@BrotherDavid@SincereSeeker , i looked into ur posts, here I’ll add mine too. BrotherDavid, im quite in disagreement with your arguments here is why:
Fundamental ontology of the trinity
God is one ousia (essence) in three hypostaseis (persons).This orthodox articulation stems from, una essential, tres personae, ya greek μία ousia, tries hypostaseis. This doctrine is rooted in the scripture and systematized by the Cappadocian Father: St Basil the Great, St, Gregory of Nyssa and St.Gregory Nazianzen, who made a critical distinction between: Ousia: what God is and Hypostasis : who God is. St Gregory Nazianzen (oration 31, On the Holy Spirit) says that ‘We do not divide the Godhead, like some, nor do we confuse the persons, like others.’
Exegesis
Luke 3:21-22: Theophany at Christ’s baptism. This is a perichoretic revelation, each hypostasis acts distinctly but never independently. It is not a theophanic masquerade but a trinue manifestation. The Son (ho huios) is incarnate-Ἐσαρκώθη. The Spirit (to pneuma to hagion) is visible in eidos somatikō. The Father’s voice (phōnē ek tou ouranou)affirms the Son. This is not a prosopic shift. The simultaneity if action proves distinct personal subsistence.
Look into John 14:16: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16–17 ESV). Here we see ‘I’, Jesus, the Logos ensarkos (the Word made flesh. ‘the Father’, ho pater arche anarchos (source without source) and ‘another comforter’, allos Parakletos which means another of the same kind, not the same person, pls note that. Now here if u read in context we see, in John 14:16, the word used is allos (ἄλλος) which means another of the same essence and not heteros(ἕτερος)) which would imply a different nature. Thus the Spirit is heteros hypostasis but homoousios with the Father and The Son. If Jesus is the Spirit, why ask the Father to send ‘another’ paraclete? The prayer would be ontologically meaningless.
now Colossians 2:9 we see “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”: , this verse doesn’t prove Jesus alone is the full Godhead (i.e. Jesus is the Father and the Spirit). The correct exegesis would be: pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς). Here plērōma means fullness of divine nature, not of personhood. Theotētos means divine essence not Trinitas personarum. St Athanasius explains that ‘Christ is not the totality of the Godhead by way of exclusion of the Father and Spirit, but in His Person the fullness dwells bodily.’ This affirms the communication idiomatum (communication of properties): Jesus, as one divine person, possesses the total divine nature, just as the Father and The Spirit do.
In Matthew 28:19 : “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
Greek is εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (eis to onoma), see it uses singular ‘name’ not names. THe formula is triadic but unified. One Name (Onoma), three persons (Hypostasieis) . In didache 7:1 ‘Baptize into the name of The Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ The Apostoles later “in Jesus’ name” baptisms do not contradict but presume trinitarian theology: the Son is not the whole Godhead but its manifestation in redemptive history (oikonomia).
Genesis 1:26: “Let Us make man..”
Here its wrong to say God spoke to angels or himself. This is exegetically untenable and theologically spurious. Look at the Hebrew: na’aseh adam b’tzalmenu is a plural cohortative verb as in נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ. Angels don’t create, only God alone is creator (Isaiah 44:24). St Irenaeus (Adv.Haer.4.20.1): “The Father speaks to the Son and the Spirit—their communion in the act of creation reflects their consubstantial unity.” This is ad intra Trinitarian deliberation. Latin Trinitarian Formula (St Augustine, De Trinitate): Una essentia, tres subsistentiae
Essentia- what God is (being)
Subsistentia (or persona)- who God is (persons)
The divine essence is indivisa et communis, but the persons are incommunicabiles (non-interchangeable) Circumincessio/Perichōrēsis:
The persons co-inhere without confusion. This is not successive manifestation but eternal co-existence. as in John 17:21 “As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You.” To deny the trinity is to
Undermine the imago Dei (image of God), which reflects relational plurality. Impose anthropomorphic limitations on divine mystery. Reject conciliar orthodoxy and fall into the errors of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata and the Socinians.
St Gregory Nazianzen declared in Oration 40 that : “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One.”
This is a common and important question, but the answer lies in understanding the distinction between the humanity of Jesus and the deity that dwelled within Him—not a division between three divine persons. When Jesus prayed, He did so as a man—the Son, the Lamb, the Mediator—not as a second divine person communicating with another. He was both fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16). As God manifest in the flesh, Jesus had a real human will, mind, and emotions, and in that human capacity He prayed to the eternal Spirit, His own divine nature—not to another person of a divided Godhead, but to the Father who indwelt Him (John 14:10). When He said the Father sent Him, that’s not two divine persons in conversation, but the Spirit of God commissioning the man Christ Jesus for redemptive purpose (Galatians 4:4). And when Jesus said He would send the Comforter, He clarified in John 14:18: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” The Spirit He sends is not another person, but His own Spirit—“Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). So the answer is not in three persons, but in the glorious mystery of the Incarnation—one God who became man, prayed as man, submitted as man, and now indwells believers as the Spirit. To ask, “Who was He praying to?” presumes a separation that Scripture never affirms. Jesus was not praying across the Trinity—He was the man Christ Jesus communing with the eternal Spirit that filled Him.
Hypostatic union: A Chalcedonian Apodictic Dogma
The attempt to collapse the hypostatic union into a mere manifestation of a singular divine essence fails to recognise the noncommunicable properties of the persons of the Trinity as meticulously defined by the Council of CHalcedon (451AD). The Union of the divine and human natures of Christ doesn’t imply a fusion but rather a perfectly paradoxical union , where the divine nature remains fully divine and the human nature remains fully human., united in one hypostasis of Christ. The hypostatic union must not be conflated with modlisitic reductions as Chalcedonian definition says: “One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably…” This emphasizes that the two natures in Christ are not transubstantiated, nor are they confused into a third mode, but preserve their fullness in the one hypostasis, a Christological paradox which is essential for preserving both the full deity and full humanity of Christ in the unity of the Person of the Son.
Ontological and economic distinctions: The Trinity and the Incarnation. Modalistic interpretation assumes ontological equivalence between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where their relational distinctions are dissolved into a single mode of divine manifestations. This misunderstanding is further exacerbated by the conflation of the human nature of Christ with the divine essence, resulting in a reductionist view of eternal persons of the Godhead. The ontological trinity refers to the eternal relations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where the persons are distinct in their subsistent hypostases but united in one divine essence. The Father eternally generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. These eternal relations are irreducible to mere manifestations or functions, as modalism suggests. Economic trinity on the other hand refers to the way the persons of the Trinity interact with creation, particularly in the economy of salvation. In the Incarnation, the Son takes on human nature and enters into the economy of redemption. This is not a mode of divine manifestations but a real act of personal self-revelation by the Second person of the Trinity, who remains fully God while assuming full humanity.
Theological Significance of Jesus’ prayer, one needs a Dialogical distinction. Jesus’ prayers to the Father represent an interaction between his human nature and divine essence rather than a dialogue between distinct divine persons fails to account for the ontological necessity of the distinction between the persons in the Trinity. The prayer of Christ in John 17 reveals an unambiguous personal distinction between the Son and The Father as in
John 12:1-5: “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You…”
This interpersoanl dialogue between the Son and the Father affirms the eternal relationailty of the persons of the Trinity. The Son, doesn’t pray to hHs own divine essence but to the Father who is eternally distinct from him. Such a prayer cannot be understood in modalisitic terms for it presupposes the personal distinction between the Son and the Father.
Furthermore John 14:16-17, where Jesus promises sending of the Paraclete, affirms that the Spirit is not another mode of the Son, but a distinct person who is sent by the Father and communicates the will of the Son. One’s argument fails to uphold the full Trinitarian Reality of these distinct persons who share the same divine essence but remain eternally distinct in their personal hypostases.
Christ’s role as mediator and doctrine of Perichoresis: Modalistic view undermines the Christological and Trinitarian doctrine of perichoresis, which asserts that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally interpenetrating one another in their divine essence while remaining distinguished in their subsistent hypostases. The Son;s role as mediator in the economy of salvation is predicated upon his distinctiveness from the Father, as He eternally proceeds from the Father and has the fullness in his divine person.
As in Colossians 2:9:“For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…” The fullness of deity dwells in the person of Christ, not in a single mode of divine manifestation. This text affirms the real personal union of divine and human natures in Christ, each retaining their distinct properties without confusion or change.
Theological and Historical Rejection
Modalistic interpretation of Christ’s prayer and the incarnation ignores the historical theological rejection of modalism by the early Chruch Fathers, particularly Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius and the Cappadocians. Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxean, argues modalism dissolves the true distinction between the persons of the Trinity, thereby undermining the very possibility of revelation and redemption. The ontological distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit is necessary for maintaining the integrity of redemptive history and the interpersonal relationship of God with His creation..
I have observed, when a mere mortal attempts to grasp the idea of an eternal almighty, omniscient God, and then he further attempts to condense that idea into representative words that he can communicate those ideas with others, that man struggles greatly. He quickly discovers how his efforts are greatly restrained by the limits of his language, and his own personal vocabulary, and the boundaries of his own experiences. Even the most erudite wordsmith will experience disappointment trying to put into words the soaring images of his mind, an infantile awareness that has been born anew from above. The yield of his struggle is never more than a shadowy oversimplification of something far too great for expression in any language. Try as he may, his words will feel to him insufficient and impotent, but worse, others will almost always misunderstand him and may openly criticize. History tells us that men in this condition will band together, in counsel of mutual Christian love and respect, amass the forces of multiple scholarly minds to craft their highest thoughts into creedal form. Mankind’s undying need to know his God more fully is a gift that comes wrapped up with the gift of life.
…that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, …Philippians 3:10
When God speaks to mankind, He must surely condescend to such an enormous degree, as He necessarily must reduce even heaven’s simplest ideas into something that will cram into a created human mind, spilling over, still too big for men to adequately contemplate. Even so, God is so gracious, He continually reveals Himself to us, bit by bit, mite by mite, jot by tittle, like a generous sower, scattering tens of thousands of seeds with the foreknowledge only a few of them will actually take root, grow, and eventually produce fruit.
"For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:10-11
Mankind takes in God’s revelation like manna, like rain from heaven, we gather small amounts of it, taking it into ourselves, comprehending only a miniscule amount of the flood of revelation. The highest thoughts of mankind regarding His creator never grow to anything more than a passing whiff of a heavenly scent that testifies of vast unexperienced glory. I assume, when we are fully in His presence, when we personally experience glory in full expression, our vocabulary must also necessarily expand to make it possible for us to communicate, or even comprehend emerging glorious ideas. I imagine God must provide for His loved ones a heavenly language so resplendent and gloriously comprehensive that it will make our earthly languages seem like some prehistoric semaphore. When we are freed from the bonds of flesh, we will surely also be freed of the restrictions of expression.
As I carefully read these impassioned posts I notice that the trinitarians firmly embrace the oneness of our God, and say so regularly and without reservation. They patently reject any ideas of polytheism, and lean heavily on the “unity” portion of the term “tri-unity”. As a trinitarian myself, I see the term “triune” as a weak English term attempting to communicate a vast and unexplainable transcendent concept. I also notice that the Oneness folks speak as regularly of God the Father, of God the Son, and of God the Holy Spirit, acknowledging these ideas as biblical, bringing their own personal expressions into submission to The Holy Word of God. We all have difficulty expressing the inexpressible, and so we latch-on to words and phrases that we hope will encapsulate the way we have personally experienced God. I think both terms “Oneness” and “Trinity” are just such words, trying to express the inexpressible. Paul also seemed to have this same language barrier when he wrote things like:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Colossians 1:15
And
“…to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Ephesians 3:19
Ever since The Lord revealed Himself in me, I have grown in my understanding and acceptance of the “Threeness” of God. There are just too many “threes” in God’s word that speak of God’s perfection to ignore; God reveals Himself in threes in so many ways that the seraphim sing “Holy Holy Holy” and even the doomed opposition to God take on a false unity-of-three (Revelation 13). I look forward to the time we can all, with perfect accuracy, and unity describe the essence of God in heavenly language. Until that time, brothers,
…till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;… Ephesians 4:13
Let us all endeavor to walk:
…with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Ephesians 4:2-3
And let our testimony be, as the elect of God,
“elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” (1 Peter 1:2)
The_Omega, your response is polished, but it’s built on a dangerous collapse of categories. You’re not defending biblical monotheism—you’re dismantling the distinctions God Himself revealed. Let’s go point-for-point.
1. “Jesus prayed as a man to His divine nature”? That’s not biblical. That’s theological ventriloquism.
You’re saying Jesus, as a man, prayed to the God inside Him—so now we’ve got Jesus praying to Himself? That’s not the incarnation—that’s internal dialogue dressed up as devotion.
Yet Scripture shows real communication between two distinct persons, not two natures:
“Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
That’s not human nature talking to divine essence—it’s the Son speaking to the Father, both fully divine, both eternal.
2. “The Father sent the man Christ Jesus.” So the Son only began in Bethlehem?
Then how do you explain:
“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was with God.” (John 1:1)
“God sent forth His Son, made of a woman…” (Gal. 4:4)
He was sent, then made of a woman—not created at birth.
The Son pre-existed, and was with the Father in glory (John 17:5). That doesn’t fit your “human-only Son” view.
3. “I will come to you” (John 14:18) means Jesus is the Spirit?
False equivalence.
Yes, Jesus said “I will come to you,” but that doesn’t erase the Holy Spirit’s distinct personhood:
“The Father will send another Comforter…” (John 14:16)
Another = Greek allos = another of the same kind, not the same person.
So either Jesus is contradicting Himself, or you’re flattening the Trinitarian promise into modalistic confusion.
4. “Christ in you” proves Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
Colossians 1:27 speaks of union, not identity. By your logic, if “Christ is in you,” and “the Spirit is in you,” then Christ = Spirit = Father = no persons at all—just one divine shape-shifter. That’s not Scripture. That’s Oneness dogma overriding the Word.
5. Final blow: “To ask, who was He praying to, is a flawed question.”
No, it’s the only honest question if you take the text seriously.
If Jesus is the Father, why say “not My will, but Yours be done”? (Luke 22:42)
Why speak of another Comforter?
Why say “I go to the Father” (John 14:12) if He is the Father?
You can’t explain that with nature vs. nature. That’s Person speaking to Person.
Final word:
You say the answer is in the mystery of the Incarnation. I agree.
But mystery is not an excuse to ignore revelation.
Jesus is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is not Jesus in disguise.
God is not talking to Himself in a mirror.
One God. Three Persons. Not invented—revealed.
The real mystery isn’t how to explain it—it’s why anyone would ignore it.
KPuff, that was a beautiful reflection—rich in Scripture, soaked in humility, and seasoned with reverence. Thank you.
You’re absolutely right: finite words can never fully bottle the infinite God, and when we try to summarize His nature, we’re always speaking in shadows of a greater reality. But like you said, the issue is not whether we can explain God completely—it’s whether we honor how He has chosen to reveal Himself.
And God has revealed Himself—as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in a divine threeness that’s not contradiction, but completion. Like you, I don’t cling to “Trinity” because it’s a perfect word—it isn’t. I cling to it because it’s the best language we have to point toward what Scripture displays so clearly:
The Father who sends,
The Son who is sent and glorifies the Father,
The Spirit who proceeds and testifies of the Son.
Not roles. Not metaphors. Not borrowed masks. Persons in relationship, woven together in divine unity.
You nailed it when you said the seraphim cry, “Holy, holy, holy.” There’s a threeness in God’s self-revelation that’s too consistent to ignore—and too sacred to flatten.
Until that glorious day when our language catches up with our God, may we, like you said, bear with one another in love, sharpening each other not to win arguments, but to reflect the glory of the One who saved us.
Grace and peace back to you, KPuff. That was a blessing to read.
Samuel
You may also choose to comment on this passage:
And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?” And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it. So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. Revelation 5:1-7
I’d like to read your scholarly exegete of this passage, as it relates to our subject.
@KPuff@SincereSeeker
I aint scholar i just studied it as a hobby
The periscope under examination, Revelation 5:1-7 is a paradigmatic locus classicus for the affirmation of Trinitarian Hypostasis over against the heretical modality of Sabellian monopsychism. THe passage demonstrates an irreducible distinction of divine persons (hypostases) within una essentia of the Godhead, thus anathematizing the conflation of personae propounded by modalistic Monarchianism.
Theological Framwork: Communicatio Relationum intra Trinitatem. The ontological distinction between ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου(“the One seated on the throne”) and ὁ ἀρνίον ὡς ἐσφαγμένον (“the Lamb as though slain”) operates within the framework of communicatio relationum (intra-trinitarian communication of relations- not of essence but of personhood). This passage exemplifies the perichoretic dynamism of Trinitarian procession while simultaneously maintaining idiomata hypostatica (personal properties). In simpler terms, The Father (enthroned One) is not the Son (the Lamb) and both are God yet not each other.
The Scroll, an eschatological authority as mediated by hypostatic economy. The scroll in the right hand of the enthroned figure signifies divine authority over redemptive history. That “no one was found worthy” except the Lmab underscores the mediatorial role of the Logos ensarkos (word made flesh) thus distinguishing the economic mission of the Son from the monatchia Partis (the Father’s monarchial origin). If the Lamb were merely a mode of the One on the throne, then anthromorphic gesture of taking the scroll would be ontologically absurd and liturgically deceptive, a divine self pantomime unworthy of the Veritas Dei, instead this theophanic vision reveals an ontological binarity (yet within homoousios) between the one who gives and the one who receives.
Seven ahorns and Seven eyes, is a pneumatological dimension and here we will discuss abt ‘the trinity’.
The Lamb possesses 'seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (v.6). The septiformis Spiritus (Isaiah 11:2 and interpreted via Patrisitic tradition as the fullness of the Holy Spirit) here is neither the Father nor the Son but the distinct tertium quid, the Holy Spirit , proceeding ab patre per Filium ( as per the orthodox ek tou Patros dia tou Huiou or western Filioque depending on one’s tradition). This verse constitutes a rare Johannine trifocal pneumatophany. Thus, the Trinitas increata is present: The Father-enthroned, the primal font of divinity (fons divinitatis) The Son- the Lamb, hypostatically distinct yet consubstantialem Patri The Spirit- symbolized in His plentitude as sevenfold, emanating from the Lamb.
Apocalyptic Liturgy as Trinitarian Revelation. This vision is set in a cosmic litugical context. THe Lamb’s reception of the scroll catalyzes universal doxology (v8-14). THe leitourgia tou Ouranou is profoundly Trinitarian. Were modalism correct, the liturgy would be addressed to a monadic actor assuming roles, instead it reverences the cooperative distinct hypostases in salvific action.
Church Fathers said like in
Contra Arianos , St . Athanasius says that : “the Father gives, the Son receives, and the Spirit anoints”, the Trinitarian taxis refutes modalistic confusion.
St.Gregory Nazianzen in Oration 31 says: “The Three are One in essence but not in hypostasis.”
St.John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa says : “We do not say that the Father suffered, but that the Son suffered. The persons are distinct though the nature is one.” The Lamb receiving from the One on the Throne visibly refutes any notion of modalis theophany. The vision offers a doxological revelation of theologian trinitatis, the Father as source, the Son as mediator, the Spirit as executor. I would end with a question which St.Basil the Great asked: "If He were merely a mode, then whom does He address, and who responds?
Samuel_23
Wow, thanx. I was expecting a canepe’ and I got a Thanksgiving feast. I am digesting it now, and waiting for the triptophan to wear off. This looks like more than a hobby to me.
Thanx again.
KP
When we say that God exists as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—we are, whether intentionally or not, dividing the indivisible. The Bible never describes God as a “person in three persons,” nor does it say that within the divine being are separate centers of consciousness, will, or action. That idea stems not from the Bible, but from post-biblical philosophical development, particularly in the 3rd to 5th centuries, when Greek metaphysical categories were used to explain God’s nature.
But the God of Scripture is radically one—not just unified in purpose, but one in being, essence, and identity. God Himself declares:
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” (Isaiah 45:5) “The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
These are not poetic statements; they are foundational truths. To speak of “distinct persons” within God is to say that God is internally divided, with separate “I’s” and “Thou’s” within Himself. That is not biblical monotheism—it’s tri-personalism, which inevitably leads to viewing God as a kind of divine committee.
Now consider this: if the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God, but they are not each other, then you have three distinct centers of divine self-awareness. That’s internal multiplicity. It may be explained as “one in essence,” but in experience and language, it becomes three wills, three minds, three speakers, three actors. That is, by definition, internal division—and Scripture forbids it.
The biblical revelation is that God is one—undivided, indivisible, both internally and externally. He is not made up of parts or persons. Paul affirms in Colossians 2:9 that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily—not one-third, not a person of the Godhead, but all the fullness in one visible manifestation. The “Son” is the incarnation—God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), not a separate divine person added to the Godhead.
To say God is three persons is to introduce division where Scripture proclaims indivisibility. God does not have internal components. He is eternal Spirit (John 4:24), one in being, one in identity, one in manifestation, revealed fully in Jesus Christ, who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
In short, God is not three who are one—He is One who has revealed Himself in multiple ways. The Father is not separate from the Son; the Holy Spirit is not a different person than the Father. All three titles describe the same eternal God acting in different roles: as Creator (Father), Redeemer (Son), and Indweller (Holy Spirit)—but always the same indivisible God.
This is a great question, and it deserves a careful, Scripture-based answer. The key misunderstanding here lies in confusing the preexistence of the Son with the preexistence of the Word. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was the Son,”—it says, “In the beginning was the Word.” The Word (Greek: Logos) refers to God’s eternal mind, plan, reason, and self-expression—not a separate person called “the Son.” The Word was with God in the sense that God’s plan was with Him all along, and the Word was God—not someone beside God, but God Himself. Then, John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh”—that’s when the Son came into being. The Son did not exist in eternity past as a second divine person. The Son is what the eternal God became when the Word took on flesh in time. That’s why Galatians 4:4 says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” This is not evidence of an eternal Son being dispatched from heaven; it means that when the time came, God brought forth His redemptive plan by manifesting Himself in flesh—the Son was made of a woman, not pre-existing from eternity past as the Son. The “sending” is not spatial—it’s mission-oriented, just as Jesus said, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). The apostles didn’t preexist—they were sent with a divine mission. Likewise, Jesus, as the Son, was sent when the Word was made flesh. And regarding John 17:5, when Jesus prayed, “Glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was,” He was speaking as a man, anticipating the full return of divine glory after the cross. That “glory” is the eternal identity of the Logos—the invisible God now revealed in the man Christ Jesus. This does not prove a separate, eternal Son beside the Father, but God’s eternal purpose now fulfilled in time. So, the Son is not eternal—the God who became the Son is.
The argument that “another Comforter” in John 14:16 proves the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from Jesus misunderstands both the Greek usage and the context of Jesus’ words. Yes, the word allos means “another of the same kind,” but it does not necessitate a separate divine person—it simply indicates that the Comforter would continue the same divine presence and role the disciples had experienced in Jesus. The context clarifies this: just two verses later, in John 14:18, Jesus explicitly says, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” This is not a contradiction; it’s a revelation. The very Comforter that the Father would send is Jesus Himself returning in the Spirit. The New Testament consistently identifies the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19). If the Holy Spirit were a separate divine person from Jesus, then Jesus’ statement in verse 18 would be misleading or mistaken. But He wasn’t confused—He was revealing that after His bodily departure, He would return not in another body, but as the indwelling Spirit, the same divine presence, now in a different mode of operation. Trinitarianism interprets this as three distinct persons with shared essence, but the biblical language never speaks of three persons in God—it speaks of one God manifesting Himself in different ways (1 Timothy 3:16). The “modalistic confusion” is a label imposed by those trying to fit Scripture into post-biblical categories. What Jesus offered was not confusion, but clarity—that the same God who was with them as the Son would soon be in them as the Spirit. One God, not three persons—fully revealed in Jesus Christ.
The assertion that Colossians 1:27 speaks only of union and not identity misses the deeper truth Paul is emphasizing. When he says, “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” he is not merely speaking of relational closeness or spiritual partnership—he is revealing the indwelling presence of the divine Christ, the fullness of God who now resides in the believer (cf. Colossians 2:9). You argue that if Christ is in us, and the Spirit is in us, and the Father is in us, then equating them eliminates personhood and turns God into a “divine shape-shifter.” But that reasoning imposes philosophical categories onto Scripture that Scripture itself never uses. The Bible does not define God as three separate centers of consciousness or divine persons—those are post-apostolic theological constructs. Instead, it repeatedly declares that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and that this one God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), revealed as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration. When Jesus said, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), and “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30), He was not describing union between two divine persons but revealing identity—that the Father was in Him (John 14:10), and He was the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). To say that Oneness theology reduces God to a “shape-shifter” is a caricature. Oneness affirms the unchanging, indivisible nature of God, who does not change forms but reveals Himself in redemptive ways while remaining the same eternal Spirit. The union believers have with God is only possible because the same God who came in flesh now abides in us as the Holy Spirit—not as a third person, but as the one true God fulfilling His promise to dwell in His people. That’s not dogma overriding the Word—that’s Scripture confirming itself.
The question, “Who was Jesus praying to?” is only problematic if we assume—as Trinitarianism does—that God must consist of multiple co-equal, co-eternal persons. But the Bible never defines God in that way. Instead, it affirms one indivisible God (Deuteronomy 6:4), who was manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). So when Jesus prayed, “Not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42), He was not a divine person submitting to another divine person. He was the man Christ Jesus, fully human, praying in submission to the eternal Spirit—the Father who indwelt Him (John 14:10). This is not nature speaking to nature, but human will surrendering to divine will within the mystery of the incarnation. That’s not theological sleight of hand—it’s the very foundation of biblical Christology: God came in flesh, and as a man, He prayed.
When Jesus says, “I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter” (John 14:16), we must interpret it within the full context of His own clarification just two verses later: *“I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you” (John 14:18). Jesus was not promising the arrival of a different person of God, but revealing that He Himself would return in Spirit. The “other Comforter” (Greek allos, meaning another of the same kind) indicates another manifestation of the same divine presence—not a separate divine mind. Likewise, when Jesus says, “I go to the Father” (John 14:12), He is speaking as a man returning to the full glorification of the deity from which He came. He is not leaving one person to return to another; He is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), soon to be exalted above all (Philippians 2:9–11).
These are not person-to-person conversations within the Godhead—they are the real experiences of God in flesh, who functioned fully as a man, while never ceasing to be God. The Trinitarian model introduces division where Scripture proclaims oneness, and assigns multiple divine persons where the Bible reveals a singular divine identity revealed in Christ. The honest reading of the text doesn’t require three persons—it requires one God who robed Himself in flesh, prayed as a man, returned as the Spirit, and is still that same God.
Hi,
Look at the effort to try and explain away what the gospels and New Testament clearly teach.
The Father is called God.
The Son is called God.
The Holy Spirit is called God.
I gave you the scriptures in my last post.
One God.
So I completely agree with that.
Three distinctly different personalities, with different tasks to do, are revealed to us.
I am not trying to convert anybody to my way of thinking.
I am just representing it the best way I know.
The_Omega, you’ve clearly invested deep thought and passion into this response, and I respect your commitment to defending what you believe to be the truth. But respectfully, your position isn’t an answer—it’s a reframing that collapses the clear personal distinctions in Scripture into an impersonal fog. Let’s walk through this with the precision the Word deserves.
⸻
“Jesus prayed as a man to the Spirit within Him” – That’s not mystery. That’s contradiction.
You say Jesus wasn’t praying to another Person, but to the divine nature within Himself. But Scripture doesn’t portray Christ having a conversation with His inner essence—it shows communication between two “I”s:
“Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
That’s not humanity praying to divinity within—it’s Person speaking to Person, both present before the world existed. That glory wasn’t a future hope—it was a shared past, eternally experienced.
If Jesus is the Father and the Spirit, then you’ve got Jesus talking to Himself, sending Himself, returning to Himself. That’s not divine unity. That’s a celestial identity crisis.
⸻
“The Son began when the Word became flesh.”
No, brother. That’s not what the text says. You rightly point out that John 1:1 speaks of the Word, not “the Son.” But that’s only a problem if you assume the Son and the Word are separate.
“The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14)
You can’t be with God and be God unless you’re distinct in person, but unified in essence. That is the Son—eternally begotten, not created, not merely a redemptive plan, but a divine Person in relationship with the Father before time.
⸻
“Another Comforter” is just another mode? That doesn’t work.
You say “another of the same kind” (allos) doesn’t require a second Person—just another manifestation. But that ignores how Jesus distinguishes the Spirit:
• “He will teach you all things.” (John 14:26)
• “He will testify of Me.” (John 15:26)
• “He will not speak of Himself… He will glorify Me.” (John 16:13–14)
That’s not the same person changing hats. That’s a divine dialogue of love and glory. And if Jesus says, “I go,” and “He comes,” we have distinction, not costume changes.
⸻
Colossians 1:27 = Identity? Not quite.
Yes, “Christ in you” speaks to the indwelling presence of God—but that’s union, not proof that the Spirit is Jesus. Paul also says the Spirit intercedes with the Father (Rom. 8:26–27). If you say Christ = Spirit = Father, you erase all that relational language and reduce it to a theological magic trick.
Trinitarians don’t deny union—we celebrate it. But union does not erase personhood. It reveals it.
⸻
“Who was He praying to?” is still the most honest question.
You say this question is flawed—but Jesus Himself gives us no wiggle room:
• “Not My will, but Yours…” (Luke 22:42)
• “I go to the Father…” (John 14:12)
• “The Father Himself loves you…” (John 16:27)
If the Son and the Father are the same Person, these statements become theater, not truth. But if they are distinct Persons, united in essence, the words make perfect, biblical sense.
⸻
Final Word:
You’ve worked hard to preserve the oneness of God—but in doing so, you’ve created a God who talks to Himself, sends Himself, glorifies Himself, and somehow expects us to believe it’s not all just divine acting.
We’re not importing Greek categories. We’re interpreting divine revelation.
• The Father is not the Son.
• The Son is not the Spirit.
• The Spirit is not the Father.
Yet all are called God.
One God. Three Persons.
Not divided. Not separate.
Eternally unified in essence—eternally distinct in person.
That’s not philosophy.
That’s Scripture in full bloom.
Let’s not flatten the Trinity to fit man-made categories. Let’s expand our minds to match the eternal glory God chose to reveal.
@The_Omega, @SincereSeeker
The fundamental error in the modalistic schema presented is a conflation of ontological unity with hypostatic indistinction. By flattening the eternal divine revelations into mere economic manifestations, the Oneness interlocutor revives a species of Sabellian monarchianism, albeit with a contemporary veneer. This is a hermeneutical misstep of serious proportion, for it disregards the intra-Trinitarian taxis that the biblical text, when interpreted within its full canonical and theological horizon, demands.
First to asswer the Word in John 1:1 is merely an impersonal divine attribute or plan is to do violence to the Logos theology explicitly articulated by the Evangelist and amplified by the Prologue’s anaphoric crescents (kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, pls read the GREEK to get better understanding abt John 1:1, look at the language and the degree of verbs used) The proposition (*pls read greek *) ‘pros’ denotes interpersonal relationality not abstract internality. The Word is not simply in God but is toward God, denoting communion not conceptual containement Moreover, the eternal generation fo the Son, a doctrine affirmed de fide by the Nicene Fathers, guard against both tritheistic partition and modalisitc compression. The Son is genitus, non factus, begotten not made, consubstantialem Patri. This generation is not a temporal event but an eternal ontological communication, ensuring that the Son is numerically identical in essence yet hypostatically distinct from the Father.
To interpret Galatians 4:4, “God sent forth his Son” as mere missional language devoid of ontological presupposition is to ignore the sematic freight of apostellō and the incarnational framework of Pauline theology. The Son was not constituted in Mary’s womb ex nihilo, but was the pre-existent Logos who assumed flesh (sarx egeneto), thereby actualising the eternal decree of redemption within temporal history.
Regarding John 14:16 and the Paraklētos, the Oneness reading commits a category error by collapsing the personal distinction of the Spirit into a modal reappearance of the Son. As I said before, please read it @The_Omega that the Usage of allos Paraklētos means another comforter in the Johannine context, coupled with the consistent Spirit-Christ differentiation in Pauline pneumatology like in 2 Cor 13:14, Roman 8:27 vs.8:34 establishes the THIRD PERSON of the Trinity as distinct in hypostasis, though united in essence.
Futhermore, the Gethsamane prayer (Luke 22:42), far from being an anthropological monologue, is a liturgical window into the communicative exchange between the eternal Son in His incarnate obedience and the Father’s omnipotent will. The invocation, "Not My will, but Yours be done’ is unintelligible apart from dyothelite Christology, wherein the two wills of Christ- divine and human- are distinct yet never opposed. This was defined with conciliar authority at the Third Council of Constantinople (681 AD) which anathematised monoenergism and monothelitism as Christological heresies. The Oneness view, in denying internal personal distinction within the Godhead, thereby unravels the entire soteriological economy. For if there **if there is no eternal Son, there is no eternal High Priest interceding in heaven as in Heb 7:25, and the covenantal mediation collapses into a self-dialogue of divinity. Such a position is not only metaphysically incoherent but soteriologically disastrous.
Finally, the Oneness position misapprehends the analogical nature of theological language. Divine personhood is not reducible to human individualism, nor is triunity equivalent to tritheism. Rather, the one ousia of God subsists eternally in three hypostasis (Father, Son and Spirit), perichorectically united, indivisible distinct and fully co-equal.
I agree with SincereSeeker 100%, this was the same doubt, and ‘modalistic view’ cannot explain many instances in the bible. As St.Basil the Great asks the question, "If He were merely a mode, then whom does He address, and who responds?, its a question which views such as “God is not three distinct hypostases”, cannot answer. Thats a profound question which even SincereSeeker has put forward.
The key to understanding the prayers and actions of Jesus is recognizing the dual nature of Christ—He is both fully God and fully man. This is not a contradiction; it is the mystery of the Incarnation: “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). When Jesus prayed, He was praying from His fully human will, submitting as the perfect man to the eternal Spirit of God—the Father who indwelt Him (John 14:10). Scripture reveals that Jesus, as the Son, had a genuine human experience: He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), was tempted (Hebrews 4:15), and learned obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8). These are not things the eternal Spirit experiences—but the man Christ Jesus does. When He says, “Not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42), He is expressing the tension between His real, human will and the divine will—not between two divine persons, but between humanity and divinity. This distinction is essential. Jesus could speak and act as God—calming storms, forgiving sins, raising the dead—and yet also speak and act as man—praying, weeping, and suffering. The “two I’s” we see in Scripture are not two divine persons, but the one Christ operating fully in both natures. We must discern when Jesus is acting or speaking as God and when He is acting or speaking as man, just as Philippians 2:6–8 describes: though He was in the form of God, He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. Failing to make that distinction leads to confusion; understanding it reveals the powerful beauty of the Gospel—that God Himself took on flesh, lived as we live, and submitted to His own Spirit for our redemption. ( Forever, God will be known in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6), and when we stand before the throne, we will not see three, nor a faceless force, but the glorified Christ—God made visible for all eternity.)
The invisible Spirit of God, who from eternity has filled all things, will forever be seen, known, and revealed through the glorified body of Jesus Christ—even after the man Christ Jesus delivers up the kingdom to God, as described in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. This act of delivering the kingdom is not the end of the Son’s existence but the culmination of His redemptive role as the mediator between God and man. It signifies the completion of His mission to reconcile creation and bring all things under divine order. But the glorified Christ, who is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), remains eternally as the full and final revelation of God’s essence. In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9)—and that truth does not expire with the end of the age. The one who walked among us, who was crucified, risen, and ascended, is the same One we will behold in glory: “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus is not merely a temporary veil for a hidden deity—He is the everlasting manifestation of the eternal Spirit. Even in Revelation, John sees the Lamb enthroned, worshiped, and radiating divine authority. The Lamb doesn’t vanish into abstraction—He remains the face of God’s eternal purpose. Forever, God will be known in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6), and when we stand before the throne, we will not see three, nor a faceless force, but the glorified Christ—God made visible for all eternity.
This response, while rhetorically sharp, misunderstands the biblical concept of the Incarnation and imposes a philosophical framework that the Scriptures themselves never use. When Jesus prays in John 17:5, “Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was,” He is not referencing a shared divine existence between two co-equal persons in a triune Godhead.
Isaiah 42:8: “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
Isaiah 48:11: “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.”
Rather, He is speaking as the man Christ Jesus, who was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) to fulfill the role of the Lamb. The “glory” was not a co-eternal personhood beside the Father but the eternal identity of the Logos—the Word, which was with God and was God (John 1:1) and became flesh (John 1:14). Jesus, as the Son, did not exist as a separate person in eternity past; the Son was begotten in time, when the Word became flesh through the virgin birth (Galatians 4:4).
So, no—this is not Jesus “talking to Himself,” nor is it a “celestial identity crisis.” It is the true man praying to the eternal Spirit—not one divine person speaking to another, but humanity communing with divinity. The confusion arises when “person” is defined using post-biblical categories that forces internal divisions into God’s being. Scripture does not teach three persons in one essence; it teaches one God who manifested Himself as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration. That is not contradiction, but the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus wasn’t sent by another divine person; He was the visible expression of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), whose Flesh was sent out into the world in the fullness of time. He returned not to another, but to the unveiled glory of the eternal Spirit from which He came. This is not confusion—it is the harmony of God’s redemptive plan revealed in Christ, who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).
He was the visible expression of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), whose Flesh was sent out into the world in the fullness of time. Logically both natures, spirit and life, through the New Eve for the New Adam, both natures, God and Temple, in 0 A.D. Latin for Ammo Domini and the Beginning of Church Time on earth and The Year of the Lord(s), Mary and Jesus.
The Manifestation of God in mankind is the from the living waters of Baptism from John the Baptist in the Jordan River. Jesus conceived in the Will of the Father through the Virgin Birth from the Immaculate Conception becoming The Christ in all mankind From Holy Spirit incorruption through flesh immortal from the Immaculate Conception through the Virgin Birth conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit Family in the flesh of Jesus becoming The Christ in all mankind would have never been able to go from death through resurrection to become again immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured unless it were from the Baptism of John. John the Baptist is the Greatest born of man yet the least in the kingdom because John was Born Baptism and sanctified flesh and spirit from the Womb of Elizabeth, jumping with joy before birth with His cousin, Jesus. And Jesus Baptized His Mother for Mary’s Glorious Assumption, glorified and transfigured back to Heaven as Queen and Mother of God.
John the Baptist is logically born immortal in the spirit and flesh and as all blood and water birthed to earth becoming from the New Eve becoming again through The Christ, immortal and incorruptible in One Holy Spirit Family through the second coming of Jesus Christ.
An John Baptized Jesus For The Christ to become from death through resurrection of the flesh to become again glorified and transfigured and when His Father said, “Behold My Son in whom I am well pleased.” Well pleasing to God is the soul, sanctified incorruptible from the Holy Spirit incorruptible and sinless and Baptized from the spirit through the souls of all for the Flesh, The Body to be able to become from death becoming from resurrection becoming glorified and incorruptibly transfigured through both natures, spirit and life, God and Temple, becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, One God in Oneness, logically.
@The_Omega , i gave the answers, yet why ask the same question. @StephenAndrew, I’ll explain. pls answer my questions.
Introduction: The Crisis of Theological Reductionism
In contemporary pseudo-theological discourse, there has been a disturbing resurgence of modalistic reductionism wherein the Trinity is reconceived not as three eternal hypostases in perichoretic communion but as serial modes or manifestations of a singular divine person. Simultaneously, there is a corresponding temporalization of Christology, which asserts that the Son came into existence in time rather than being begotten before all ages. Such views are not novel. They are reiterations of Sabellianism and Adoptionism, long condemned by the early Church. Here is my rebuttal grounded in Nicene-Constantinopolitan tradition.
On the Eternal Distinction of Hypostases in the Holy Trinity.
2.1. Error of modalism
The proposition that the distinctions between the Father, Son and Spirit are merely economic and not ontological reduces the Trinity to modalistic monarchianism. This view was anathematised as early as Tertullian’s polemics against Prazeas (adversus praxean), where he articulated that the Son and the Spirit are distinct persons (personae) within the unity of the divine substance (substantia).
2.2 Scriptural Foundation
The intersubjective relations between the hypostases are attested throughout the Scripture, as in
John 14:16: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete…” indicates the Logos praying to the Father and sending the Spirit, thus implying at least three distinct centres of consciousness.
Matthew 28:19: the triadic formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” reveals a threefold hypostatic structure, yet a singular essence (ἓν ὄνομα). The singular “name” (ὄνομα) with plural refernts indicates homoousion (same essence) but the personal distinction rule out modalism.
3.The Eternal Generation of the Son, argument against temporalist Christology
3.1 Theological necessity of eternal generation
To assert that the son was begotten in time effectively denies the Nicene μονογενής ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (only-begotten of the Father before all ages). The generation of the Son is not an event within temporal succession, but a metaphysical relation of origin. The Son’s begottenness is eternal, necessary and immutable, not contingent
If the Logos were not eternal, then the divine essence would be capable of change, and thus would cease to be divine simpliciter. Moreover, if the Son is not eternal, He cannot be homoousios with the Father.
3.2 Scriptural evidence
John 1:1-3: The Logos is both with God (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) and is God, and He is pre-temporal since “all things were made through him”.
Hebrews 1:3: Christ is the exact imprint (χαρακτὴρ) if the Father’s hypostasis, implying co-eternal divinity and personal distinction.
3.3 Patrisitic Consensus Athanasius Contra Arianos: “There was never when the Son was not.” Gregory Nazianzen (Or.. 29.2): “The begetting of God must be honoured by silence; it is a timeless act, not within the realm of motion or change.”
4 The Hypostatic identity of the Logos
4.1 On the Hypostasis of the Word
TO claim that the Word is merely an attribute or internal speech of the Father is a category mistake; it confuses personal subsistence with natural property. The Logos is not the rationality (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) of the Father, but the subsistent hypostasis (ὑφεστώς λόγος) eternally begotten and personally distinct. This is evident in John 1:14: “The Word became flesh”, which tells that an impersonal abstraction cannot become incarnate, suffer or redeem.
4.2 Christological Implications
Without a hypostatic Logos, there can be no communication idiomatus, no real union of divine and human natures. The Christ of the New Testament is a theanthropic person, not a deified man. The Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) teaches that the same Christ is “consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us according to humanity”, which tell “one prosopon, in two natures”.
5 Pneumatology and Procession of the Spirit
5.1 The Personhood of the Spirit
The view that the Holy Spirit is merely a force or divine operation is a subtle recapitulation of Pneumatomachianism. The Spirit proceeds personally (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father (John 15:26) and is sent by the Son, not as an impersonal effect but as a divine hypostasis who teaches, intercedes, and sanctifies (Romans 8:26 and John 16:13)
5.2 * Patrisitic Confirmation* St Basil the Great in De Spiritu Sancto says, “The Spirit is not a minister but the Lord; not created but Creator; not a stranger but consubstantial with the Father and the Son.”
Conclusion
By rejecting the co-eterity of the Son and reconfiguring Trinitarian relations into modalistic categories, one forsakes the Nicene faith and falls into doctrinal antiquarianism masquerading as apostolic fidelity. The eternal Son is not a temporal manifestation, but a consubstantial Logos, preexistent, begotten, not made, Light from Light, very God of very God. To obfuscate this is not reverence but reductionism. Let the Chruch speak with the voice of her Fathers: One God in Three Hypostases, eternally distinct yet indivisibly one, unchanged, ineffable and orthodox unto the ages.
The_Omega, I hear the passion in your defense of the Incarnation, and you’ve rightly upheld that Jesus is fully God and fully man—amen. But where we part ways is in your attempt to compress all that Scripture reveals about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a single-person theology. That’s not honoring the mystery of godliness—it’s flattening it.
Let’s break this down.
1. Yes, Jesus prayed from His humanity. But to whom did He pray?
You say He prayed to the Spirit within Him. That’s your assumption—but not Scripture’s language. Jesus doesn’t say, “Not my human will, but my divine will be done.” He says,
“Not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
That’s not nature-to-nature—that’s Person-to-Person. The language is relational, not reflexive.
2. You say “two I’s” doesn’t mean two persons—it’s just one Person with two natures.
But Jesus said:
“Glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
Who had glory with whom? If that’s just one person talking between two natures, then the Son is asking His own divine self to glorify Him for glory He already has. That’s not mystery—that’s theological ventriloquism.
3. Philippians 2 says He emptied Himself—not became someone else.
Right. He didn’t stop being divine—He added humanity. That means the Son already existed before the Incarnation. The Word didn’t become the Son at Bethlehem—He took on flesh, revealing the eternal Sonship in time.
4. You say “We won’t see three,” and I agree. We won’t see three thrones. But we also won’t see a solo act.
What does the Bible say?
Jesus at the right hand of God (Heb. 1:3)
The Spirit interceding with the Father (Rom. 8:26–27)
Jesus returning to the Father (John 16:28)
These aren’t mere “roles.” They’re relational actions. That’s not one actor switching masks—it’s the eternal fellowship of the Triune God on display.
5. Final word: One God. Three Persons. Not three gods. Not three parts.
Your view exalts Jesus—but at the cost of erasing the Father and Spirit as distinct Persons. That’s not the Incarnation. That’s isolation.
Let’s embrace the full glory of what God has revealed:
The Father sent the Son.
The Son obeyed and returned to the Father.
The Spirit proceeds and dwells within us.
And yet—“The Lord our God is one.”
That’s not contradiction.
That’s divine perfection.
Let the Word define God—not our need for simplicity.
