Yep
The Father eternally begets the Son, and eternally Spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son.
What Bible passages do you base that belief on, @Samuel_23?
Well, there is no such term as the Godhead in the original language scriptures. We find that term in the KJV (Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20, and Col 2:9). The problem stems from the translators attempting to make the “Godhead” understandable by deliberately mistranslating the Greek word theios in Acts 17:29 meaning godlike, in Rom 1:20 theotes, meaning divinity (abstractly) and in Col 2:9 theiotes also meaning divinity (abstractly).
I recommend reading scripture in several translations and using an original language lexicon. This practice should assist you in yor studies.
When we move from later creedal language back into the world of the apostles themselves, a simple but important distinction emerges: the Scriptures never articulate God in terms of three eternal hypostases sharing an essence, nor do they ever speak of eternal begetting, eternal procession, or one divine ousia with three co-equal, co-eternal persons. Those terms come centuries later, and while they are sincerely offered attempts to safeguard important truths, they remain post-biblical explanations, not apostolic ones.
What the biblical authors consistently present is far more grounded:
1. God is one—undivided, unpartitioned, without internal distinctions.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut 6:4).
Isaiah does not permit any divisions within the one God:
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isa 45:5).
There is no language here—or anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures—of three eternal centers of consciousness, three hypostases, or internal relational distinctions within God’s being.
2. The Sonship of Jesus is tied to incarnation, conception, birth, obedience, death, resurrection, and exaltation.
Luke places the origin of “Son of God” specifically at the miraculous conception:
“Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
Hebrews grounds Sonship in a today—a point in time:
“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Heb 1:5; Ps 2:7).
The Greek σήμερον does not mean “from eternity,” nor does the perfect tense (γεγέννηκά) indicate an eternal, timeless act.
Nothing in the first-century lexicon describes an eternal, metaphysical begetting.
3. The one God was manifest in the flesh.
Paul writes:
“God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16).
He does not say, “The second eternal hypostasis became flesh.”
The incarnation is the one God revealing Himself in a real human life.
This is why Isaiah can say of the child born:
“His name shall be called… The mighty God, The everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6).
The incarnation reveals the Father in the Son—not a second eternal divine person.
4. The relational language in the Gospels flows from Christ’s genuine humanity.
Jesus prays, obeys, submits, speaks to the Father, is sent, receives authority, learns obedience, suffers, and dies.
None of these are eternal attributes of a divine person—they belong to His human life (Heb 5:7–8; Phil 2:7–8).
To read these human experiences as describing eternal divine relations is to reverse the apostolic pattern.
5. The apostles never present the Spirit as a distinct divine hypostasis alongside Father and Son.
The Spirit is consistently:
• “the Spirit of God” (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 2:11)
• “the Spirit of the Father” (Matt 10:20)
• “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6)
One Spirit, not a third co-eternal person with His own hypostatic identity.
The same Spirit who hovered in Genesis is the Spirit of the Father poured out in Christ (Acts 2:33).
6. The creedal statements rely on concepts foreign to the apostolic writings.
Terms like:
• “three hypostases”
• “eternal begetting”
• “eternal procession”
• “three persons, one substance”
• “co-equal, co-eternal persons”
—all belong to a doctrinal framework developed long after the New Testament era. The apostles do not use these categories, nor do they express the relationships within God in this way.
The question is not whether these later theologians were sincere—they certainly were—but whether their categories represent the biblical authors’ own understanding.
7. The earliest Christian proclamation is simple and consistent:
There is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
This one God was revealed in the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5; 1 Tim 3:16).
The Spirit poured out is the Father’s own Spirit through Christ (Acts 2:33; Rom 8:9).
No tritheism.
No eternal interpersonal distinctions.
No internal hierarchies or processions within God’s being.
Just the one God—who truly became man.
It’s good to remember that the English word “Godhead” is just “Godhood”, the suffix “-head” is just the archaic form of “-hood”. So Godhead = Godhood = Deity/Divinity. “Godhead”, then, isn’t a mistranslation, it’s just an archaic translation.
So “the fullness of the Godhead” simply means Jesus is fully Divine. He’s God (the Son).
1 Like
Incorrect @AWB since your claim is partially right but materially incorrect because while the English term Godhead is a KJV choice, the underlying Greek words theios in ~Acts 17:29, theotēs in ~Romans 1:20, and theotēs again in ~Colossians 2:9 absolutely do refer to divine nature, and in the case of theotēs in Colossians 2:9 the term is the strongest possible Greek expression for full and essential deity, meaning the fullness of the divine essence dwells bodily in Christ, and nowhere does the New Testament imply anything less than the fullness of what we would call the Godhead residing in Him, so your statement that the translators deliberately mistranslated these terms is not accurate, because the KJV may be archaic, but its rendering reflects real underlying concepts of deity, and your advice to consult multiple translations is fine, but your linguistic claim collapses under basic lexicon work, so you need to revise your point before you mislead readers.
In him all the fullness of deity lives. The present tense in this verse (“lives”) is significant. Again, as was stated in the note on 1:19, this is not a temporary dwelling, but a permanent one. Paul’s point is polemical against the idea that the fullness of God dwells anywhere else, as the Gnostics believed, except in Christ alone. At the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity assumed humanity, and is forever the God-man.
NET notes.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (hoti en autōi katoikei pān to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs). In this sentence, given as the reason (hoti, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from theos, deitas) and not to be confused with theiotes in Rom_1:20 (from theios, the quality of God, divinitas), here only in N.T. as theiotēs only in Rom_1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. Theiotēs occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that “all the plērōma of the Godhead,” not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (sōmatikōs, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Php_2:9-11), “the body of his glory” (tōi sōmati tēs doxēs). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (Jhn_1:1, Jhn_1:18; Php_2:6), during the Incarnation (Jhn_1:14, Jhn_1:18; 1Jn_1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Php_2:7). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.
Robertson Word Pictures.
Godhead. Gr. theotētos (S# G2320, only here). J. H. Thayer gives the definition “deity. i.e. the state of being God, Godhead” (Lexicon, p. 288b). Trench states “St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead… He was, and is, absolute and perfect God…” (Synonyms, sec. 2, p. 8). Bengel states “not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself.” Alford states “theotēs, the abstract of theos, must not be confounded with theiotēs, the abstract of theios, divine, which occurs in Rom_1:20,”
Cognate with Theos , there are three other words to be noted :
- Theotes , rendered “Deity”, and used of Christ. Occurs only in Col_2:9, and has relation to the Godhead personally ; while
- Theiotes , rendered “Deity” also, is Deity in the abstract . Occurs only in Rom_1:20.
- Theios , rendered “Divine”, and is used of Christ. Occurs only in 2Pe_1:3; 2Pe_1:4; and, with the Article, in Act_17:29, where it is rendered “Godhead”. Gr. = that which [is] Divine.
-
“For in him dwelleth” (hoti en auto katoikei) “because in him dwells;” permanently dwells, continuously, Joh_1:14; Joh_14:10; Joh_17:21; Joh_17:23; 2Co_5:19 declares that “God (the triune one) was in Christ (dwelling) reconciling the world unto himself;” 1Jn_5:20.
-
“All the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (pen to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos) “all the fulness of the trinity or Godhead bodily.” This passage asserts the real Deity of Christ, as opposed to the erroneous view that angels also constituted the Godhead. Jesus was and is the express image of God in the ancient Hebrew (elohim-trinitarian) sense, Heb_1:1-3.
Col 2:8 Beware lest there be anyone of you taken captive through philosophical tevunah (wisdom) and empty deceit according to the kabbalah (oral tradition) of mere Bnei Adam, according to the ikkarim (basic principles) of the Olam Hazeh and not according to Moshiach;
Col 2:9 Because in Moshiach kol melo Elohim (all the plentitude of G-d) finds its bodily maon laShechinah (dwelling place for the Shechinah).
Col 2:10 And you have been granted melo (plentitude) in Moshiach, who is the Rosh of all rule and authority.
J.
TheollogyNerd & Johann: Thank you. Learn something new every day. 
However, I still don’t like the term. LOL
1 Like
No problem brother @AWB
For your perusal.
Since the context of Col. 2:9+ deals with the person of Christ, Paul apparently chose a term distinctive in that respect, theótēs. The contexts of Acts 17:29+ and Rom. 1:20+ emphasize the character rather than the person of God. The terms used are impersonal in connotation. Because of these differences in context and word derivation it is preferable to use distinctive English terms. “Deity” seems appropriate for the concept of tó theíon in Acts 17:29+ and for theiótēs in Rom. 1:20+, but inadequate for theótēs in Col. 2:9+. “Godhead” more adequately portrays the truth that all that constitutes God in person, character and being dwells in Christ the Son. Speaking of God in respect to His “Godness” the term “deity” is sufficient, but in reference to His person and/or being a designation with the word “god” seems preferable. (G. E. Montgomery)
Theotes refers to the essence and nature of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (which is a different Greek word (theiotes). Christ, as Man, was not merely God-like, but was in the fullest sense, God.
Vine on Ro 1:20+ - Theiotēs, used here only in the New Testament, is associated in meaning with theotēs, Godhead, which is used only in Colossians 2:9. There is, however, a certain distinction in meaning and accordingly the former is here translated “divinity” and the latter “godhead.” The difference in the words is appropriate to the respective passages. Here Paul is speaking of the revelation which God has given in nature of His divine attributes. Man can thereby know certain facts about Him, such as His divinity, but cannot know God personally. Such knowledge can come only through the Son of God (cp. John 17:25 with John 1:18). In Colossians 2:9 Paul is speaking of the absolute Godhead of Christ, the fullness of which dwells in Him, and not of an external revelation of His divine attributes. Hence the suitability of theotēs, deity, in that verse.
Vine on Theotes in Col 2:9 - The Godhead (theotēs) signifies the nature and attributes of deity, not merely divinity. In the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhood, essentially, perfectly, the very personality of God. The word is thus to be distinguished from theiotēs in Romans 1:20+, where the apostle is declaring what may be known of Him from creation, the traces of Himself to be discovered in nature, not the personal God Himself. He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son, who has made this possible because of His Incarnation. That is what is conveyed by the term “bodily,” a bodily manifestation, which still exists and ever will.
Earle - The Greek word is theotes (only here in NT). It comes from theos, “God.” The preferable translation is “deity” (RSV, NASB, NIV). That is a simpler and more commonly used term today than “Godhead.” It means the essence of the divine nature.
Ralph Earle - Comparison of theiotes and theotes - theiotes, found only in Ro 1:20+ in the NT. It is similar to theotes, which also occurs only once in the NT, in Col. 2:9. Both are translated “Godhead” in the KJV. Is there any real difference in meaning between the two words? Many deny it. The RSV translates both “deity,” thus agreeing with the KJV. TDNT makes no distinction. But the ASV has “divinity” in Rom. 1:20 and “Godhead” in Col. 2:9. This distinction is supported by Vincent. He writes on the passage here in Romans: “Better, divinity. Godhead expresses deity (theotes). Theiotes is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes” (3:16).
A high authority in the field is Archbishop Trench, who wrote the definitive work Synonyms of the New Testament. He insists on a distinction between the two terms under discussion. Speaking of theiotes in Ro. 1:20 he says:
Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in his Son; but only his divine attributes, his majesty and glory. . . . It is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty . . . from his works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short of the revelation of his Eternal Word" (p. 8).
Cremer supports this distinction. He writes: “Theiotes is to be distinguished from theotes thus, theotes = that which God is, theiotes = that which is of God” (p. 281).
For purposes of exact theological accuracy it would appear that these two terms should be kept distinct. Men see the attributes of God in His creation. But they can see His person only in His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sanday and Headlam are in general agreement with this. They write: “Theotes = Divine Personality, theiotes = Divine nature and properties” (p. 43).
Dwells (2730) (katoikeo from kata = intensifying preposition which shows permanence + oikeo =occupy a house) means literally to settle down (be at home, dwell) in a place so to take up permanent abode or residence.
Katoikeo is in the present tense signifying that Jesus has always been and will always be God and will never cease to be God. The Gnostics were saying Jesus was not fully God and fully man. The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation for John writes that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1) and Paul reiterates “He existed in the form of God” (see note Philippians 2:6)
Katoikeo - 44x in 40v - dwell(17), dwelling(1), dwells(3), dwells within(1), live(7), lived(7), living(4),resided(1), residents(1), settled(2).
Matt. 2:23; 4:13; 12:45; 23:21; Lk. 11:26; 13:4; Acts 1:19f; 2:5, 9, 14; 4:16; 7:2, 4, 48; 9:22, 32, 35; 11:29; 13:27; 17:24, 26; 19:10, 17; 22:12; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:19; 2:9; Heb. 11:9; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 2:13; 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 12, 14; 17:2, 8
And a hearty welcome to the forum!
J.
@Johann Thank you - and you do excellent with your teaching.
1 Like
Hi @AWB ! What a pleasant surprise!
Adoneinu Yeshua HaMashiach is still working softly through the qol demamah daqqah of the Ruach HaQodesh!
J.
1 Like
One book I suggest you read is called “The Character of Physical Law”, by Richard Feynman of California Institute of Technology. The book itself only explains the square law of gravity for undergraduate physics majors, but if you read it and think laterally, you’ll really see how gravity has only one nature, inherent in mass, but different characteristics or qualities on the basis of density, distance from the sun, and torque, which is caused by the the fact that Earth tilts on its axis.
One law, but three properties of the planet that give it its nature, as if to say that gravity has three faces, like the Moon has three phases. Also, besides the three properties of the Earth that effect gravity, an orbiting Moon exists, which yields a fourth effect on the Earth’s gravitationally determined orbit around the Sun.
Hence the term “Square Law of Gravity”. Gravity is four square, like your church. Three aspects of God, and you orbiting Him because of his greater power.
Trinity is a book by Leon Uris. It has an Irish flag on the cover.
I believe Scripture teaches that there is one God, eternally revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Passages like Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-14, and 2 Corinthians 13:14 show both the unity of God and the distinct persons working together perfectly.
I did not understand the second paragraph.
Interesting to me is We cannot do the basic things asked of us, yet we dwelve into the uncreated.
I wonder if we Loved the way Jesus tells us to if we would have a sense of what it means to be one?
I myself can’t tell you how God is one…without looking into how many different ways He is one.
There is one God- what does that mean?
Israel the Lord God is one- what does that mean?
A three headed man that shares the same body?
Or are there three men with one body
Does a body have to be deligated to each seperately in order for each to be called a man?
And what about the Holyghost? And where does the woman fit in all this?
Do we need to understand it to get heaven into us now or does understanding unfold as we live our lives out like Christ did on earth?
Can God’s unity also be His essence?
Just wondering
Really good! I have to think it over and meditate on it to see if I can see through your lens. Then I’ll asked questions tomorrow.
What you’re saying is God is God.
The term father, son, and Holyghost are just titles for the same God.
And God is not limited to space and time- yet God can limit himself to space and time.
If God is not limited to space and time…and it is God in us that is the hope of Glory. Then life is God in u in contact with the same God in heaven. Knowing whose you are.
However How does God get in you? Receiving God’s word (story), i sound like a jw…or Word (Christ)
The first might mean that every breath of God’s has a story, or is a story, and God is a story.
Then you have the annoited story, or the story that is/was annointed.
But if the Story details Love..God is Love
…
It was something you said last time we interacted…as for Jesus having the same will as the father.
But if He did not come to do His own will, what would that have been? To try and preserve His physical life?
What did He mean then…i believe you once said Jesus and the father had the same will… explain 
please