No. Not once have you explained how Christ had “face to face” relation prior to incarnation.
Passive resistance is all I am seeing here, because I have already laid out the biblical material in front of you with Scripture itself yet you still do not engage it, you answer with a prefabricated script as if the morphology and syntax of the text do not even exist, and it has turned into an entire day of circular back and forth for no reason. You insist that the Word became flesh but not the Son, which ends up denying Sonship altogether, and you will immediately deny that even as you type it, and you push back against the eternal Sonship of Yeshua Ha Mashiach, which is why I am pointing you to this article that refutes that position clearly and directly.
https://www.gospelstandard.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=b9eefd81-6e92-4367-a78d-1d0a6b71c985&chset=b8533568-1430-4756-b64e-205e84399952
I stand for truth.
J.
ETERNAL SONSHIP
OF THE
LORD JESUS CHRIST,
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
BY
J. C. PHILPOT. M.A.
I know you don’t read…
And since you keep insisting that no preincarnate face to face relation is ever stated, I need you to explain what you do with ~John 1:1 where the phrase pros ton Theon describes personal presence and relational orientation, and I also need you to explain how you interpret ~John 17:5 where Jesus speaks of the glory He was having with the Father before the world existed, because both passages directly contradict your claim and both use grammar you have not addressed at all.
Joh 17:5 And now give me kavod, Avi, along with Yourself with the kavod which I was having with You before HaOlam came to be [Yn 1:1 3; Prov 8:30; 30:4].
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, you glorify me at your side [Literally “by the side of yourself”] with the glory that I had at your side [Literally “by the side of you”] before the world existed.
And already explained.
J.
Respectfully, this has nothing to do with “passive resistance.” I’m engaging every text you quote — but what you’re calling “biblical material” is really a list of verses interpreted through your system, not the verses themselves demonstrating your conclusions. You keep assuming eternal Sonship first, and then treating every passage as if it proves what you already decided. That’s not exegesis — that’s confirmation bias.
Let’s clear up the central accusation:
“You insist the Word became flesh but not the Son, which ends up denying Sonship altogether.”
No — that is a misrepresentation of my position.
I affirm Sonship.
I affirm the Son is fully God and fully man.
I affirm the Son’s true incarnation, suffering, obedience, death, resurrection, and exaltation.
What I deny is that “Son” existed as “Son” before the incarnation, because Scripture defines Sonship in and through incarnation:
-
“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)
-
“The children partook of flesh and blood, He also likewise took part.” (Heb. 2:14)
-
“The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14)
Nothing in Scripture ever states:
-
“the Son existed eternally as the Son,”
-
“the Son was with the Father as a second divine person,”
-
“the Son took on flesh but remained the eternal Son-person.”
Those are post-apostolic categories — not biblical statements.
And nothing about affirming John 1:14 denies Sonship.
It actually preserves it.
Sonship begins in incarnation — exactly where Scripture places it.
“You ignore morphology and syntax.”
No, I am taking them seriously. You keep using Greek forms to draw theological conclusions they do not require.
-
En archē ēn proves preexistence — not “eternal Son-personhood.”
-
Pros ton Theon establishes relation — not “face-to-face divine fellowship.”
-
Imperfect ēn expresses continuous past existence — not “two divine centers of consciousness.”
-
“Sent” (apesteilen) signifies mission — not eternal hypostatic distinctions.
Your grammar is accurate; your theological deductions are not demanded by the grammar.
“You push back against eternal Sonship.”
Yes — because Scripture does.
The Bible never places “Son” in eternity past.
It always ties Sonship to:
-
birth
-
humanity
-
flesh and blood
-
obedience
-
suffering
-
death
-
resurrection
Those are historical, temporal, embodied realities — not eternal ones.
To speak of “eternal Sonship” is to:
-
invent an eternal human identity
-
detach “Son” from its biblical definition
-
inject Greek metaphysics into Hebrew categories
-
create two divine minds in God
-
then accuse others of heresy for not affirming what Scripture never reveals
That is why the burden of proof is still on your side.
“You’re using prefabricated scripts.”
Friend, everything I’m writing comes from:
-
John 1
-
Luke 1
-
Hebrews 2
-
Galatians 4
-
Old Testament revelation about God’s Word
-
and the grammar you yourself raised
There is no “script.”
There is simply Scripture — and a refusal to let fourth-century categories override first-century revelation.
If you want to send the article, that’s fine.
But an article is not Scripture.
If eternal Sonship is biblical, then it should be demonstrable without appealing to anything post-apostolic.
I’m still waiting for that demonstration.
Game’s over, mate. Right here. Using ChatGPT as your doctrinal backbone did not work, and your replies showed it. It is 01.34 AM here in South Africa, and I have spent more than enough time wading through regenerative arguments that ignored what I actually wrote.
I have no issue with AI, especially for those who need help with English, but dragging an AI into a debate to undermine the Triune Godhead is careless and misleading. That is on you. I even handed you links, Scripture, context, and clear exegesis, yet nothing landed.
Maybe someone else reading the thread will benefit, since sloth is not my habit. But do not try this tactic again.
This is proof that I do read what you “prompt”
J.
Supposed to be the Johannine’s summary
1. One shared mind:
This view holds that the Trinity shares a single divine will and consciousness. Communication, then, is not a transfer of knowledge but a relational expression between the persons. Verses like John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) support this unity. But it raises questions about Jesus’ human prayers, especially in Gethsemane.
2. Distinct minds in perfect sync:
This “social Trinity” model sees Father, Son, and Spirit as three minds, each fully divine, sharing all knowledge without limitation. It affirms real interaction, as seen when Jesus prays to the Father. It fits well with passages where the Son submits to the Father (John 6:38), yet still may stretch our understanding of divine omniscience.
3. Beyond human:
God is not a creature, so terms like “mind” or “telepathy,” I think, fall short. Isaiah 55:9 reminds us, “My thoughts are not your thoughts.” The Trinity’s inner life is holy ground…revealed in part, but not fully explained.
So to your closing question: Do they “talk” as separate minds? Tradition leans on both truths: real relationship (not pantomime), yet perfect unity of essence and will.I t’s divine mystery
I’m in awe of everyday! What an interesting topic….and quite over my head really.
Biblical monotheism stands or falls on the indivisibility of God’s inner life: “I am God, and there is none else… there is none beside Me” (Isa. 45:21–22). The moment we introduce one divine mind for the Father and another divine mind for the Son, we no longer have one God in any coherent sense. Two divine consciousnesses—even if perfectly synchronized—are still two divine consciousnesses; that is not unity of being, but a unity of cooperation. It’s the difference between one God and two Gods who agree.
This is why the incarnation is so crucial. Scripture presents one divine mind and one divine will—God’s—fully inhabiting a real human nature with a human mind and human will (Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8; John 12:27). Jesus prays, submits, learns, grows, and suffers not because there are two divine minds, but because the one God has assumed a real human psychology. The prayers of Jesus are not “divine-to-divine communication”; they are “human-to-divine communication”; the authentic prayers of a human being in whom the fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). This preserves monotheism without fracturing God internally.
When Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), it isn’t two divine minds declaring synchronized thought—it is the man Christ Jesus revealing the unity of identity between the Father who indwells Him (John 14:10) and the humanity through which that Father is made known (John 14:9). And when He prays in Gethsemane, the distinction isn’t between two eternal divine persons—it’s between the divine will of God and the human will the Son assumed, exactly as Hebrews teaches: “Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8).
So while I respect an appeal to “mystery,” the biblical material actually gives us a much clearer framework: one divine mind, one divine will, one God—revealed in Christ through a genuine human mind and human will. That maintains both monotheism and incarnation without requiring internal multiplicity within God’s eternal being.
You declared victory pretty quick here.
There’s nothing in the passages you quote which “collapse the Trinitarian model”. It’s like a flat earther saying the sky is blue, and then declaring they have proved the earth is flat. Nothing in the statement “the sky is blue” is contrary or at odds with the standard globe earth model.
Likewise, there is nothing said here in Isaiah 45 which is at odds or contrary to the Trinitarian view. Of course there is one God, and He alone is God and Savior. The Name by which He revealed Himself to ancient Israel is by the Name YHWH.
YHWH alone is God and Savior.
The One and Singular God who says “I am YHWH and beside Me there is no Savior” is the One and Holy Trinity.
The Father is Savior
The Son is Savior
The Holy Spirit is Savior
Not three saviors, but one Savior. The Three Divine Persons are each the One Savior; and are in their indivisible Sameness and Unity of Being the one Savior. Yet, of course, the Father did not die for my sins, neither did the Holy Spirit, only the Son bore flesh and suffered and died. And so alone does the Son save me by His Incarnation, Suffering, Death, and Resurrection; even as the Father alone saves me by sending His only-begotten Son to be conceived in the womb of the Virgin, take on flesh, and suffer and die for me; and likewise I have one Savior in the Holy Spirit, who saves me graciously by working faith into my heart by the holy proclamation of the Gospel–of the Son sent by the Father to become flesh, suffer, die, and rise again.
So yes, there is no Savior besides YHWH. There is no Savior other than the Holy Trinity.
I appreciate the effort, but this reply actually illustrates the very issue I was raising.
You didn’t give a Trinitarian explanation from Scripture, Hebrew, or Greek.
You gave a Trinitarian assertion and then read it back into Isaiah after the fact.
Everything you said depends entirely on a later doctrinal framework—that there are “three divine persons, each of whom is the one Savior,” and that these three persons are “indivisibly the one YHWH.” But none of those concepts, phrases, categories, or distinctions appear anywhere in the Hebrew text, nor in first-century apostolic vocabulary.
Let’s be clear:
You didn’t demonstrate this from Scripture.
You simply declared it and then interpreted Isaiah through that declaration.
That is exactly the problem.
1. Isaiah does not say, “We, the Three Persons, are YHWH.”
Isaiah’s monotheism is simple, emphatic, and unambiguous:
-
“I am YHWH… beside ME there is no Savior.” (Isa 43:11)
-
“There is no God else beside ME.” (Isa 45:21)
-
“Look unto ME… for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isa 45:22)
Hebrew grammar here is singular:
ani ani YHWH — “I, I am YHWH.”
No plurals.
No multi-person structure.
No “we” of the Godhead.
No compound unity.
YHWH is one speaking subject.
If you claim this “one” speaking subject is actually “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,” you must prove that from the text itself—not import it from theology written 700–1700 years later.
2. Isaiah says YHWH alone is Savior. The NT says Jesus alone is Savior.
The biblical conclusion is simple.**
Isaiah 43:11
“Besides ME there is no Savior.”
Isaiah 45:21
“There is no God else beside ME; a just God and a Savior.”
Now compare the apostolic proclamation:
Luke 2:11
“A Savior… Christ the Lord.”
Acts 4:12
“There is no other name under heaven… whereby we must be saved.”
Jude 1:25
“To the only God our Savior… through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Titus 2:13
“Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
The apostolic logic is clear:
If YHWH alone is Savior, and Jesus is Savior, then Jesus is YHWH.
Your solution is to say, “The Father is Savior, the Son is Savior, the Spirit is Savior—but not three Saviors, one Savior.”
But that is not Isaiah’s point.
Isaiah’s point is not “there is one essence that unites multiple saviors.”
Isaiah’s point is that the One who speaks—the single divine “I”—is the only Savior.
The Trinitarian reading introduces three personal subjects into the single speaking “I,” which Isaiah never does.
3. Claiming each divine Person is the “one Savior” is not a biblical explanation—it is a later theological construct.
You said:
“The Father is Savior. The Son is Savior. The Spirit is Savior. Not three Saviors but one Savior.”
That phrasing comes from Nicene and post-Nicene theology, not from Isaiah, not from Moses, not from the apostles, not from the Greek NT.
Show me:
-
“three Persons who are each the one Savior”
-
“one divine essence acting through three self-aware subjects”
-
“not three Saviors but one Savior”
…in Scripture, using biblical vocabulary.
You can’t—because the Bible never speaks that way.
Isaiah never says:
“Three are Savior, yet one Savior.”
He says:
“I alone… I alone… I alone.”
One speaker.
One subject.
One God.
One Savior.
4. You sidestepped Isaiah 9:6 entirely.
Isaiah 9:6 lists specific titles of the coming Messiah:
-
Wonderful
-
Counsellor
-
The Mighty God (El Gibbor)
-
The Everlasting Father (Avi-ad)
These are not “titles of the Trinity.”
They are titles of the child who is born.
Isaiah does not say:
“The divine essence is Everlasting Father.”
He says:
“The Son given to us is Everlasting Father.”
This completely collapses the Father–Son distinction you are arguing for.
Your only response was to skip the verse altogether.
5. You claim YHWH is the Trinity. Scripture never says that.
Where does Scripture say:
-
“YHWH” = “the Trinity”?
-
“The one God is three Persons”?
-
“The Father, Son, and Spirit are each YHWH as three distinct centers of consciousness”?
-
“These three are each the one Savior in their indivisible unity”?
These are post-biblical explanations.
You may believe them, but they do not come from Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, or the apostles.
And that was the entire point of my challenge.
6. Your comparison to flat-earthers ignores the issue I raised.
Flat-earthers misuse observable data.
But what I’m asking you for is not “observable data,” but textual proof.
Your answer didn’t provide it.
It simply stated the Trinitarian conclusion and then said Isaiah doesn’t contradict it.
But you didn’t show:
-
Isaiah teaching three divine persons
-
Isaiah teaching multiple personal saviors
-
Isaiah teaching a tri-personal YHWH
-
Isaiah teaching multiple “I AM” speakers inside the divine identity
Instead, Isaiah explicitly denies any divine plurality beside YHWH.
If you want to argue that:
“YHWH is the Trinity, and each divine Person is fully the one Savior,”
then demonstrate that:
-
in the Hebrew grammar of Isaiah,
-
in the apostolic writings,
-
in the first-century Jewish monotheistic framework,
-
and in the vocabulary of Scripture itself.
But simply asserting Nicene categories and then overlaying them onto Isaiah is not the same as proving them from the text.
My request remains the same:
Use Scripture.
Use Hebrew and Greek grammar.
Use first-century apostolic categories.
Not post-biblical metaphysics.
If Isaiah 43–45 teaches the Trinity, show it from the text.
If Isaiah 9:6 does not identify the Messiah as the Everlasting Father, show it from the Hebrew.
Anything else is an assertion—not an explanation.
Here we go again.
In your previous post you literally quoted Scripture and then read your Oneness view into the text, declaring those passages collapse the Trinitarian model.
This is what I meant when I said you seem to simply want to control the conversation, rather than engage. Rather than actually engaging in the argument, you complain about being given an explanation that contradicts your own view.
And that’s all this is. A complaint that we don’t agree with you.
As opposed to what you did when you wrote:
A declaration, a baseless one at that.
Why should I bother continuing to engage with you if you can’t be trusted to argue in good faith?
I hear what you’re saying, and I don’t want this to feel like we’re talking past each other. My intent is not to control the conversation or to complain that you disagree with me—disagreement is part of genuine dialogue. What I’m trying to do is stay anchored in the specific point that began this exchange: whether Isaiah’s statements about YHWH being the only Savior can be explained from Scripture itself within a Trinitarian framework. When I ask for a biblical explanation, it isn’t out of frustration but out of a desire to understand how you see the text functioning, using the same categories Isaiah and the apostles used. I’m not dismissing your view; I’m simply asking for clarity on how the conclusion “YHWH is the Trinity” is derived from the Hebrew grammar, context, and monotheistic language of Isaiah—because that’s the heart of the question. I want to make sure we’re both engaging the actual claim rather than the perception that I’m upset or trying to control the discussion. I’m here to understand your reasoning from Scripture, not to avoid it.
I understand why that line struck you the wrong way, and I’m not trying to make bold declarations just to score points or shut down discussion. When I said the passage “collapses the Trinitarian model,” I meant it in the sense that, from my reading of the text, the language Isaiah uses—particularly the singular personal pronouns and the exclusive claims of YHWH—doesn’t easily fit with a multi-person framework. That wasn’t meant as a dismissal of your view or as a refusal to engage, but simply as my conclusion based on the passage itself.
I’m absolutely willing to talk through the text patiently and respectfully, and I have no desire to argue in a way that feels unfair or in bad faith. My goal here isn’t to “win,” but to understand how you see the passage working—and to explain why, from my perspective, the plain reading leads in a different direction. If we can keep the focus on the Scripture itself and walk through the reasoning on both sides, I’m more than willing to continue the conversation in a constructive way.