Absolutely—here’s a clean, bold, and Bible-tight response to The_Omega that responds thoroughly without losing focus or reverence:
Brother Omega,
Respectfully, we’ve got to draw a sharp line between Scripture and system—between what the apostles declared and what post-apostolic philosophy inferred.
You quote me rightly:
“The Sonship began at the Incarnation and concludes when redemptive work is finished.”
But then you translate it:
“The Son is temporary. The Son is a function, not a person.”
Let’s correct the record.
Oneness theology does not teach that Jesus is temporary. We do not believe the Son is a “mere function.” We do believe the title “Son” refers specifically to the Incarnate role of God for redemption.
It is not the person of Jesus Christ that ends. It is not His glory, not His deity, not His identity. It is the mediatorial role that Scripture says will be “delivered up” (1 Cor. 15:24). That’s not annihilation—that’s mission accomplished.
Now to the Scriptures:
John 1:1–2 – “The Word was with God…”
You say this proves personal distinction. But “Word” (Logos) is not “Son.” The Logos is God’s self-expression, not a second co-eternal person. The Word BECAME flesh (John 1:14)—that’s when Sonship began. The “with God” (pros ton Theon) language indicates divine purpose and intimacy, not duality. Psalm 33:6 tells us the Word is God’s own breath, not His roommate.
John 17:5 – “Glorify Me with the glory I had with You…”
You say that’s the Son remembering past divine fellowship. I say: Scripture says Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20). That “glory” was predestined, not reminisced. The Son didn’t preexist in eternity past—the Logos did. And that Logos became the Son in time.
Hebrews 1:2 – “By His Son He made the worlds…”
Again, this is post-incarnational language. Paul is saying the same eternal God who created is the same one now revealed as Son. “Through the Son” is not a second person—it’s the Logos (Word) now named and manifest. Same God, now clothed in flesh.
About “God the Son”
You rightly note that terms like “Bible” or “rapture” don’t appear in Scripture. But those words aren’t defining persons within God. “God the Son” isn’t just a label—it restructures the Godhead. Scripture calls Jesus:
“Son of God”
“Son of man”
“The Word made flesh”
But never once does it say “God the Son.” Why? Because the Son was begotten in time (Luke 1:35). The eternal Spirit took on flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). The Son is not a timeless roommate of the Father—He’s the visible revelation of the invisible God (Col. 1:15).
About the Trinity “Preserving Monotheism”
You say, “One being, three persons.” But here’s the trouble: three persons = three wills, three minds, three centers of consciousness. That’s not one being—that’s one committee. The Bible says God is one Spirit (John 4:24), not three persons sharing space.
You say, “the Son was sent, not created.”
But Gal. 4:4 says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.”
That’s not eternal preexistence. That’s mission through manifestation.
Final Word:
We don’t diminish Jesus.
We don’t dissolve Him.
We don’t downplay His deity.
We just refuse to divide the one God into multiple eternal “persons.” The Son is the manifestation of the one true God in time—for redemption. When that redemptive mission is finished, the office is fulfilled—but the glorified Christ remains forever as the visible image of the invisible God.
This isn’t a downgrade.
It’s a declaration of pure biblical monotheism—uncluttered by councils, creeds, or Greek categories.
Let God be true, and every philosophy a lie (Col. 2:8).
We stand where the apostles stood: One Lord. One faith. One baptism. One God and Father of all.
Peace to you as well. And I do mean that sincerely.
But I need to gently—and clearly—steer this holy chariot back onto the road marked “Scripture.”
You’ve poured out what I can only describe as a flood of poetic abstraction, philosophical layering, and metaphysical gymnastics. You’ve built a towering cathedral of speculation, but I have to ask one direct, honest, apostolic question:
Where is the chapter and verse?
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not a “two-natured God.” He is one Spirit (John 4:24), not a metaphysical family of three “powers” or divine beings split between Father, Mother, and Son. That’s not just a step beyond Scripture—it’s a canyon leap into theological fiction.
You speak of Mary as being part of the Trinity. But let’s be crystal clear: Mary was blessed among women (Luke 1:42), chosen to bear the Son of God according to the flesh (Gal. 4:4). But she is not eternal. She is not deity. She is not part of the Godhead. To place her in the Trinity is not “deep insight”—it’s doctrinal detour. The apostles never did it. Jesus never taught it. The Holy Ghost never revealed it.
You say the Holy Spirit isn’t a “person” but a family. That’s not revelation—it’s reinvention. Scripture says the Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2), intercedes (Romans 8:26), and can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). These aren’t qualities of abstract familial energy. These are the actions of the living, personal God.
You talk about “OMNILogic” and “One Holy Spirit Family One God in being,” but all I see is a fog of words where God gave light. The early Church didn’t need OMNILogic—they had Acts 2:38. They didn’t speculate about metaphysical gender roles in the Godhead—they preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Let’s bring it back to the foundation:
One God (Deut. 6:4)
Manifest in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16)
Baptized in His name (Acts 2:38)
Filled with His Spirit (Acts 10:45–48)
Walking in holiness, waiting for His return (Titus 2:13)
Brother, you clearly have a heart hungry for revelation. But be careful. When you go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6), you trade Spirit-breathed truth for human imagination.
So here’s the challenge: Drop the metaphors. Lay down the logic ladders. Open the Book. And let the Word speak for itself.
You want to know who the God of Abraham truly is?
“Before Abraham was, I AM.” — Jesus (John 8:58)
That wasn’t Mary. That wasn’t a family. That was the one true God, robed in flesh, speaking in time, standing on earth, and calling sinners to Himself.
@The_Omega, if you’re gonna keep pushing your Oneness critiques, why not bring your “eternal Son” cross-examinations over to the actual Oneness thread instead of turning every thread into a theological tug-of-war?
Seriously—if you’ve got questions, ask them straight. No need to roll out a 47-point doctrinal thesis every time you post. Just give us the meat, skip the footnotes, and let’s talk Scripture, not just systematics.
You want answers? Great. But let’s keep it where it belongs and keep it clear.
See you over here, if you’re game.
Let me be clear: I believe in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Oneness theology denies this and redefines the Sonship, which directly contradicts Scripture. It is not a minor difference—it’s heresy. Always has been.
Thank you for the directness, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the intent behind my responses. The goal has never been to derail threads or provoke division but to engage honestly and biblically on a topic that touches the very core of who God is and how He has revealed Himself. I agree—let’s keep it clear and grounded in Scripture, not buried under endless theological jargon. That said, labeling Oneness theology as heresy deserves careful reflection. Oneness believers affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ, uphold biblical monotheism, and preach salvation through His name in line with the apostolic message of Acts 2:38. What we reject is not God’s triune work in creation, redemption, and indwelling—but the post-biblical framework that splits God into three co-equal persons, something never taught by Jesus or the apostles. The term “eternal Son” itself is absent from Scripture, and when examined carefully, the Sonship is consistently tied to the incarnation (Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:35), not eternity past. If the conversation is truly about Scripture and not just systematic tradition, then we’re game—and willing to bring every question back to the Word of God. So yes, let’s have the discussion where it belongs, with clarity and respect—but let’s also not confuse theological heritage with biblical authority.
Sticking only to Scripture respond to this:
If Jesus is not God the Father in Flesh than these Scriptures are a lie.
Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”
Hosea 13:4 : “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.”
Isaiah 45:21: “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”
We know God’s word is Truth. The only true distinction within the Godhead is between God’s omnipresent, eternal, invisible Spirit and the fleshly, now glorified human body of Jesus Christ in which He has chosen to dwell for all eternity—because sinless blood had to be shed, and Spirit, by nature, does not contain blood.
Appreciate the tone and the commitment to Scripture. Let’s go straight to it.
Yes, God says clearly: “Beside Me there is no savior” (Isa. 43:11). But Scripture also reveals who that Savior is—not in contradiction, but in divine mystery revealed:
• “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” —1 John 4:14
• “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” —Titus 2:13
• “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” —2 Corinthians 5:19
These are not lies. They’re the key. The Son is not “beside” God as a second deity, but one with the Father (John 10:30), sharing the same divine essence, yet distinct in person. That’s why Jesus can say:
• “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” —John 14:9
• Yet also pray, “Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was.” —John 17:5
The Father didn’t become the Son. The Son was sent by the Father (John 3:17). That’s not modalism—it’s the mystery of the Triune God acting in perfect unity.
The Oneness position forces either contradiction or collapse. The Trinity lets Scripture breathe as it stands: one God in three persons, each fully and truly God, without division or confusion.
Let’s not pit Isaiah against John or Paul. Let’s let all Scripture speak, and worship the one true God—Father, Son, and Spirit—revealed, not invented.
.
The statement that “the Father didn’t become the Son” misrepresents the Oneness position by framing it as if we teach that the Father morphed into the Son—a misunderstanding rooted more in a caricature of modalismWHICH IS NOT ME than in a fair reading of Oneness theology. Oneness believers do not teach that God ceased being Father to become the Son. Rather, we affirm that the eternal, invisible Spirit of God (the Father) manifested Himself in flesh as the Son—as God incarnate (1 Timothy 3:16; John 1:14). When John 3:17 says, “God sent His Son into the world,” it speaks of mission, not of eternal personal distinction. The “sending” refers to the moment in time when the eternal Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35) and brought forth the man Christ Jesus—born of a woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4). That is not a second divine person being dispatched from heaven, but the one God entering His creation to redeem it.
To say that the Trinity “lets Scripture breathe” while accusing Oneness of collapsing doctrine into confusion ignores the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity itself is a post-biblical construction—using terminology (like “three persons” and “same essence”) that never appears in Scripture. Oneness theology does not force contradiction; it harmonizes Scripture by upholding that Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9) and that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). The relational language in Scripture—such as the Son praying to the Father—flows from the real humanity of Jesus interacting with the eternal Spirit who indwelt Him. That’s not collapse—it’s incarnation. The Oneness position allows the text to breathe in biblical terms, not in theological constructs developed centuries after the apostles.
You claim the Trinity is a post-biblical construct because it uses terms like “three persons” and “same essence,” but that misses the point. Scripture gives us the data: the Father sends the Son (John 3:17), the Son prays to the Father (Luke 22:42), the Spirit is sent by both (John 15:26). That’s not theological invention—that’s divine interaction. Trinitarian language simply names what Scripture reveals.
God didn’t “become” the Son—He sent the Son. The Son was with the Father before the world began (John 17:5), created all things (Hebrews 1:2), and remains distinct yet fully divine (John 1:1). If the Son is just the Father’s flesh suit, then prayer becomes performance, not communion. But Jesus wasn’t acting—He was obeying. That’s real relationship, not role-play. Scripture doesn’t need to collapse Father, Son, and Spirit into one divine actor to preserve monotheism. It already shows one God in three eternal persons—working, loving, and saving.
So true SincereSeeker when you say, “The Father didn’t become the Son. The Son was sent by the Father (John 3:17). That’s not modalism—it’s the mystery of the Triune God acting in perfect unity.” SincereSeeker
To me understanding the Trinity properly allows the Logical ONEness to be understood by all.
To me sometimes we ask some always ask never really knowing logically what is The Holy Spirit,? What the gender of the often understood third person in the Trinity, the entity, existence of or what is or could even possibly be The Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit a ranked God of three, or perhaps a God of some sort of person or maybe as spirit force. To me the “failed” logic could have been seen in the ranking Gods as a flag in logic. Is the Holy Spirit a female of a Father and a Son together as one with the Holy Spirit Person and with two others the Father and The Son now three people in One Trinity which is God now that all three are together and where is the Mother? And how can any God be less. Just asking in all generalization, and we know not to be judging and some ask in all generalization.
To me there is no ranking of Gods, and each God is equal in powers of God and together One God in being and properly and logically.
To me, The mystery of the Triune God is The Holy Spirit Family One God in being with preexistence of The Mother, together with the Father and The Son and properly seeing The Holy Spirit as The Family.
Imagine a Heaven and and Earth becoming again One Heaven now through Both Natures, Spirit and Life, God together in a Body with all mankind and angels with the Gods and with real undefiled divine immortally incorruptible life and spirit eyes to be able to see each other in One God in being. Seeing a woman in the Trinity in The Holy Spirit One Family of God. What would they have though of this back in the 1st and 3rd centuries? And we know today The Church is searching for the Miriam presence, the woman presence even still today? Talk about blind and we are not even judging but only our own souls.
Repulsive it is to spit in the face of someone, but twice? Now that’s a little tough, to me. Not once but twice and how happy they became. I remember the Parable of the blind man.
Romans 11:36 OMNILogically, to me.
For from The Father and through Mary and for Jesus are all things.
To him, The Non-Generic, better said all body and spiritual genres, Holy Spirit Family One God in being all mankind and angels too in One God in being, be the glory forever! Amen.
The logical gender of The Holy Spirit is better said even than non-gender because The Holy Spirit Family One God from Three preexisting Powers and Personal Gods in being before creation was ever created was even created From the Father through the Mother for The Son all, all Gods equal in the Powers of God and separately Gods in being and together One God, One Holy Spirit Family One God in being in all mankind and even the angels and Gods, all-gender, to me in The Holy Family.
Nobody gets the Logic of The Mind of God, OMNILogically, to me, just Stephen. Why me? And it’s always, to me, not a me thing, And I always remember, there is no greater work even possible than for the salvation of souls.
To me true God, and true man is the Holy Spirit Family conceived through the Flesh of Jesus becoming The Christ in all mankind becoming again in all sons and daughters of The One God in being. One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, The Word becomes flesh and the flesh of all mankind becoming our own personal Christ and Holy Family becoming again all One Holy Spirit united in all as One God in being.
When we see the Father and The Son together in the Holy Spirit we see the truth, to me, faithfully. To me the falicy in the Trinity is logically and is: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:20–21) . It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.
The analogy presented here—comparing the doctrine of the Trinity to the discovery of bacteria or the cosmos—aims to defend the legitimacy of Trinitarian theology by suggesting that the concept always existed but was only later defined. However, this comparison fails to hold when applied to divine revelation and apostolic doctrine. Bacteria and galaxies are part of the created, observable universe, whose existence is independent of human awareness. In contrast, the doctrine of God—particularly how He reveals Himself—is not discovered through scientific observation but is received through divine revelation (Deuteronomy 29:29; 1 Corinthians 2:10).
The claim that the Trinity “always existed” may sound reasonable from a post-Nicene perspective, but it must be tested against Scripture and early apostolic teaching. The Bible doesn’t describe God as “three persons” in “one essence.” This terminology originated centuries after Christ, particularly in the 4th century with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. To argue that the apostles held a Trinitarian understanding but lacked the terminology is a claim without textual evidence. The apostolic writings—especially the Book of Acts and the epistles—consistently present God as one (Deuteronomy 6:4), with Jesus being the full manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 2:9; John 14:9), and the Holy Ghost being His Spirit, not a separate person.
Thus, saying the Trinity “existed but was unnamed” conflates definition with divine revelation. The apostles did not preach or baptize in a Trinitarian formula—they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), understanding Him as the full embodiment of the Father’s power and the sender of the Holy Ghost. The early church understood God as indivisible, not divided into three persons.
In conclusion, unlike bacteria or galaxies, God’s nature is not discovered but revealed. And what He revealed through Jesus and the apostles is a Oneness—that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). The Trinity is not a rediscovery of ancient truth; it is a post-biblical theological construct that departs from the simplicity and clarity of apostolic doctrine.
The_Omega
While I appreciate your diligent, and very systematic approach to the defense of the doctrine you espouse, I would like to clarify something regarding the point I was making in my earlier post.
You suggest I was trying to compare bacteria or the cosmos to the trinity, as if I had not considered their obvious physical and metaphysical differences. I was not comparing them, I was simply opposing the logical fallacy that some idea, any idea, can only be said to be valid or in existence once someone (or some group) has defined it; or anything only exists once it has been defined. I wrote of this same failed logic in a previous post, and I pointed out many early ecclesiastical writers who wrote of Trinitarian understanding of The Godhead, without using the term trinity, long before the fourth century, (as @offspring suggested by saying “the trinity was formulated in 381AD at The First Council of Constantinople”, then referring us to a Wikipedia article for authoratative validation.)
While I don’t remember you using this erroneous logic, I am not unfamiliar with it from others. The logical progression usually goes something like
“The first mention of doctrine “A” did not occur in any early writings until xxxx date, the term used for doctrine “A” is not found in scripture, therefore, doctrine “A” is man-made and not real.
I used ideas that we do believe are real, and we do believe were in existence during the ages that scripture was being written, that were not defined, or codified, or given a modern term until much later. Their later codification does not prove they were not in existence prior. That’s like saying:
“gravity did not exist in the time of Jesus. Gravity was not discovered until Ike Newton published his “Law of Universal Gravitation” in the seventeenth century. The word gravity is not in the Bible, therefore gravity is man-made, and not of God.”
I can point to many writings concerning attraction of bodies, both celestial and terrestrial, many hundreds of years before Newton. They didn’t call it “gravity”, and they did not codify the principles governing gravity, but rocks still rolled downhill, and arrows still fell to the earth after being shot. My opposition is with the failed logic. I hope you understand.
You say, in your defense, “God’s nature is not discovered but revealed”, and I hear you and say Amen. I have already pointed out many passages in scripture that DO reveal God’s triune nature, but for each you have a different understanding, or what reads to me like a “workaround” (no offence intended). There simply is no shortage of triune doctrine woven in and through the Holy Scriptures. God’s Holy Revelation is replete with “Threeness” as an expression of who God is; not a divided being as you say, not distributed, separated, split or parted, but ONE, wholly one, one Holy (perfect) God. I believe God has revealed this relational love aspect of Himself to me through His Holy word, and also internally by His Holy Spirit. I do not think there is a material “likeness” of heavenly trinity that adequately explains this metaphysical triune reality, but by faith, we accept the revelation as given, even the parts that have no terrestrial counterpart, even the revelation that we cannot adequately define. Soon, we will be made to see and understand all sorts of things we never dreamed of or ever thought possible.
… 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; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Eph. 4:13-16)
@KPuff@The_Omega @Kpuff, pls review and if you have any doubts regarding what I have written, or if you don’t agree with certain aspects of my post, you can write to me, and I’ll be happy to learn from you and to implement changes after learning about it.
[John 17, which Oneness theology cannot understand nor explain, given below are my arguments against Oneness theology.]
First of all, we as Christians must recognize the Divine revelation and the progressive unfolding of the Trinity (What was revealed about the Trinity in the scriptures, was it revealed progressively??)
DIvine revelation is not a static disclosure but a dynamic process, progressively unveiling God’s nature across salvation history. God’s self-revelation transcends empirical observation, rooted instead in His covenantal relationship with Humanity (Deut 29:29). THe Trinity emerges as a culmination of this revelation, particularly in the New Testament where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed as distinct yet united.
The Old Testament hints at God’s complex unity through plural pronouns (Gen 1:26, “Let us make man”, Isa 6:8, “Who will go for us?”), suggesting intra-divine plurality within monotheism. The NT explicates this through traidic formulas as
Matthew 28:19: “Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” a singular “name” encompassing three distinct persons
2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” reflects a triune relationality.
John 14:16–17, 26: Jesus distinguishes the Father, Himself and the Spirit, who is sent by both, indicating eternal distinctions within the Godhead.
The doctrine of perichoresis, that is the mutual indwelling of the Father, Son and Spirit, explains how three distinct hypostases share one divine ousia (essence). This concept, articulated by John of Damascus (De Fide Orthodoxa) ensures that God’s unity is not compromised by personal distinctions. Next is to learn to distinguish between what we means as Ontological Trinity and Economic Trinity
The distinctions between the ontological Trinity (God’s eternal being as three hypostases sharing one ousia) and the economic Trinity (their roles in salvation history) is central to Trinitarian Theology. @The_Omega’s Oneness theology collapses these distinctions, is what I feel like modalistic monarchism, which views God as a single person manifesting different modes.
As in
John 3:16, The Father sends the Son, implying a relational distinction.
John 15:26. The Son sends the Spirit “from the Father” (filioque), affirming the Spirit’s distinct possession.
John 17:5, Jesus prays for the glory He shared with the Father “before the World existed”, presupposing eternal distinctions within the Godhead.
The Nicene term homousios (same essence) affirms that the Father, Son and Spirit share one divine nature, while their hypostatic distinctions (Father as unbegotten, Son as begotten, Spirit as proceeding) preserve personal relationality. Oneness theology fails to account for these distinctions without lapsing into modalsim, which negates the relational dynamics of Scripture like the Son’s submission to the Father, as in 1 Corinthians 15:28.
The filique clause, affirmed in Western Trinitarianism, underscores the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son, grounding the Spirit’s distinct personhood (John 15:26). Is Trinity monothestic
The citing of Deut 6:9 (“The Lord our God, the Lord is one”) to argue for a unipersonal God but lets see hebrew, brother, its written ECHAD. Echad means composite unity, as seen in Genesis 2:24 (“one flesh”). This supports Trinitarian understanding as a unity of essence and not a solitary person.
The use of Colossians 2:9 (“In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”) and John 14:9( “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”) to equate Jesus with Father overlooks the Context:
Colossians 1:15–20 distinguishes Christ as the “image of the invisible God” implying relational distinction within the Godhead,
John 14:9 reflects Son’s perfect representation of the Father’s nature (Hebrews 1:3), not an onotological collapse. Jesus’ prayer to the Father in John 17:1-5 presupposes distinction, as a unipersonal God cannot pray to Himself without absurdity (As discussed above)
Pneumatological Personhood is important topic to understand. The Holy Spirit’s personal attributes refutes @The_Omega claim that the Spirit is not a distinct person.
John 16:13–14: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth… He will glorify me.” The Spirit’s actions (speaking, glorifying) indicate personhood.
Acts 5:3–4: Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God, affirming the Spirit’s divinity and personhood.
Romans 8:26–27: The Spirit’s intercession with “groanings” requires conscious volition, inconsistent with an impersonal force.
Now about Apostolic practice and baptismal formula, lets see @The_Omega argues that the apostoles’ baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) precludes a Trinitarian formula. This is misreading
Matthews 28:19 explicitly commands baptism in the triune name, which the apostles implemented. The phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts emphasizes Christ’s authority as the risen Lord, not rejection of the Trinitarian Formula. The singular "name"in Matthew 28:19 encompasses the Father, Son and Spirit reflecting their unified essence.
THe Didache (100AD) instructs baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” aliging with Matthew 28:19. Ignatius of Antioch (To the Magnesians 13.1 ca. 100AD) reflects a proto-Trinitarian understanding, urging subjection “as Jesus Christ to the Father, and the apostles to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit.” This continuity refutes the Claim that Trinitarianism is a 4th-century invention.
Now talking about Historical Continuity and Pre-Nicene Trinitarianism
THe assertion that the Trinity is a post-bibical construct ignores the pre-Nicene witness to God’s triune nature.
Clement of Rome (96AD): 1 Clement 46:6 invokes God, Christ, and the Spirit triadically, reflecting apostolic tradition.
Terutallian (200AD) In Against Praxeas, Tertullian articulates the Trinity as “one substance, three persons,”
Origen (230AD): Describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct hypostases sharing one ousia, laying the groundwork for Nicene theology.
Are some pre-Nicene Trinitarianism.
The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds formalized Trinitarian doctrine against heresies like Arianism and Modalism. Oneness theology, by contract lacks historical continuity, and emerges at the prominent 20th century Oneness Pentecostalism, which ain’t in line with apostolic and patristic tradition.
Then ask: Why Trinity?
The Trinity offers a metaphysically coherent and scripturally faithful framework, which overcomes certain challenges of Oneness theology.
It avoids Modalism, Oneness theology’s collapse of Father, Son and Spirit into a single person risks modalsim, which fails to account for the relational dynamics of Scripture (e.g. The Son’s prayer to The Father, John 17). The Trinity’s perichoretic unity preserves both divine oneness and personal distinctions.
It has philosophical depth. The concept of homoousious ensures that the Father, Son and Spirit, share one divine essence, while hypostatic distinctions (unbegotten, begotten and proceeding) maintain their relational identities. This balances monotheism with the New Testament’s triadic revelation, unlike Oneness theology’s unipersonal reductionism.
Then we have is Soteriological implications. The Trinity undergirds salvation history. The Father’s love, the Son’s incarnation and atonement, and the Spirit’s sanctification (1 Peter 1:2) reflects distinct yet unified roles. Oneness theology’s conflation of these roles undermines the relaitonal richness in God’s redemptive work.
John 17 is often cited as a supposed challenge to Oneness theology, especially by those who interpret Jesus’ high priestly prayer as evidence of interpersonal communication within a triune Godhead. However, Oneness theology not only understands John 17, but embraces it as one of the clearest expressions of the humanity of Jesus Christ communing with the eternal Spirit of God—not a dialogue between co-equal, co-eternal divine persons, but a prayerful interaction between the man Christ Jesus and the infinite God who indwelt Him (2 Corinthians 5:19).
When Jesus prays in John 17:1, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee,” He is speaking from His authentic humanity. Oneness believers affirm that Jesus is fully God and fully man (Colossians 2:9), but distinguish between the divine nature (the Father, the eternal Spirit) and the human nature (the Son, begotten in time). The Son is not a second divine person, but the visible, obedient vessel of the invisible God. This understanding is rooted in biblical monotheism and avoids the philosophical construct of multiple divine “persons” sharing essence while engaging in interpersonal dialogue. Jesus’ prayer is the man, born of a woman (Galatians 4:4), submitting to and seeking alignment with the divine will (Hebrews 5:7–9).
Verse 5 is often cited: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Oneness theology rightly interprets this not as a pre-existent second person recalling past experiences, but as the human Jesus anticipating the fulfillment of the divine plan foreordained from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8). The “glory” He had “with” the Father was not experienced as the Son before Bethlehem but was foreordained in the eternal Logos—the divine plan and Word (John 1:1) that would be made flesh (John 1:14). This prayer reflects Jesus’ desire for the full manifestation of that glory following His death, resurrection, and ascension—not a return to a pre-incarnate personal existence.
John 17:11–12, where Jesus says, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,” is again not a problem for Oneness theology. Jesus here prays as the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), not as a co-eternal person. The Father’s “name” is Jesus (John 5:43; Matthew 1:21), and Jesus’ role as the shepherd of the disciples is fully aligned with the fact that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Him (Colossians 2:9). When He says, “I have kept them in thy name,” He is not referring to a name other than His own, but affirming that He has operated in the revealed name and authority of the Father.
In John 17:21–23, Jesus prays that His followers may be one “even as we are one.” This oneness is not a reference to shared personhood but to unity of purpose, essence, and indwelling. Just as the Spirit of the Father was in Christ (John 14:10), so that same Spirit is to indwell believers (Romans 8:11). The comparison does not support a tri-personal Godhead, but a relational unity made possible through the indwelling Spirit—consistent with Oneness doctrine.
John 17 does not disprove Oneness theology; rather, it illuminates it. Jesus’ prayer is the perfect demonstration of His dual nature: fully God in essence, yet fully man in function and submission. He prays not as one divine person to another, but as the incarnate Son communing with the eternal Spirit. The passage does not support Trinitarianism—it affirms the beauty of the One God manifest in the flesh, reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).
If Jesus is not God the Father in Flesh than these Scriptures are a lie.
Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”
Hosea 13:4 : “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.”
Isaiah 45:21: “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”
We know God’s word is Truth.
This argument reflects a classical Trinitarian development built more on post-biblical philosophy than on the plain, apostolic revelation of Scripture. While it is true that divine revelation is progressive—God reveals Himself across time through covenant and incarnation—the culmination of that revelation is not the doctrine of a triune Godhead, but the full manifestation of the one true God in the person of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:1–3). Oneness theology holds that God’s self-disclosure climaxes in the Incarnation, where the invisible Spirit becomes fully visible and knowable in the man Christ Jesus—not as one divine person among three, but as the singular God revealed in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
The use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 or Isaiah 6:8 does not necessitate intra-divine plurality. These plural forms can be explained through the majestic or literary plural (common in ancient Semitic usage), or more compellingly, as God speaking in council with angels (as in Job 1:6–12; 1 Kings 22:19–23). This interpretation preserves monotheism without resorting to dividing God into multiple centers of consciousness, which would violate the foundational Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Regarding Matthew 28:19, while the verse mentions Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it speaks of a singular name—indicating that these titles are roles or manifestations of the one true God. The apostles, who heard Jesus speak these words, understood the “name” to be Jesus, and consistently baptized in that name throughout Acts (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), showing no tension or contradiction. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 13:14 and other triadic verses describe God’s work in redemption, but distinction of roles does not equal division of personhood or essence. The same God who loved us as Father, manifested Himself in the Son, and now dwells within us as the Holy Spirit (John 14:17–18).
John 14:16–26 does not require three distinct divine persons. Jesus, speaking in His humanity, references the Father (the eternal Spirit) and promises the Comforter (the Holy Ghost)—yet He immediately says, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:18). This demonstrates the Oneness position: the Holy Ghost is not a separate person, but Christ Himself returning in Spirit to dwell within believers.
The concept of perichoresis, while refined by later theologians like John of Damascus, is a philosophical construct foreign to biblical language. Scripture never describes God as three “hypostases” sharing one “ousia.” These Greek metaphysical categories are imposed onto the text, not derived from it. The apostles preached a God who is not divided into three co-equal centers of consciousness, but one indivisible Spirit (John 4:24), fully revealed in Jesus Christ. God’s unity is not maintained through complex philosophical models, but through the plain testimony of Scripture: “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself…” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is not a diminished view of God’s nature—it is the glorious revelation of His oneness.
The argument presented here relies heavily on post-biblical Trinitarian categories such as the “ontological” and “economic” Trinity—terms and distinctions not found in Scripture, but introduced centuries later to explain a theological framework foreign to the apostles. Oneness theology does not “collapse” legitimate distinctions; rather, it returns to the biblical foundation where God is consistently revealed as one indivisible Spirit (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 4:24), who has manifested Himself in various ways throughout history—most fully and finally in the man Christ Jesus (Hebrews 1:1–3; 1 Timothy 3:16). The claim that this is “modalistic monarchism” is often used to dismiss Oneness theology without addressing its actual scriptural depth and Christocentric consistency.
John 3:16 does show the Father sending the Son, but that does not require eternal distinction between two divine persons. It reflects the sending of the man Christ Jesus, who was begotten (born) in time (Galatians 4:4), not eternally generated. The sender and the sent are not separate divine minds but the eternal Spirit (Father) working through the incarnate Son. The “sending” language throughout Scripture describes mission, not ontology. Similarly, John 15:26 speaks of the Spirit proceeding “from the Father,” but this does not require the Spirit to be a third co-equal person. Jesus also said “I will come to you” when referring to the Comforter (John 14:18), revealing that the Holy Spirit is Christ Himself returning in spiritual form—not another divine individual.
John 17:5 is often misunderstood. When Jesus says, “Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” He is not speaking as a second co-eternal person recalling a shared experience with the Father. Rather, He speaks from His humanity, praying for the fulfillment of the preordained glory that was in the mind and plan of God before time began (1 Peter 1:20). The “glory” was not personally experienced by the man Christ Jesus before Bethlehem—it was prepared (John 17:22–24) and was now to be manifested through His death, resurrection, and exaltation.
The Trinitarian framework introduces distinctions of personhood within God that the Bible never explicitly teaches. Oneness theology affirms the distinctions between God’s roles in creation, redemption, and indwelling—but insists these are not persons within God, but manifestations of the one God. Jesus is not a “mode” among others—He is God manifest in the flesh, the express image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). There is no need for eternal subordination or divine hierarchy in the Godhead; all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). God does not need three “hypostases” to act—He is eternally and sufficiently One.
The argument here is grounded in post-apostolic terminology and theological constructs—such as homoousios, hypostasis, and the filioque clause—that were developed centuries after the New Testament era to explain God’s nature using Greek philosophical categories. While the Nicene Creed introduced the term homoousios (meaning “of the same essence”) to combat Arianism and affirm Christ’s divinity, it also introduced a framework foreign to the language and logic of Scripture. The Bible does not speak of God as three hypostases sharing one essence; it speaks of one God—not in substance shared among persons, but in absolute unity of being (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6–8). Oneness theology affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ while maintaining biblical monotheism by recognizing that the distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit are not between three co-eternal persons, but between the eternal Spirit and His manifestations in time and redemption.
The so-called relational dynamics—such as the Son’s submission to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28)—do not prove eternal distinctions within the Godhead. They reflect the humanity of Christ in submission to the eternal Spirit, not one divine person subordinating to another. The Son was begotten, meaning born in time (Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4), not eternally generated. His submission is functional and redemptive, not ontological. The Son delivers up the kingdom as the man, not as a second divine person relinquishing authority to another. After the redemptive plan is fulfilled, God will be “all in all”—not a divided Godhead in eternal hierarchy, but the full manifestation of God in Christ reigning supreme.
As for the filioque clause (“and the Son”), which was a later addition to the Nicene Creed and a source of major division between Eastern and Western Christianity, it attempts to define how the Spirit proceeds—again importing speculative language where Scripture speaks simply. John 15:26 says the Spirit proceeds “from the Father,” and is sent by the Son—but this describes temporal mission, not eternal generation or divine subordination. Oneness theology rightly avoids these philosophical entanglements by holding to the biblical revelation: the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), not a third co-eternal person, but the one God who works in creation, redemption, and indwelling.
While Nicene categories like homoousios and hypostasis sought to defend orthodoxy against heresy, they also introduced layers of metaphysical speculation not grounded in the text of Scripture. Oneness theology stays rooted in the apostolic witness—that there is one God who was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19), and that this same God now dwells in us by His Spirit. The distinctions are real, but they are manifestational, not personal within a divided divine being.
The assertion that the Trinity is monotheistic by redefining “one” (Hebrew: echad) as “composite unity” is a common but flawed argument. While echad can, in some contexts, refer to a collective unity (as in Genesis 2:24, “one flesh”), it overwhelmingly refers to absolute numerical singularity throughout the Hebrew Bible. Deuteronomy 6:4—the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”—is the cornerstone of Israel’s uncompromising monotheism. There is no indication in the text or its usage in Jewish tradition that echad allows for a tri-personal interpretation of God. If Moses or the prophets had meant to imply a composite unity of persons within God, they would have used clearer language or a different term altogether, such as yachid, which means unique or solitary. Oneness theology affirms that God is one in being and one in person, not a unity of three distinct consciousnesses.
Regarding Colossians 2:9 and John 14:9, the argument misrepresents the Oneness position. Oneness theology does not deny that Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15); it affirms that Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible Spirit. Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily—not a third or partial expression. The same Spirit who is the Father now resides bodily in Christ (John 14:10). To call this an “ontological collapse” misunderstands that Oneness theology distinguishes between God as Spirit and God in flesh, not between separate divine persons. When Jesus prays to the Father in John 17:1–5, He does so as the man—the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), not as a second co-eternal divine person. Prayer is consistent with His human role, not absurdity. God manifesting Himself in flesh to fulfill redemption and communing in that incarnate role does not imply multiplicity within God’s being—it shows the harmony of divinity and humanity in Christ.
As for the Holy Spirit, Oneness theology fully affirms His divinity and personhood—but not as a third separate person in the Godhead. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). The Spirit’s actions—guiding, speaking, interceding—are not proof of a distinct person within a Trinity, but of the personal activity of the one God operating by His Spirit. In Acts 5:3–4, lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God because the Holy Spirit is God, not because He is a separate being from the Father. Romans 8:26–27 speaks of the Spirit interceding, but this is consistent with the Spirit working within believers—not as a distinct divine personality beside the Father and the Son.
The Trinity requires a complex redefinition of “one,” speculative metaphysics, and imported language like “persons” and “essence,” which Scripture itself never uses to describe God. Oneness theology is not modalism, nor does it deny divine action or relationship—it simply preserves the biblical monotheism that the Lord is one (Isaiah 44:6), and that the fullness of that one God has been revealed in Jesus Christ.
The argument presented seeks to defend the Trinitarian baptismal formula by appealing to Matthew 28:19, early extrabiblical writings like the Didache, and quotes from Ignatius of Antioch. However, these points do not overturn the clear, consistent pattern of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ found throughout the book of Acts—the Spirit-inspired historical record of how the apostles actually obeyed Christ’s command. Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Jesus did not say “names,” nor did He present a formula to be repeated verbatim; He instructed that baptism be done in the name—and that name is Jesus. The apostles, who heard this command directly from the Lord, consistently baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), showing they understood the “name” of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be Jesus, the full revelation of the one God (John 5:43; 14:26; Colossians 2:9).
To say the apostles were merely invoking Jesus’ authority while still holding to a Trinitarian formula is not supported by the biblical text. There is no record—anywhere in Scripture—of the apostles or early believers baptizing by repeating the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If this was a mandatory Trinitarian formula, the apostles would have violated Jesus’ command. But instead of being corrected, their practice was affirmed and repeated, showing it was fully aligned with Christ’s intent.
As for the Didache and Ignatius, while they provide insight into early Christian thought, they are not authoritative Scripture and reflect the theological developments of the post-apostolic period, already showing signs of philosophical influence. The Didache’s reference to the triune formula may reflect an emerging tradition rather than apostolic practice. And Ignatius’s use of Trinitarian-sounding language does not amount to the fully developed Trinity of the 4th century; rather, it shows the beginnings of theological speculation that later gave rise to the Nicene formulation—not apostolic doctrine.
Trinitarianism is not rooted in apostolic baptismal practice. The apostolic Church obeyed Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 by baptizing in the revealed name of God—Jesus—not by repeating titles. Oneness theology remains faithful to the biblical record by upholding baptism in Jesus’ name as the exclusive and original mode given by the apostles under divine inspiration. Historical shifts in theology or later writings cannot override the Spirit-breathed practice of the early Church recorded in Scripture.
The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity has strong pre-Nicene support relies on selective readings of early Christian writers and a retrospective application of fully developed Trinitarian categories onto texts that did not yet express such formal dogma. While it’s true that Clement of Rome, Tertullian, and Origen referenced the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this does not mean they taught the co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial three-person Godhead that was later formalized at Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). Their language often reflected developing theological thought rather than settled doctrine—and in many cases, it was inconsistent, speculative, or even contradictory to later Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Clement of Rome, for example, does refer to God, Christ, and the Spirit, but in a functional or redemptive context, not as three co-equal persons in one divine essence. There is no concept of “three hypostases” in his writings. Tertullian, writing Against Praxeas around 200 AD, is the first to use the term trinitas, yet he himself acknowledged the novelty of his views, describing them as a minority position and admitting that the “majority of believers” rejected them. Tertullian also believed the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the Trinity only existed in function during creation and redemption—a view incompatible with Nicene orthodoxy. Origen likewise taught subordinationism, explicitly saying that the Son and Spirit were lesser than the Father—a position the later Church condemned as heretical. To label these figures “Trinitarian” in the modern sense is to distort both their intent and the historical development of doctrine.
The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds did not reflect established apostolic doctrine but were constructed in response to growing theological disputes—particularly against Arianism, which denied Christ’s full deity, and Modalism, which preserved God’s oneness but was seen as denying personal distinctions. The Nicene formulation introduced terms like homoousios (same essence) that do not appear in Scripture and were never taught by the apostles. This marked a philosophical shift in Christian theology influenced by Hellenistic categories foreign to the Hebrew monotheism of the early Church.
The assertion that Oneness theology lacks historical continuity misunderstands both the history of doctrine and the nature of apostolic faith. Oneness theology does not trace its roots through post-Nicene philosophy or ecclesiastical councils, but directly to the apostolic message of the New Testament: that there is one God, who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), and that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Him (Colossians 2:9). The apostles never taught a tri-personal God. They baptized in Jesus’ name, prayed in His name, and proclaimed Him as both Lord and Christ. The emergence of Oneness Pentecostalism in the early 20th century was not an innovation, but a restoration of apostolic doctrine and practice, including the biblical model of salvation (Acts 2:38) and the revelation of the mighty God in Christ.
Historical continuity should be measured not by creeds or councils, but by fidelity to the original apostolic witness. The so-called pre-Nicene “Trinitarianism” was fragmented, speculative, and often unorthodox by later standards. By contrast, Oneness theology aligns with the simple, powerful truth proclaimed in the Book of Acts: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
The assertion that the Trinity is the only metaphysically coherent and scripturally faithful model rests on assumptions imposed upon the biblical text, rather than derived from it. While the Trinity attempts to explain the biblical data by introducing distinctions of essence and person (e.g., homoousios and hypostases), it ultimately relies on post-apostolic, philosophical formulations foreign to the language of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. The idea that God must be three co-equal persons to maintain “relational richness” may sound attractive philosophically, but Scripture never demands a plurality of divine persons to explain God’s redemptive work. Rather, it presents one God, who reveals Himself in diverse roles—Creator, Redeemer, Comforter—without dividing His divine being.
The common accusation that Oneness theology is a repackaged form of 2nd-century Modalism (particularly Sabellianism) is both historically and theologically inaccurate. Modalism, as condemned in early church polemics, taught that God revealed Himself in “modes” sequentially—first as Father, then as Son, then as Spirit—and that the Son Himself ceased to exist once the Spirit came. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostals affirm the simultaneous reality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—but not as three persons. Rather, they are three manifestations of the one true God who is indivisibly Spirit (John 4:24), fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). Oneness believers do not teach that Jesus is merely wearing “masks” but that He is the incarnation of the eternal God, expressing Himself relationally and redemptively through His own humanity (1 Timothy 3:16).
As for John 17, where Jesus prays to the Father, this is not problematic for Oneness theology. It is the human nature of Christ—the man Christ Jesus—communing with the eternal Spirit (Hebrews 5:7–9). The Son praying to the Father does not imply two divine persons but reveals the genuine relationship between Christ’s humanity and the God who indwelt Him (2 Corinthians 5:19). Jesus Himself said, “The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works” (John 14:10). The relational dynamic is not between separate divine consciousnesses but between flesh and Spirit—a mystery resolved not by splitting the Godhead, but by embracing the Incarnation.
Regarding soteriology, Oneness theology doesn’t “conflate” roles but recognizes that the one God worked through His own manifestation in flesh to accomplish redemption. The Father—eternal Spirit—became the Son through incarnation (Galatians 4:4), died on the cross as the Lamb (Hebrews 9:14), and continues to dwell in believers through the Holy Ghost (John 14:17–18; Romans 8:9). The same God performs every redemptive act. 1 Peter 1:2, while referencing Father, Son, and Spirit, does not necessitate three divine persons; it simply acknowledges the one God operating in distinct redemptive dimensions—foreknowledge (Father), atonement (Son), and sanctification (Spirit)—all fully accomplished by one Lord (Ephesians 4:5).
Oneness theology upholds biblical monotheism, preserves the full deity and humanity of Christ, and magnifies the simplicity and beauty of God’s self-revelation in Jesus. It is not modalism; it is apostolic, Spirit-filled, and scripturally faithful to the declaration: “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
the trinity didn’t exist when Jesus was on earth.!
the trinity is a man-made doctrine that was formulated 350 yeas after Jesus was taken back up to sit at the right hand of his God and Father, God Almighty.
The triunity of God is in the first three verses of the Bible, and no appeal to the New Testament is necessary.
The Father, The Spirit, and The Word were all involved in Creation, and Creation is the domain of YHWH alone.
God The Father created the heavens and the earth [Gen 1:1].
Since God The Father is spirit, it is surprising that Genesis 1:2 describes The Spirit of God moving over the surface of the primordial deep. The second ascription sounds redundant to the first one, and yet there is a second ascription.
Then God speaks [Gen 1:3]. His Word is working. But we do not require commentary from the NT [John 1:3], nor from later Jewish theology [see Memra, The] to hear about The Word. The Debar-YHWH, “The Word of YHWH,” is present in Genesis. The Debar-YHWH comes to Abraham in a vision [Gen 15:1]. Now, on this point one might object and say The Word here is merely the message of God. However, the OT is more explicit in Psalm 33:6, where it says “By the Debar-YHWH the heavens were made.” This corroborates Genesis 1:3 (as well as John 1:3).
Thus, YHWH and Debar-YHWH and Ruah-YHWH were involved in Creation, the domain of YHWH alone.
But YHWH is one.
This is merely the first testimony of thousands in the Bible to the triunity of God.
1:26
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness…”
This verse should not be used as a solitary “proof” of God’s triunity. A few reasonable objections ought to be taken into account. First, apologists of Rabbinic Judaism have been pointing out the singular grammar of “make,” “image,” “likeness,” and “created” (in v.27) since the Middle Ages. Second, many have suggested a literary convention called “the royal we,” as when a queen says, “We are not amused,” speaking only for herself. Third, one interpretation cites the presence of “The Divine Council,” a gathering of angels (lesser elohim) whom are being addressed (not as actors in Creation, but as privileged witnesses).
With these factors noted, however, it is probable that this verse in fact refers to God’s complex unity. The simultaneous use of plural and singular grammar in no way contravenes the triunity of God. The “royal we” is unlikely in light of the context of multiple ascriptions. And while The Divine Council interpretation is possible, it may be rejected by the criterion of extancy: the narrative itself has spoken nothing of them. Instead, the only named entities or ascriptions thus far are “Elohim” and “The Spirit of Elohim,” who already constitute a plurality (and who, as correctly indicated by the grammar, also constitute a unity).
→ See Syntactic Notables
3:8
…the man and his wife heard the sound of YHWH Elohim moving about in the garden…
This is the second verse in Genesis popularly cited as evidence of God’s complex unity, but caution is again recommended. There are at least eight theophanies in Genesis wherein the visible and sometimes even physical manifestation of YHWH Himself is all but incontestable. But this is not one of them.
The word “move” is from the Hebrew root הלך. This could describe physical walking, but it could also describe a generic movement, say, of the aureal presence of God. There is no other data point in this pericope which suggests tangibility, so this theophany remains ambiguous. God could have been physically present in the Garden, as afterward He was physically present with Abraham, Hagar, Isaac, and Jacob. Alternately, the presence of God could have been invisible or present in an unexplained way, as was the case in Genesis 11:5-8 or Genesis 21:1.
→ See Theophany in Torah
16:7, 13
The Mal’ak YHWH found Hagar near a spring of water in the wilderness…on the road to Shur.
So Hagar named YHWH who had spoken to her, “You are the God who sees me.”
For she said, “Here I have seen the back of the One who sees me!”
The Mal’ak YHWH is not an angel, but YHWH in angel form. Even though a large amount of material proves this elsewhere, there is proof right here in 16:13—the Genesis narrative, which is God-breathed, calls Him “YHWH.” It was not the direct speech of Hagar, so that it could be passed off as the unauthoritative comment of a human. It was the narrative introducing us to something Hagar was about to say. The Bible itself calls The Mal’ak YHWH “YHWH.” Other entities may be called “Elohim,” but only one is ever called “YHWH.”
God The Father’s face cannot be seen by terrestrial man [Exod 33:20]. Visible manifestations of YHWH in the Tanakh are in fact the pre-incarnate Christ, as John 1:18 explicitly disambiguates.
→ See The Mal’ak YHWH
18:8
And they ate while [Abraham] was standing near them, under the oak tree.
The ones eating Abraham’s food were physical manifestations, that of YHWH and two angels, described as “men” [Gen 18:2]. Abraham recognized one of the three as God who had appeared to him twice before [Gen 12:6-7; 17:1-22]. That this one was YHWH is incontestable: the narrative calls Him (and only Him) “YHWH” nine times in the story [Gen 18:1–19:24].
19:24
YHWH rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah from YHWH in Heaven.
The first YHWH was the one who had been walking around with Abraham in Genesis 18. The second YHWH was The Father in Heaven. The pre-incarnate Son called down the fire and brimstone while standing before the two cities. The Father was the one who sent it.
These two are not two gods. Both are the one true God, YHWH. He is able to be on Earth and in Heaven at the same time—just as He was the last three times (appearing to Abraham twice and Hagar once), just as He later was during Jesus’s Incarnation, and just as He later was during Pentecost.
32:30
And Jacob named that place Peniel [meaning “Face of God”]: “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”
Jacob’s declaration was true. It was not merely an angel, or merely a “man,” as the figure is first introduced (just as YHWH was introduced as a “man” in Genesis 18:2). It was God as a physical manifestation, able to wrestle and cause Jacob to limp after this encounter.
48:15-16
May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been a shepherd to me all my life to this day,
the Angel who has protected me from all harm
bless these boys.
In Jacob’s final prayer, he invokes three epithets for God. There is no change in subject.
The Angel-of-YHWH is directly equated with YHWH Himself.
Genesis Summary
YHWH and The Debar-YHWH and The Ruah-YHWH were involved in Creation, which is the domain of YHWH alone. These three are One, thereby exhibiting the triunity of God. Throughout the record of Genesis, YHWH manifested visibly to humans in nine theophanies: 4 times to Abraham [12:1-3; 12:6-7; 17:1-22; 18:1-19:24], 1 time to Hagar [16:7-14], 2 times to Isaac [26:2-5; 26:24-25], and 2 times to Jacob [32:24-31; 35:9-15]. His manifestation to Hagar was as The Mal’ak YHWH, whom the inspired narrative labels “YHWH.” In the most memorable theophany, YHWH ate Abraham’s food, walked with him, and later called down fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from YHWH in Heaven [19:24]. Jacob claimed, correctly, to have seen God face-to-face, and later equated the God of Abraham and Isaac to The Angel of YHWH. These face-to-face encounters do not contradict Exodus 33:20, because it is only God The Father whom terrestrial eyes cannot look upon; visible manifestations of YHWH are in fact the pre-incarnate Son [John 1:18; 3:13].
To suggest that “the trinity didn’t exist when Jesus was on earth.” and that “the trinity is a man-made doctrine” is like saying bacteria didn’t exist on the earth, it is man made, created by Tony Leeuwenhoek, in the 1600’s, or that the cosmos didn’t exist in the time of Jesus, it was a man made theory by Joe Hubble around 1920.
To suggest the former seems to be conflating existence with definition.
As someone who is still trying to understand the “Oneness vs Trinity”[1] debate, how does it affect my practical, daily prayers and belief system? (Simpler answers appreciated)
Regarding “Oneness vs Trinity”, my answer is that God is composed of three parts: the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is similar to humans being composed of body, mind, and spirit.
To my thinking, God the Father is spiritual, i.e., He doesn’t have a physical body as we do. (Of course His walking in the Garden of Eden doesn’t fit this). Jesus is the corporate God, having a body; God the Father made the earth through Him, but it was Jesus who actually created it. The Holy Spirit is that essence of God that He can instill in human beings, i.e., born again of the Spirit. Humans naturally lack this, which is why non-Christians are controlled by sin (see Romans 7). We must be given the Holy Spirit by God, i.e., “born again” to a) have the ability to overcome sin and b) become part of God’s family (in Christ). (Think about that one for a minute!)
To return to the OP, I believe that when Jesus cried out “why have you forsaken me?” on the cross, He felt total separation from His father, believing that He had lost the spiritual connection to His Father that He had since the beginning of time. It is the opposite of His saying “I and the Father are one”. He was filled with sin and blamed His Father (as many people do when they are in trouble).
I would like to continue this discussion about the OP; it’s a welcome break from the conflicts expressed in other (mainly political) threads.
That’s a great and sincere question, and it really gets to the heart of why this discussion matters beyond theological terminology. The difference between Oneness and Trinity affects how you understand who God is when you pray, how you relate to Him, and how you understand your salvation. In Trinitarianism, prayer often involves navigating between three co-equal persons—addressing the Father in the name of the Son, with the help of the Spirit. In Oneness theology, prayer is direct and simple: you’re speaking to Jesus, who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9), the one name and person through whom God has revealed Himself fully. There’s no confusion about roles or persons—you’re talking to the same God who created you, died for you, and now lives in you through the Holy Ghost.
In daily life, this affects your worship and faith. Oneness believers pray in Jesus’ name because Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 fulfilled in Acts 2:38). It’s not just a phrase tacked onto the end of a prayer—it’s the declaration of who God is. When you’re baptized in His name, pray in His name, and live filled with His Spirit, it brings a deeper clarity and intimacy: you’re not dividing your mind or your worship among three, but pouring it all out to the one who alone is worthy.
So yes, while this topic may seem like a theological side road, it actually goes straight to the foundation of your relationship with God: who He is, how He saves, and how you walk with Him every day. Understanding God as one, fully revealed in Jesus, simplifies and strengthens your faith.
Oneness theology does not teach that Jesus is temporary.
We do believe the title “Son” refers specifically to the Incarnate role of God for redemption.
Now to the Scriptures:
About “God the Son”
About the Trinity “Preserving Monotheism”
Final Word:
WHICH IS NOT ME 
(Simpler answers appreciated)