks of eternal interpersonal relationships inside God. These are theological developments from the post-apostolic era—not biblical givens. Oneness believers are not rejecting Scripture; we are rejecting a later interpretive system that we do not see rooted in the text.

And to your point about seriousness: Scripture never describes salvation as depending on a person’s acceptance of a fourth- or fifth-century theological formula. It consistently calls us to believe in Jesus Christ, repent, obey His gospel, and walk in the Spirit. The gospel is centered on Christ—His death, burial, resurrection, kingship, and lordship—not on metaphysical speculation about internal divine relations. I am absolutely committed to truth, but I do not believe the Bible requires someone to adopt a philosophical model of “three co-eternal persons” to be saved or faithful.

So if you want to discuss the seriousness of an issue, let’s first establish from Scripture—not from tradition or creeds—that the Bible actually teaches what you’re calling “the biblical revelation.” Because until that’s demonstrated, accusing Oneness believers of being “unfaithful” is just assuming the conclusion before proving the premise.

22

You’re making the same assumption again—treating a later theological definition of “Son” as if it were the biblical one, and then declaring anything else a “denial of the Son.” But the very point under discussion is what Scripture means by “Son,” not what later metaphysics assigned to the term. You can’t use 1 John 2:23 as a club to force a fourth-century definition onto a first-century text. John never defines the Son as “a second co-eternal divine person in relationship with the Father.” That is simply not in his writings anywhere.

John actually defines “the Son” in explicitly incarnational terms:
“The Word became flesh” (John 1:14),
“that holy thing… shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35),
“God sent forth His Son, made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4).

Nothing there places the Son in eternity past as a second divine mind. The Son is the incarnate manifestation of the eternal Word—not the Word plus another eternal person. So when Oneness believers say the “Son” refers to the incarnation, we’re not redefining anything. We’re taking the Bible’s own starting point seriously: the Son is born, sent, obedient, tempted, grows, prays, suffers, dies, and rises. None of those things describe eternal deity—they describe the human life of the Messiah in whom the fullness of God dwells.

Your comparison to JWs or Mormons misses the point as well. They redefine Jesus by subtracting from His deity. Oneness affirms His deity fully—in fact, more straightforwardly than Trinitarianism does. We’re not reducing Christ or dividing Him. We’re simply refusing to divide God into multiple eternal persons with multiple divine minds. Oneness believers confess the Son exactly as Scripture reveals Him: the human life of the eternal God made known in flesh. The Father is the invisible deity; the Son is that same deity revealed as a man. That is not a redefinition—it is the plain reading of the biblical storyline.

And you assert, as if it were settled fact, that “the Son and the Father are two persons coexisting eternally.” But that statement is not a biblical quotation—it’s a doctrinal conclusion. Scripture never says that. It never uses “persons” as a category inside God. It never speaks of “co-eternal divine minds.” Those ideas emerge in the post-apostolic era when theologians were trying to reconcile the deity of Christ with Greek categories of personhood and substance. If you want to argue for that view, fine—but don’t pretend the Bible itself uses that language.

So no, I am not denying the Son. I am refusing to add to the Son a layer of philosophical identity that Scripture never attaches to Him. I confess the Son exactly the way John does—as the incarnation of the one true God. That is the Son the apostles preached. That is the Son the early Jewish believers confessed. And that is the Son who saves.

23

I disagree.

Scriptural Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity

By Mike Ediger

I. ONE GOD - THREE PERSONS

A. ONE GOD - Deut 4:35; 6:4; Isa 43:10; 1 Tim 2:5.

B. The FATHER is GOD - John 17:1-3; 1Cor 8:6; 2Cor 1:3; Gal 1:1; Phil 2:11; Col 1:3; 1Peter 1:2.

C. The SON is GOD - Isa 9:6; John 1:1-18; 5:18; 8:58; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8-12; 2Peter 1:1.

D. The HOLY SPIRIT is GOD - Acts 5:3-4; 2Cor 3:17-18. Implied in - Mark 3:29; John 15:26; 1Cor 6:19-20; Heb 9:14. “Spirit of God” - Gen 1:2; Gen 31:3; Num 24:2; 1Sam 19:20; 2Chr 24:20; Job 27:3; Isa 61:1; Ezek 11:24; Matt 3:16;12:28; John 4:24; Rom 8:14; 1Cor 7:40; Eph 4:30.

II. Although the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the doctrine or the Trinity is plainly taught in Scripture, as evidenced by the passages listed below:

A. Old Testament

(1) Strongly implied - Gen 1:1-3; 12:7 (cf. Col 1:15-17; Job 33:4); Isa 48:12-16.

(2) Elohim (plural) - Gen 1:26; 11:7. The Trinity is implied in the word

(3) Other indications found in - Gen 48:15-16; Exod 31:3; Num 11:25; Judg 3:10; Isa 6:8; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1.

B. New Testament

(1) Clearly taught - Matt 3:16-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 3:6-16; 14:16-17,23-26; 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 2:32-33; 5:29-32; Rom 8:16-17,26ff; 1Cor 12:4-7; 2Cor 1:21-22; 3:14; Eph 1:1-14; 2:17-22; 3:16-19; 4:4-6; Col 1:3-8; 1Thes 1:2-5; 2Thes 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Peter 1:2; 1John 3:21-24; Jude 20-21.

(2) The Trinity is implied in the word “Godhead” (KJV): Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9. Look it up @The_Omega

III. Other texts support the doctrine of the Trinity:

A. In Isa 63:7-11, the Trinity is seen in the reference to

(1) The Lord who is the God of Israel was their Savior (vv.7-8).

(2) The Angel of His Presence saved them (v.9).

(3) The Holy Spirit was grieved at their rebellion and was within them (vv.10-11).

B. The seraphim’s song in Isaiah 6:3 and the angelic chorus in Revelation 4:8 both containing the phrase, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord” seems to be a reference to the triune nature of God.

C. The Three-fold Benediction of Numbers 6:24-26 and the similar Apostolic Benediction of 2Corinthians 13:14 also seems to indicate the triune nature of God.

D. Those texts which clearly show a distinction between the three Persons of the Godhead (Father/ Son/ Holy Spirit) support the doctrine of the Trinity. Such passages include: Matt 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34; John 14; 15:26; 16:7-14; 1Cor 12:4-6; 2Cor 13:14; Eph 1:3-14; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; 2Thes 2:13-14; 1Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21.

IV. While the word “trinity” is not found in the Scriptures, it is quite clear from the foregoing, that the Bible does, in fact, teach the doctrine of the Trinity. An honest appraisal of the Scripture texts listed above should lead to no other conclusion.

Note: All Scripture references from: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.

J.

24

If you’re going to call millions of Bible-believing Christians “heretics” and “people who do not know Christ,” then at the very least you owe them an argument grounded in Scripture—not in fourth-century categories or the authority of post-biblical creeds. What you’ve offered here is not a biblical conclusion; it’s a theological ultimatum. You’ve decided that your definition of “authentic Christianity” is the only possible one, even though none of the language you rely on—“three persons,” “co-eternal relationships,” “triune God”—appears anywhere in the Bible. You’re condemning people not because they deny Scripture, but because they don’t submit to a system the apostles never taught.

What makes this especially ironic is that the New Testament reserves the label “false” or “heretical” for people who deny Christ’s deity, deny His humanity, deny His lordship, or preach another gospel. Oneness believers do none of those things. We preach Jesus as fully God and fully man. We preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We preach salvation through His name alone. We preach repentance, baptism, and the Spirit-filled life. If that is “not knowing Christ,” then your standard has departed from the New Testament entirely.

Declaring entire churches “not Christian” because they refuse language the Bible never uses is not courage or fidelity—it’s arrogance. You have every right to believe the Trinity, but you do not have the right to excommunicate from the body of Christ everyone who doesn’t accept a doctrine invented centuries after the apostles died. You keep treating the post-Nicene framework as if it were delivered with the same authority as Scripture itself, and then you condemn anyone who doesn’t bow to it. That isn’t biblical faithfulness. That’s theological gatekeeping dressed up as orthodoxy.

If your position were truly grounded in Scripture, you would not need to resort to these sweeping condemnations. The apostles called people away from idolatry, lawlessness, immorality, and false gospels—not from refusing to confess “three persons in one essence.” If you want to defend the Trinity, defend it from the text—not by pronouncing that anyone who disagrees “does not know Christ.” Because that line doesn’t come from the apostles. It comes from you.

25

Friend, you are not engaging in real dialogue and I can see clearly what you are doing, you keep repeating the demand to show you the text and that is exactly what I am doing, so let us take John 1.1 as a simple example, and now tell me how you intend to handle that passage when your system cannot decide whether the Messiah preexisted or did not preexist, because whichever way you turn the grammar and the syntax still confront you with a real preexistent Logos who was with God and was God, and you cannot escape that by redefining terms or “flattening” the relational language, so the question stands open before you, how will you exegete this without forcing your theology into the text?

J.

26

I am engaging the text—that’s literally what I am asking you to do with your position. But appealing to “grammar and syntax” only helps if you’re letting John define his own terms instead of smuggling Trinitarian categories into the passage before the analysis even begins. So let’s take John 1:1 exactly how you proposed and actually read what it says.

First, the text does not say “the Son was with God.” It says the Logos was with God. You’re assuming “Logos = eternal Son-person,” but John never equates those two. In fact, John makes a very careful distinction: the Logos becomes the Son in 1:14. That is the point of incarnation. The preexistence of the Logos is not the issue—I affirm that fully. The contradiction you’re trying to create only exists if you replace “Word” with your preferred theological category before the discussion even starts.

Second, “pros ton Theon” does not require two divine minds. You treat “with God” as if it can only mean “next to God as another divine Person,” but pros is not restricted to that meaning. It often expresses orientation, relation, correspondence, or belonging. The Word being pros God simply means the Word was bound up with God, expressive of God, belonging to God. John’s Jewish readers would not hear “two divine persons” in that phrase. What John calls the Word, Moses simply calls “God said.” That’s the Hebraic foundation John is building on. The Logos is not a second divine Person—it is God’s own speech, self-expression, and revelatory action, the same divine voice that spoke all things into existence in Genesis 1. John is not inventing a second hypostasis; he is identifying Jesus with the Creator’s spoken self-revelation.

Third, your appeal to relational language ignores what John actually claims: the Logos was God. If John wanted to communicate a second divine person, he had many available Greek options—He could have called Him theos heteros (“another god”), theos allos (“a different God”), theios (divine but lesser), or even used Philo’s expression deuteros theos (“second God”). He does none of that. Instead, he uses a qualitative predicate: “the Word was God.” Not “a person within God.” Not “God the Son.” Just God. John’s language is radically monotheistic, not proto-Nicene.

Fourth, John 1:14 reveals precisely how “the Son” enters the picture. John doesn’t say, “The eternal Son became flesh.” He writes, “The Word became flesh.” This is the moment where “Son” becomes a meaningful title. The Word preexists; the Son is the Word incarnate. That’s John’s sequence—not mine. If the Word becomes flesh, then Sonship begins in the incarnation. That is not flattening anything; that is simply respecting John’s structure.

Fifth, the relational language you keep appealing to belongs to the incarnate Son. John 1:18 says the Son “is in the bosom of the Father”—present tense—after the Word becomes flesh in v.14. The “bosom of the Father” language describes the Son’s unique revelatory role, not eternal interpersonal fellowship between two divine minds. It’s the intimacy of revelation and mission, not ontological duality inside God.

Sixth, your exegetical method assumes your conclusion. You begin with the Nicene categories—Logos = eternal Son, “with God” = interpersonal Trinity, “was God” = shared essence, relational verbs = two divine centers of consciousness—and then you make the passage fit that system. But none of those are demanded by the text itself. They are theological commitments guiding your interpretation.

My reading is far simpler and far more Jewish:

  • There is one God.

  • His Word is His own self-expression—what He speaks, He is.

  • That Word preexisted with Him.

  • That Word became flesh.

  • That incarnation is the Son.

No redefining. No flattening. Just letting John say what he says in the context of Israel’s Scriptures.

So yes—I can exegete John 1:1 without forcing my theology onto it. The tension you’re insisting on only appears once you replace John’s categories with later metaphysical constructs.

27

It’s honestly hard not to raise an eyebrow at that statement. You can’t spend multiple posts defending categories that come straight out of the post-apostolic era—eternal generation, eternal Sonship, procession, co-eternal persons, divine relations, hypostatic distinctions, and all the rest—and then turn around and appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority. If Scripture is truly sufficient, then the burden is on you to show where the apostles themselves ever taught the things you keep insisting are “biblical essentials.”

Every term you’ve been building your case on comes from after the New Testament period. The apostles never used them. Jesus never used them. Moses never used them. Paul never used them. John never used them. The only place they appear is in later theological development—valuable for discussion, sure, but not binding on anyone’s faith.

So when someone says “Scripture alone is the final authority,” yet immediately treats post-apostolic formulations as non-negotiable boundaries for orthodoxy, that’s not Scripture alone anymore. That’s Scripture plus creedal metaphysics. You have every right to hold those convictions, but let’s not pretend they come from the pages of the New Testament. If this conversation is really about theopneustos Scripture, then let’s stay with what the text actually says—not with what later theology needed the text to say.

28

Friend, your proposal “collapses” under the weight of the very grammar and the very context you claim to honor, because “the Word is God’s own self-expression” is not what John actually wrote, nor what the verbs, syntax, and relational pronouns allow, and nowhere in Scripture does “Word” ever mean a mere divine attribute that suddenly becomes a human person, which would mean God’s own essence turned into a man, which would negate the Creator creature distinction and destroy the incarnation itself, yet John writes with unambiguous personal language that forces distinction, fellowship, and shared divine glory before creation.
When John wrote en archē ēn ho Logos ~John 1:1 he used imperfect ēn three times to present continuous existence prior to creation, and the phrase pros ton Theon carries a face to face relational nuance in Koine usage, meaning the Word was toward God in personal fellowship, which is impossible if the Word is merely an attribute or a mode,or a concept in the mind of YHVH because an attribute cannot be pros anything, an attribute cannot be with someone, and an attribute cannot speak, come, dwell, reveal, receive glory, or interact.

If “the Word” is simply “God expressing Himself,” then John 1 “collapses” into absurdity because the text would read something like “God’s own expression was with God,” which is nonsense, because an attribute cannot be with God any more than God’s righteousness can sit beside Him or God’s wisdom can pray to Him, yet the Word became flesh ~John 1:14, which requires personal identity entering humanity, not an abstraction turning into a person, because abstractions do not become flesh, do not dwell, do not behold glory, and do not reveal the Father with the personal activity that John describes using active verbs like dēloō, laleō, and ekpempō throughout the Gospel.

Also, your claim that the Son is only the incarnation also fails under the grammar of ~John 17:5 where Jesus says doxon hēn eichon para soi prin ton kosmon einai, which means “the glory which I was having with You before the world existed,” and the verb eichon is imperfect active first singular meaning ongoing possession in real past time, and Jesus locates that possession para soi which means “with You at Your side,” a spatial-relational marker used for personal proximity, not for divine decrees or abstract plans.

Not one place in Scripture uses imperfect verbs for “eternal decrees” in a way that parallels John 17 because the object here is glory with You, relational glory, shared glory, possessed glory, and this is glory the Son says He actually had, not merely glory planned, because eichon is real past continuous action and para marks real fellowship, and nowhere does Scripture speak of God’s eternal plan using para plus a personal pronoun to describe two participants sharing something.

Your “Jewish simplicity” is not the simplicity of Moses or the Prophets or the Wisdom tradition, because the Memra of the Targums acts, speaks, reveals, saves, visits, and judges, functioning with personal agency distinct from yet within the one God, and the Angel of YHWH in ~Exodus 23:20 carries the Name, forgives sins, speaks as God, and is sent by God, which cannot be “collapsed” into a mere self-expression without erasing the text and pretending the Hebrew shalach (to send) and diber (to speak) never appear in divine to divine interactions.

Most importantly, if the Word is merely God Himself in expressive mode, then Jesus’ prayer in ~John 17 is meaningless, because He says “You loved Me before the foundation of the world,” which uses ēgapēsas me aorist active second singular, direct divine love toward a personal object, and God does not eternally “love Himself” in a mode, nor does He speak of “Me” and “You” if these are the same subject, because the syntax of pronouns forbids it, and nowhere in Scripture do we see God switching referents mid-sentence to talk to Himself in relational language.

So your model fails the Greek, fails the Hebrew, fails the context, fails the personal language, and ultimately fails the cross, because if the Son only begins at the incarnation then the giving of the Son in ~John 3:16 means God created a new person to sacrifice, which is impossible, since salvation rests on the eternal Son offering Himself through the eternal Spirit ~Hebrews 9:14, meaning preexistent agency belongs to the Son before Bethlehem.

If you want a simpler reading, read the text as written, because the Word who was with God and was God is the same one made flesh, and that means personal deity and personal distinction, not a divine attribute pretending to be a man.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

This is where I strongly disagree with you.

J.

29

What exactly are we doing here @The_Omega, because it looks like you are following me from thread to thread on this forum, and I am wondering whether you engage anyone else with the same intensity.
It makes me ask whether you have ever debated Catholics or interacted with people who openly use secondary sources, because in any serious discussion you are completely free to draw from solid scholarship. That is how debates work.
Think of Michael Brown or even Tovia Singer, both of whom constantly rely on linguistic studies, historical context, and scholarly material to argue their points, and no one claims they are cheating for doing so. Yes?

J.

30

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Jhn_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Jhn_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Jhn_1:1, Jhn_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Jhn_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Jhn_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mrk_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Jhn_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Jhn_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Jhn_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson Word Studies.

Was the Word - Greek, “was the λόγος Logos.” This name is given to him who afterward became “flesh,” or was incarnate (Jhn_1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

  1. A “word” is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others.
  2. The Son of God may be called “the Word,” because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Heb_1:1-3.
  3. This term was in use before the time of John.
    (a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, “e. g.,” Isa_45:12; “I have made the earth, and created man upon it.” In the Aramaic it is, “I, ‘by my word,’ have made,” etc. Isa_48:13; “mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth.” In the Aramaic, “‘By my word’ I have founded the earth.” And so in many other places.

J.

31

I promise I’m not stalking you, brother. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Honestly, no one else is really engaging these issues at this depth. I wasn’t following you on purpose—I was just browsing for new threads that touched on subjects I care about (Oneness, Trinity, John’s Prologue, etc.), and your posts kept showing up in places where the text of Scripture was being discussed. Then I saw your comments about Scripture being the final authority, and that’s exactly where my heart is too, so I stepped in.

I’m not trying to make this personal or turn it into “you vs. me.” What I’m trying to do is very specific:
to get you to prove your position using only Scripture, within the bounds of 1st-century apostolic revelation, and the actual Greek and Hebrew as they stand—without importing later theological terminology or frameworks into the text.

When you say “Scripture alone is final authority,” I take that seriously. So my whole push has been:
show me from the text itself—not from post-apostolic categories, not from Nicene language, not from centuries-later metaphysics. If the Trinity in the form you’re defending is truly what the apostles preached, then it should be demonstrable from:

  • the words they actually used,

  • in the languages they actually wrote,

  • without leaning on fourth- and fifth-century formulations.

So I’m not following you to pick a fight. I’m following the claims you’re making about Scripture and trying to hold those claims to the standard you yourself appealed to. If that comes across as intense, it’s because I care deeply about what the Bible actually says—and I think you do too.

32

@The_Omega, what you call the “contradictory descriptions of God”–one God but three Persons–IS the mystery because it doesn’t explain those descriptions. It seems to me that you have a modalistic model that you are trying to fit the Scripture into. So, are you saying that when Jesus speaks to his Father, he is speaking to himself? That would be a mystery if it were true. When he prayed all night before choosing his 12 disciples, he was praying to his Father, who was with him.

I say that you can stop before those three categories too. They appear to be ways to explain the unexplainable to let our reason grasp the ungraspable. God is just simply three Persons in one God. That’s where the Bible, especially the Gospel of John, stops. My understanding from the Bible is that creation, salvation, and sanctification all come FROM the Father THROUGH Jesus BY the Holy Spirit as our one, only true God. The mystery drawn from the Bible is how the three Persons can be one God.

The verses in Isaiah do not negate John 1:1, where you have two entities with the divine Word facing (pros) the other one who are both God. That verse explains further who the God in Isaiah is with the addition of the third Person (another Comforter) in John 14, 15, and 16. It’s called progressive revelation.

33

Friend, let me walk through what you wrote slowly, because most of our disagreement isn’t actually over Greek forms but over what you’re loading into those forms.

“‘the Word is God’s own self-expression’ is not what John actually wrote, nor what the verbs, syntax, and relational pronouns allow…”

You’re right that John did not spell out the phrase “self-expression”—that’s my way of describing what Logos already meant in a Jewish, Scripture-saturated context. In Genesis, creation happens by God speaking: “And God said…” Over and over, the Psalms and prophets speak of God’s word as His active, creative, revealing, judging self-disclosure. John isn’t introducing an unknown metaphysical second person; he’s taking the familiar biblical category of “God said…” and saying: that creative, revealing Word has now become flesh in Jesus.

So when I say, “the Word is God’s own self-expression,” I’m summarizing what Moses already showed: what John calls the Word, Moses simply calls “God said.” “Let there be light” is the Word in action—God in self-expression—with God in the sense of belonging to Him, proceeding from Him, revealing Him, but not necessarily standing “face-to-face” as a second divine mind.

“…and nowhere in Scripture does ‘Word’ ever mean a mere divine attribute that suddenly becomes a human person, which would mean God’s own essence turned into a man, which would negate the Creator creature distinction and destroy the incarnation itself…”

Two clarifications here.

First, I’m not calling the Word a mere attribute. That would be a caricature. The Word is God Himself in His active, outgoing self-revelation—His speech, His wisdom, His creative command. When that Word “became flesh” (John 1:14), God did not “stop being God” or turn His essence into a creature. He assumed a real human nature while remaining fully God. That’s exactly how you yourself defend the incarnation against those who deny Christ’s humanity—so don’t flip the categories when it comes to divine unity.

Second, the Creator–creature distinction isn’t destroyed by incarnation; it’s expressed in it. The whole point of John’s Prologue is that the very One through whom all things were made (1:3) has entered the creation as man. That’s consistent with “the Word is God’s self-expression”; it’s not at odds with it.

“…yet John writes with unambiguous personal language that forces distinction, fellowship, and shared divine glory before creation.”

John does use rich, personal language—but where and when he applies it matters. The fullness of the Father–Son language comes after he says “the Word became flesh.” The Son is the incarnate Word. The glory language (“we beheld His glory,” “the glory which I had with You,” etc.) is perfectly consistent with:

  • the Word pre-existing with God,

  • the incarnate Christ receiving and displaying that glory in time,

  • and that glory having been ordained “before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20).

None of that forces two divine minds eternally facing each other. It forces pre-existent Word, incarnate Son, and a glory determined in God’s eternal counsel.

“When John wrote en archē ēn ho Logos (John 1:1) he used imperfect ēn three times to present continuous existence prior to creation…”

I agree: the imperfect ēn in en archē ēn ho Logos points to the Word already existing when “the beginning” began. That supports preexistence. Where we differ is what preexisted:

  • I affirm: the Logos preexisted.

  • You insist: that must mean “a second, eternal divine Person (the Son).”

But the grammar doesn’t encode “second personhood” into ēn. The imperfect gives you durative past existence, not a Trinitarian structure. John is saying: “When creation started, the Word was already there.” That’s solid proof of the Word’s deity and preexistence—but it’s not proof of a second divine consciousness.

34

“…and the phrase pros ton Theon carries a face to face relational nuance in Koine usage, meaning the Word was toward God in personal fellowship…”

Sometimes pros can have a strong “with, in company” flavor, but it does not always mean “face-to-face interpersonal fellowship” in the technical, Trinitarian sense. It’s used in many contexts to mean toward, with reference to, in relation to, or in the presence of. The LXX and secular Koine are full of examples where pros expresses orientation or address, not necessarily two minds looking at each other.

So yes, the Word is “with God”—pros ton theon—but that fits perfectly with the idea of God’s own Word being in relation to Him, expressive of Him, proceeding from Him. “Let there be light” is with God in that sense: it’s God’s own speaking, not a separate “Light-Person” in front of Him. To insist that pros must mean “two co-eternal hypostases face-to-face” is not demanded by the Greek—it’s demanded by a later system.

“…which is impossible if the Word is merely an attribute or a mode, or a concept in the mind of YHWH because an attribute cannot be pros anything, an attribute cannot be with someone, and an attribute cannot speak, come, dwell, reveal, receive glory, or interact.”

Again, I do not claim the Word is “merely an attribute” or a “concept” in a thin, abstract sense. The Word is God actively revealing Himself—God speaking, God shining, God reaching out. In Scripture, God’s word does speak, create, judge, run swiftly, heal, and save. That doesn’t make it a separate person from God; it shows that when God acts by His word, He Himself is acting.

John is not saying “a divine attribute became a man.” He is saying that the eternal self-revelation of God—the One through whom all things were made—has taken on flesh. That is fully personal, but it does not require two divine centers of consciousness. One God, one divine mind, His Word from all eternity, and that Word made flesh in time.

Now, to your core accusation:

“…your system cannot decide whether the Messiah preexisted or did not preexist…”

My “system” is actually very simple and quite settled:

  • The Messiah as the incarnate Son did not exist before the incarnation.

  • The Logos—the eternal Word of God—did preexist, was with God, and was God.

  • The Son is that Logos made flesh (John 1:14).

To say “the Son existed prior to the incarnation” in a literal, full-human sense is to say flesh is eternal, because “Son” in Scripture is tied to birth, humanity, obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection. The only way to have a fully “face-to-face” Son before incarnation is to smuggle in an eternally human person—or to detach “Son” from the very incarnational realities Scripture uses to define Him. I’m not willing to do that.

So I don’t need to flatten relational language. I just keep it where John and the rest of Scripture place it:

  • Logos – preexistent, fully God.

  • Son – incarnate, fully God and fully man.

“Let there be light” is the Word—God’s own self-expression—which is with God because it proceeds from Him and reveals Him, not because it is a second divine psyche staring back at Him. That’s how I handle John 1:1: by letting Moses’ “God said” and John’s “Word” stand together, and by keeping the incarnation where Scripture puts it—when the Word becomes flesh, not before.

1 Like
35

@The_Omega

You wrote it yourself, yet somehow cannot recognize the contradiction in your own words. Who is the Logos? It is the Son, is it not? How is it that John 1:1, with its clear grammar, relational verbs, and eternal preexistence, still escapes your understanding?

The same = This [Word], or He.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Rev. 19:13; [Heb. 4:12; 1 John 1:1] Phil. 2:6 aGen. 1:1; [Col. 1:17; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 1:4, 8, 17; 3:14; 21:6; 22:13]

Joh 1:1 In Ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ was ἦν the ὁ Word, Λόγος, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος was ἦν with πρὸς - τὸν God, Θεόν, and καὶ the ὁ Word Λόγος. was ἦν God. Θεὸς
Joh 1:2 He Οὗτος was ἦν in ἐν [the] beginning ἀρχῇ with πρὸς - τὸν God. Θεόν.

Joh 1:1 IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (N1Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God N2Himself. [Isa_9:6]
Joh 1:2 He was present originally with God.

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
NET.

Three great things are here said of The Word: First, He was “in the beginning” [ en (G1722) archee (G746) = bªree’shiyt (H7225) Gen_1:1]. Thus does our Evangelist commence his Gospel with the opening words of the book of Genesis. Only, as Meyer remarks, he raises the historical conception of the phrase, which in Genesis denotes the first moment of time, to the absolute idea of pre-temporality. That the words “In the beginning” are here meant to signify, ‘Before all time’ and all created existence, is evident from Joh_1:3, where all creation is ascribed to this Word, who Himself, therefore, is regarded as uncreated and eternal See Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24; Col_1:17.

So who is the Logos? A "he, she, or a “it?”

the Word. Greek. Logos. As the spoken word reveals the invisible thought, so the Living Word reveals the invisible God. Compare Joh_1:18.

“the Word was God” This verb is imperfect tense as in Joh_1:1 a. There is no article (which identifies the subject, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 66) with Theos, but Theos is placed first in the Greek phrase for emphasis. This verse and Joh_1:18 are strong statements of the full deity of the pre-existent Logos (cf. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:58; Joh_10:30; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:11; Joh_20:28; Rom_9:5; Heb_1:8; 2Pe_1:1). Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human (cf. 1Jn_4:1-3). He is not the same as God the Father, but He is the very same divine essence as the Father.
The NT asserts the full deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but protects the distinct personhood of the Father. The one divine essence is emphasized in Joh_1:1; Joh_5:18; Joh_10:30; Joh_10:34-38; Joh_14:9-10; and Joh_20:28, while their distinctives are emphasized in Joh_1:2; Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_5:19-23; Joh_8:28; Joh_10:25; Joh_10:29; Joh_14:11-13; Joh_14:16.

You insist that I engage directly with the text, and I do so fully, yet you remain in denial of the monologue of John 1:1, refusing to see the eternal Word speaking and existing with God as the Son.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].

J.

36

If you’re saying the Son existed before the incarnation in a “face-to-face” relationship with the Father, then you need to explain biblically how that took place. Scripture never describes an eternal “Son” with a body, so what exactly does “face-to-face” even mean before the Word becomes flesh?

Did the Son have a spirit-body before the incarnation?
Did He possess eternal flesh existing back in eternity and then brought forward in time?
Because without a body, the phrase “face-to-face” becomes purely metaphorical—and if you’re going to use metaphor, you can’t turn around and accuse Oneness people of “flattening” relational language.

The only way “face-to-face” can be taken literally is if the Son had form, shape, visibility, location, and material existence before Mary—which Scripture plainly denies. Hebrews is explicit that the Son takes on human flesh in time (Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4; John 1:14). Sonship involves birth, obedience, suffering, growth, and death—all of which happen inside history, not eternity.

So if you insist on an eternal “face-to-face” relationship, then I need a biblical explanation of:

  1. What “face” the Son had before incarnation.

  2. What nature He possessed before “the Word became flesh.”

  3. How a bodiless divine person experiences a spatial, visual relationship.

  4. Why Scripture never once describes an eternal, embodied Son prior to His birth.

If you can’t establish an eternal bodily Son from Scripture, then your entire “face-to-face” model collapses, because the Bible is clear that the Son assumes flesh at a point in time—He doesn’t already have flesh from eternity.

That’s why I’m pressing this:
You can’t demand a literal reading of “with God” or “face-to-face” while refusing to address the literal implications. If Scripture teaches “the Word became flesh,” then whatever relational language you are applying before the incarnation must fit a non-bodily, non-fleshly reality.

And at that point, you’re no longer describing a literal “face-to-face” relation—you’re describing God’s self-expression in relation to God, which is exactly what the Word is in John 1:1.

If you want to make it literal, you owe a biblical account of the Son’s pre-incarnate body. If you make it figurative, then the “face-to-face” argument loses the force you’ve been giving it.

I’m simply asking you to be consistent with the text.

37

You demand scriptural answers from me, and I am giving them, yet you conveniently refuse to answer my questions. Clear up your own contradictions first, because it seems you are treating the Logos as merely in the mind of God or as His spoken word. You need to read Genesis 1:1 onward to grasp the depth of John’s high Christological language.

I’ll leave you with this to ponder @The_Omega

The explicit distinction between the person of God and Jesus
These verses provide the strongest distinctions between God and Jesus not only in reference to them being separate persons but also provide distinction with respect to ontology (the Father is identified as God who is greater than all)

John 8:42, I came from God and I am here—I came not of my own accord, but he sent me
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 8:54, It is my Father who glorifies me
54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’

John 10:14-18, I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father
14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

John 10:29, My Father is greater than all
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 14:9-12, I am going to the Father
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

John 14:20-24, We will come to him and make our home with him
20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.

John 14:28, The Father is greater than I
28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John 17:1-3, you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

John 20:17, I ascend to my God and your God
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

1 Corinthians 8:4-6, There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ
“… there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

In a strict sense in the category of “gods” there is one God the Father. In the category of “lords” there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. God made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36, Phil 2:8-11)
Acts 2:36, God has made him both Lord and Christ
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Acts 3:18, God foretold that his Christ would suffer
18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.

Acts 4:26, against the Lord and against his Anointed
26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—

J.

38

And this @The_Omega

Bart Ehrman, one of the most renowned Bible scholars in the world today**, is not himself a Christian or a Trinitarian.** He holds the following degrees: Ph.D. – Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985, M.Div. – Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981, and B.A. – Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978.

In his book How Jesus became God he says

“One of the most striking features of John’s Gospel is its elevated claims about Jesus. Here, Jesus is decidedly God and in fact equal with God the Father–before coming into the world, while in the world, and after he leaves the world (emphasis mine). Consider the following passages, which are found only in John among the four Gospels:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the unique one before the Father, full of grace and truth. (1:1, 14; later this Word made flesh is named as “Jesus Christ,” v. 17)
But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I also am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God (5:17-18)
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” (10:30)
Philip said to him. “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (14:8-9)
[Jesus prayed to God:] “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed (17:4-5)
[Jesus prayed:] “Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (17:24).
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28) . . . .
A little later Ehrman says,

“For John, [Jesus] was already both “God” and “with God” in his preincarnate state as a divine being. Nowhere can this view be seen more clearly than in the first eighteen verses of the Gospel, frequently called the Prologue of John . . . in the Prologue we find the clearest expression in the New Testament of Christ as a preesixtent divine being–the Word–who has become a human.” – Ehrman, pp. 271-273

Capable New Testament Greek scholar that he is, he knows full well that the gospel of John as it now stands states that Jesus is indeed God. No Trinitarian bias motivated Ehrman to agree that John asserts Jesus’ divinity because he is not a Trinitarian or a believer.

Trinitarian Scholars on John 1:1 – The Trinity – Delusion or Truth?.

Read the article. If you won’t, others will.

J.

39

I’m not trying to dodge anything. Let me do two things clearly:

  1. Restate what I actually believe about the Logos so you’re not arguing against a caricature.

  2. Show how I am taking Genesis 1 and John’s “high Christology” seriously—just not in the way later Trinitarian categories assume.

1. I’m not treating the Logos as “merely” in the mind of God

You said a couple of times that I’m reducing the Logos to a “mere attribute” or a “concept.” That isn’t my position.

Here’s what I’ve actually said and still affirm:

  • The Logos is eternal (“in the beginning…” – John 1:1).

  • The Logos is with God (pros ton theon).

  • The Logos is God (theos ēn ho logos).

  • All things were made through Him (John 1:3).

I’m not denying pre-existence, power, or reality. I’m saying the Logos is God in His self-revelation and self-expression, not a second divine center of consciousness alongside Him.

When I draw on Genesis 1, I’m doing exactly what John does:

“And God said…” (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, etc.)
“In the beginning was the Word…” (John 1:1)

God’s Word is not a detached “thing” in His mind; it is God actively acting, speaking, revealing, creating. That is why John can talk about the Logos in such exalted terms without requiring a second divine person beside God.

2. I am reading Genesis 1:1 onward alongside John 1

You told me to read Genesis 1, so let’s put the texts together:

  • Genesis 1:1–3
    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth… And God said, Let there be light…”

  • John 1:1–3
    “In the beginning was the Word… All things were made by Him…”

John is clearly echoing Moses. In Genesis:

  • The Subject is God.

  • The Act is God speaking.

  • The Result is creation and light.

In John:

  • The Logos is that very self-expression “in the beginning.”

  • The Logos is “with God” (pros ton theon), not as a second God next to Him, but as God’s own self-revealing activity “toward” creation.

  • The Logos “was God” – not “a second God,” not “another mind beside God,” but the very God who speaks.

When I say the Word is God’s self-expression, I’m not flattening the language. I’m following the pattern:

Genesis: God + God’s speaking = creation.
John: God + God’s Word = creation, life, light, and ultimately incarnation.

That’s high Christology: the very self-revelation of God—through whom all things were made—becomes flesh in Jesus.

3. The real issue isn’t whether I see high Christology; it’s what kind

Where I think we differ is here:

  • You seem to take pros ton theon as demanding an eternal, interpersonal “face-to-face” between two divine persons.

  • I see pros as perfectly able to describe orientation, reference, and relation without implying two separate divine psyches across from each other.

Koine usage allows pros to mean:

  • “toward”

  • “with reference to”

  • “with / in relation to”

  • “in the presence of”

When John says the Logos is pros ton theon, I see that as:

God’s Word in living relation to God, expressive of Him, proceeding from Him, not a second God standing opposite Him.

That’s why I keep pressing the “face-to-face” point: if you insist on a literal “face-to-face” prior to the incarnation, then what face did the Son have? What body? What form? Scripture never says the Son eternally possessed flesh or a bodily “face” before being made of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and taking part of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14).

4. To show I’m not dodging, here’s my view in three simple points

Let me spell out my position as plainly as I can, so you can see there’s no contradiction:

  1. The Logos preexisted – He is eternal, with God, and is God (John 1:1–3).

  2. The Son did not exist as Son before the incarnation – “Son” is tied in Scripture to birth, flesh, obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection (Luke 1:35; Heb. 5:8; Gal. 4:4).

  3. The Logos became the Son when He became flesh – “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). The eternal Logos enters history as the man Christ Jesus.

When I deny an eternal “Son” in a “face-to-face” posture before incarnation, I’m not denying the preexistence of Christ in His divine reality; I’m denying that “Son” as such existed as a separate, embodied person before Mary.

You can disagree with that, of course—but it’s not a contradiction. It’s a distinction between:

  • who Christ eternally is in deity (Logos, the self-expression of God), and

  • what He becomes in time (the Son in flesh).

5. Now, can we come back to the questions I asked?

Since you said I’m not answering your questions, let me show I’m willing to be very direct—and gently ask you to do the same.

Here are the key questions I’ve raised that still haven’t been addressed:

  1. If “face-to-face” is taken literally for pros ton theon,

    • What face did the Son have before the incarnation?

    • What body or form did He possess, scripturally?

  2. If you say He had no body, then “face-to-face” can’t be literal.

    • In that case, isn’t the language relational and metaphorical, just like the way Scripture speaks of God’s “hand,” “arm,” or “eyes”?

  3. If the Son only takes on flesh “when the Word becomes flesh” (John 1:14; Heb. 2:14; Gal. 4:4),

    • on what biblical basis do you speak of an eternally embodied Son prior to that point?

  4. If “with God” (pros ton theon) does not necessarily demand two divine centers of consciousness in Greek usage,

    • why must John 1:1 be read that way and not in the light of Genesis 1’s “God said”?

If I’ve misunderstood your view at any point, I’m happy to be corrected. But it would really help the conversation if we could move from broad accusations (“read Genesis 1,” “you’re contradicting yourself”) to actual, text-based answers to these specific issues. That’s all I’m asking for.

40

Already answered.

And here…

Bart Ehrman, one of the most renowned Bible scholars in the world today, is not himself a Christian or a Trinitarian. He holds the following degrees: Ph.D. – Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985, M.Div. – Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981, and B.A. – Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978.

In his book How Jesus became God he says

“One of the most striking features of John’s Gospel is its elevated claims about Jesus. Here, Jesus is decidedly God and in fact equal with God the Father–before coming into the world, while in the world, and after he leaves the world (emphasis mine). Consider the following passages, which are found only in John among the four Gospels:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the unique one before the Father, full of grace and truth. (1:1, 14; later this Word made flesh is named as “Jesus Christ,” v. 17)
But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I also am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God (5:17-18)
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” (10:30)
Philip said to him. “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (14:8-9)
[Jesus prayed to God:] “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed (17:4-5)
[Jesus prayed:] “Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (17:24).
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28) . . . .
A little later Ehrman says,

“For John, [Jesus] was already both “God” and “with God” in his preincarnate state as a divine being. Nowhere can this view be seen more clearly than in the first eighteen verses of the Gospel, frequently called the Prologue of John . . . in the Prologue we find the clearest expression in the New Testament of Christ as a preesixtent divine being–the Word–who has become a human.” – Ehrman, pp. 271-273

Capable New Testament Greek scholar that he is, he knows full well that the gospel of John as it now stands states that Jesus is indeed God. No Trinitarian bias motivated Ehrman to agree that John asserts Jesus’ divinity because he is not a Trinitarian or a believer.

Trinitarian Scholars on John 1:1 – The Trinity – Delusion or Truth?.

John Phillips outline of the Prologue John 1:1-18

I. The Divine Life in Essence (Jn 1:1-5)

A. The Lord’s Ineffable Person (Jn 1:1-2)

  1. Jesus Is Eternally God (Jn 1:1a)

  2. Jesus Is Equally God (1:1b)

  3. Jesus Is Essentially God (Jn 1:1c-2)

B. The Lord’s Infinite Power (Jn 1:3-5)

  1. His Power of Creation (Jn 1:3)

  2. His Power of Communication (Jn 1:4-5)

II. The Divine Light in Evidence (Jn Jn 1:6-13)

A. The Witness and the Light (Jn 1:6-8)

  1. The Messenger (Jn 1:6)

  2. The Motive (Jn 1:7)

  3. The Method (Jn 1:8)

B. The World and the Light (Jn 1:9-13)

  1. The Light Revealed (Jn 1:9)

  2. The Light Resisted (Jn 1:10-11)

  3. The Light Received (Jn 1:12-13)

III. The Divine Love in Experience (Jn Jn 1:14-18)

A. Incarnation (Jn 1:14)

B. Identification (Jn 1:15)

  1. His Person (Jn 1:15a)

  2. His Pre-Eminence (Jn 1:15b)

  3. His Pre-Existence (Jn 1:15c)

The meaning of λόγος in John’s prologue has been at the center of controversy for many years. One of the writer’s teachers said that people writing about the λόγος have probably written over one hundred thousand pages on what John meant by “word.” (The Eternality and Deity of the Word- John 1-1-2)

John 1:1 Commentary | Precept Austin)

I think you have taken up more than enough time already, because as in every other forum the Oneness position ends up in constant conflict with the Trinitarian reading, and the pattern is always the same, you are not actually interacting with what is written but responding with a ready made script, and your handling of the Prologue of John is not careful exegesis but a painful exercise in forcing the text to say what it never says.

J.