Is Jesus God Himself or One Person Within God?

[NeutralZone]

@NeutralZone

The Trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. The doctrine did not show up in Christendom until the 4th Century AD when two pagan Roman emperors got involved with Roman Catholic bishops that were vying for power.

@TheologyNerd

Objectively false.

1. No, the doctrine of the Trinity did not suddenly show up in the 4th century.
2. No, it had nothing to do with Roman emperors.
3. There were no “Roman Catholic bishops” in the 4th century. There were, however, Christian bishops who had suffered and bled as martyrs for Christ.

What are you are repeating is just anti-Trinitarian, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian propaganda. If you are a sincere person who is willing to modify your views based on facts, I am more than happy to offer historical resources to help you learn.

Your denials will not change reality, TheologyNerd. The record of history supports what I stated regarding when and how Christendom’s Trinity came about. Because I am a new member at this website, I am not allowed to post weblinks. If I could, I would quote several sources that confirm what I have stated regarding the formation of Christendom’s Trinity during the 4th Century AD, and then I would follow the quotations with weblinks to the sources where I got the information.

I will not quote sources without the ability to post the weblinks, because I could be accused of plagiarism.

NeutralZone

__________________________

". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

@NeutralZone

What are you talking about, PeterC? Scripture at Psalm 90:2, which I previously quoted, says the following about the Abrahamic God.

“Before the mountains were born, the earth and the world brought forth, from eternity to eternity you are God.” (Psalm 90:2 – New American Bible)

@PeterC

The truth. Jesus is God. He is the Word. There is no beginning. Not sure of your posting, Psalm 90:2 helps your incorrect conclusion.

Deny away, PeterC. I quoted Psalm 90:2 that says the Abrahamic God is everlasting (meaning he does not have a beginning), while you continue to insist that John 1:1 where it says “In the BEGINNING was the Word,” does not mean Jesus/the Word had a beginning because, to quote you, “There is no beginning.”

The word “beginning” can never apply to Almighty God Jehovah. But since you refuse to be corrected by scripture, suit yourself.

NeutralZone

__________________________

". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[TheologyNerd]

@NeutralZone The problem is that I’ve spent over 20 years in active study of Church history, so attempts at gaslighting and spreading propaganda isn’t going to work.

That’s why I know that “Roman Catholicism” as a distinct and specific branch of Christianity didn’t exist until the 11th century.

But let me be more precise:

The phrase “Roman Catholic” is used differently depending on who you ask, there actually isn’t a universally agreed upon definition or use of that term. Those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) define “Roman Catholic” as a specific Liturgical Rite, specifically the Latin or Roman Rite; usually in contrast to various Eastern Rite Catholics (e.g. Byzantine Rite). This is because from their perspective their Church is simply “the Catholic Church” and thus the “Roman” only applies to the specific liturgical western rite based in the Latin West, centered in Rome (other Western Rites having, largely, gone extinct). However outside of that narrow context “Roman Catholic” refers to those Christians, that tradition and ecclesiastical structure, that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome and which promotes and subscribes to the supremacy/primacy of St. Peter’s Chair.

As a Lutheran, “Roman Catholic” always refers to the latter–it refers to that particular ecclesiastical institution which remains in communion with the Bishop of Rome and which promotes Petrine primacy.

I, however, believe the historical case is that “Roman Catholicism” existing in any distinct fashion, didn’t really exist until the Great Schism of 1054. Prior to the Great Schism, what we call The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were the same Church–and as a Lutheran, that’s my Church too.

So when you speak of “Roman Catholic” bishops in the 4th century, I already know what you’re trying to do. You’re attempting to build the Roman Catholic Church as a bogeyman that hijacked “true Christianity” and compromised with paganism and yadda yadda–all fiction. But I’m not an idiot, or ill-informed. I know my history and I know what you’re doing. This ain’t my first rodeo pardner.

So please, spare me. With all due respect, and I do not mean this in an arrogant way, I know more than you do about this. That’s not cockiness, that’s just confidence that comes from familiarity with a subject.

If you tried to tell someone with decades of knowledge about physics, cosmology, geography, etc that the earth is flat–you’re not going to be taken seriously. And that’s what, in effect, you’re doing. You’re trying to tell people the earth is flat to people who already know the earth is round.

That might work when you’re going door to door with pamphlets and you prey on the vulnerable and uneducated. It’s not going to work here, where there are lots of educated Christians. There are a lot of people here who are very smart, very informed, and so you have a losing battle on your hands–that’s just how it is.

[PeterC]

@NeutralZone

You are making an issue of the word “firstborn” so that you can continue to argue that the term “firstborn” refers to status and privilege and that it does not necessarily refer to the first child.

Not that he needs help, but he is correct.

@NeutralZone

It’s a lame argument, because it does not address the fact that the word “born” always applies to created beings regardless of status or privilege.

Interesting. In the Bible, the word “born” (and specifically “firstborn”) often refers to status, rank, and inheritance rights, rather than a point in time when someone began to exist. Let me explain it this way.

“Firstborn” as a Title of Rank (Prototokos). In Greek, the word used is prototokos. While it can mean the first child born in a family, it is frequently used as a title for the Supreme Heir or the one who holds the highest authority.

“And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Psalm 89:27

This is talking about King David. David was actually the youngest of eight brothers (the “last-born”). Yet, God calls him the “firstborn” because he was given the highest rank.

“Firstborn” here has nothing to do with birth order; it has everything to do with preeminence.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Colossians 1:15

This is the verse you use to argue Jesus was created. However, the verses immediately following it clarify the meaning. Even if you do not choose to accept it. :

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Colossians 1:16-18

If Jesus created all things, He cannot be a created thing Himself. You cannot create yourself.

“Firstborn of all creation” means He is the Sovereign Ruler over all creation. He is the heir to the entire universe. Let’s talk about John1:1 You seem to really have an issue with that.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Greek verb used for “was” (en) implies continuous existence in the past. It doesn’t say “the Word came into being”; it says He already was.

As I said, @Johann has no need of my assistance; it just bothers me when someone falsely claims that the LORD of Lords, the King of Kings, the Alpha and Omega, is a created thing, and not what He is. The great “I am”

Peter

[PeterC]

@The_Omega

key terms used to explain the Trinity are not words found in the biblical text itself,

Of course.

@The_Omega

When I read Scripture, what I consistently see emphasized is:

When others and I read Scripture, we can clearly see the Trinity. Passages that you seem to want to try to wave away. The Bible explicitly gives the attributes and titles of “God” to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is God: John 6:27 (“…on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”)

The Son is God: John 1:1, 14 (“The Word was God… The Word became flesh.”) and Hebrews 1:8 (“But about the Son he [the Father] says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever…’”)

The Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4 (Peter tells Ananias he lied to the Holy Spirit, and then says, “You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”)

There are several moments in the Bible where all three appear at the same time, yet remain distinct from one another. such as the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:16-17. This is the clearest visual of the Trinity: The Son is being baptized in the water. The Holy Spirit descends like a dove. The Father speaks from heaven: “This is my Son, whom I love.”

They aren’t “modes” or “masks” of the same person; they are acting simultaneously as three distinct identities. The Great Commission. Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the disciples to baptize:“…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice Jesus says “name” (singular), not “names” (plural). This implies that one essence or authority is shared by three persons.

You also have the co-Creators in Genesis. Even in the very first chapter of the Bible, there is “plurality” in the Godhead, as I believe I pointed out before. Genesis 1:26

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

While some argue this refers to angels, the Bible says only God is the creator. This “Us” points to the internal relationship of the Trinity at the beginning of time. Not to mention, God put more importance on us than on them.

Peter

[The_Omega]

I’m familiar with that passage, and I agree it’s one of the texts people often point to when discussing the Trinity. The scene at the baptism is striking. In Gospel of Matthew 3:16–17, you see Jesus in the water, the Spirit descending like a dove, and a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son.” No one denies that three things are happening simultaneously.

The question, though, is what that moment is meant to demonstrate.

From my perspective, the passage shows three manifestations of the one God acting at the same moment, not necessarily three eternal divine persons or three centers of consciousness.

Think about what is actually occurring in the scene.

First, Jesus is standing in the water as a real man. He is the Messiah who has come in genuine humanity. His baptism marks the beginning of His public ministry. That is the incarnate life of God manifested in flesh.

Second, the Spirit descends like a dove. The text does not say the Spirit is a dove, but that it descends like one. This is a visible sign of divine anointing. Throughout Scripture, the Spirit represents God’s own active presence empowering someone for a mission. At this moment, the Spirit is visibly affirming that Jesus is the anointed Messiah.

Third, a voice speaks from heaven. God often speaks from heaven throughout the Old Testament. No one reading those passages concludes that when God’s voice is heard from heaven He must be physically limited there. It is simply the transcendent God declaring His approval.

So in that moment you have:

• God revealed in the man Jesus

• God’s Spirit descending as the sign of anointing

• God’s voice speaking from heaven

That’s not difficult for a God who is omnipresent.

If God is truly infinite and not confined to a body, there is nothing strange about Him revealing Himself in multiple ways at the same moment. The same Scriptures repeatedly say God fills heaven and earth and that no place can contain Him.

What the baptism scene clearly demonstrates is the inauguration of the Messiah’s ministry and the public confirmation of who Jesus is. The Father’s voice identifies Him, the Spirit anoints Him, and the Son stands in the water as the obedient servant beginning His mission.

But none of that requires three eternal divine persons. It requires:

• one God who can speak from heaven,

• manifest Himself in flesh,

• and reveal His Spirit at the same time.

The passage shows distinction of manifestation, not necessarily division of divine identity. In other words, the relational language between Father and Son that appears throughout the New Testament is consistently tied to the realities of the incarnation, the mission of the Messiah, and His later exaltation and glorification. Those distinctions arise from God revealing Himself in the man Christ Jesus and from the relationship between God and the incarnate Messiah, rather than from multiple eternal divine identities existing alongside one another.

So I understand why people point to that moment as a powerful scene. It absolutely is. But for me it fits naturally with the idea that the one God can reveal Himself simultaneously in heaven, through His Spirit, and in the incarnate Messiah without becoming three separate divine beings or three eternal centers of consciousness.

I understand the point you’re making about Matthew 28:19, and I agree that the wording there is important. In Gospel of Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells the disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And you’re right to notice that “name” is singular.

Where I differ is in the conclusion drawn from that singular word.

You’re interpreting the singular “name” to mean one shared divine essence expressed in three distinct persons. My understanding is different. When I see the singular “name,” I see it pointing to one revealed name in which the fullness of God is made known.

Throughout Scripture, “name” represents identity, authority, and revelation. God placing His “name” somewhere means His presence and authority are manifested there. When the New Testament begins to unfold the identity of Jesus, it repeatedly presents Him as the place where the fullness of God’s identity is revealed.

For example, Paul writes that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). That statement is incredibly strong. It doesn’t say a portion of God’s fullness is there, or one person of the Godhead is there. It says the fullness resides in Him bodily.

Because of that, when I read the singular “name” in Matthew 28:19, I see it fulfilled in the revealed name of Jesus. The Father’s authority, the Son’s incarnation, and the Spirit’s presence are all revealed in Him because the fullness of God is manifested there.

This is also why, when we move from the command in Matthew to the actual practice of the apostles in the book of Acts, baptism is consistently performed in the name of Jesus Christ. They understood the singular “name” as the revealed name through which the Father, Son, and Spirit are made known.

So I’m not denying that the passage shows real distinctions in how God reveals Himself. The Father speaks, the Son is incarnate, and the Spirit works in the world. But I don’t see that as requiring three separate divine identities.

Rather, I see the singular “name” pointing to the one place where God has fully revealed Himself—Jesus Christ—because all the fullness of the Godhead resides there.

[The_Omega]

I understand why Genesis 1:26 is often brought into the discussion, but I don’t think it proves multiple co-creators within the Godhead.

In Book of Genesis 1:26, God says, “Let us make man in our image.” But the very next verse clarifies how the creation actually occurs:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27)

Notice the shift. Verse 26 uses deliberative language (“let us make”), but when the act of creation is described, the text immediately returns to singular verbs and singular pronouns. It does not say “they created.” It says God created… His image… He created.

That matters because the Bible consistently interprets creation as the work of one God acting alone.

For example:

• Book of Isaiah 44:24 — “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”

• Book of Isaiah 45:12 — “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens.”

• Book of Isaiah 45:18 — “God himself that formed the earth and made it… I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

Those passages are explicit. God says He created the heavens and the earth alone and by Himself. That makes it very difficult to interpret Genesis 1:26 as multiple divine persons acting together as co-creators.

So when I read Genesis 1:26, I don’t see it as evidence of a tri-personal Godhead. The immediate context (verse 27) already clarifies that the act of creation is carried out by God in the singular, and the wider Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes that God alone created everything.

In other words, whatever the “let us” represents—whether divine deliberation, the heavenly court imagery, or a rhetorical plural—the text itself does not present multiple divine creators. The Bible consistently attributes creation to one God acting alone, which fits perfectly with the repeated Old Testament declaration that the LORD created the heavens and the earth by Himself.

[Bruce_Leiter]

@Corlove13, I find it hard, no, impossible, to fit my reasoning to grasp a mystery that the Bible clearly reveals in the fact that God is one God but also three Persons. To reason it out gives me a “headache.” Therefore, I prefer to avoid such speculation. Instead, I submit to the great God who is beyond my puny, little reason. And it’s another reason for me to praise him for his unlimited greatness.

[NeutralZone]

@NeutralZone

As such, the only person at John 1:1 to whom the word “beginning” applies to is Jesus Christ aka the Word.

@PeterC

You are misreading this.

I am misreading John 1:1 where it applies the expression beginning to the spirit person referred as “the Word” aka Jesus Christ, you claim. Really, PeterC? I suggest that you read all three clauses at John 1:1 again. Focus on the words that I bold within the scriptural quotation below.

John 1:1 – King James Bible

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Notice, again, that John 1:1 at clause #1 applies the expression “in the beginning” to the spirit person known as Jesus Christ (the Word). Now, if you want to continue arguing that Jesus Christ the son aka “the Word” does not have a beginning despite what it says at John 1:1, nobody’s going to stop you.

NeutralZone

__________________________

". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

@NeutralZone

As such, the only person at John 1:1 to whom the word “beginning” applies to is Jesus Christ aka the Word.

@PeterC

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1

In the beginning, God. God was there in the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 is with reference to when heaven and earth began to be created by Almighty God. That’s what the verse clearly says. Remember, scripture says the Abrahamic God does not have a beginning.

Psalm 90:2 – Holman Christian Bible

“Before the mountains were born, before You gave birth to the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity, You are God."

Take a careful look at Psalm 90:2 above. It says the Abrahamic God, Jehovah the Father, is from eternity to eternity. By definition, any person who has existed from “eternity to eternity” DOES NOT have a beginning. Such a person has always existed. The only person who has that distinction is Jehovah the Father.

Definition of eternal:

“without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (temporal ).”

(Source: dictionary dot com)

NeutralZone

__________________________

". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[Corlove13]

Who knows if we become one as they are one, who knows the mystery just might be solved.

[PeterC]

@The_Omega

The passage shows distinction of manifestation, not necessarily division of divine identity

Says you. Again, as I pointed out before. I show you what the Bible clearly says and shows, and you say it means this or that. Does it, though? Or are you simply seeing it because it fits your belief?

@The_Omega

You’re interpreting the singular “name” to mean one shared divine essence expressed in three distinct persons. My understanding is different. When I see the singular “name,” I see it pointing to one revealed name in which the fullness of God is made known.

My point exactly

@The_Omega

So I’m not denying that the passage shows real distinctions in how God reveals Himself. The Father speaks, the Son is incarnate, and the Spirit works in the world. But I don’t see that as requiring three separate divine identities.

Rather, I see the singular “name” pointing to the one place where God has fully revealed Himself—Jesus Christ—because all the fullness of the Godhead resides there.

Until I can see a rational explanation for the questions I feel have not been answered, I will still look up and wait for Jesus to return with the new.

With respect, God bless,

Peter

[PeterC]

@NeutralZone

I am misreading John 1:1 where it applies the expression beginning to the spirit person referred as “the Word” aka Jesus Christ, you claim. Really, PeterC?

Yup. “In the beginning God.” God is a created being, because the word beginning is there? Of course not. “In the beginning was the Word, it was with God, it was God, all things were created through Him. Jesus was there in the beginning, not created in the beginning.

@NeutralZone

God does not have a beginning.

Exactly. Jesus does not have a beginning. Nor an end. Jesus speaking,

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8

We know He is not created. We are told this plainly.

“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:20

So yes, you are misreading John 1:1 if you believe that proves your belief that Jesus was created.

Peter

[The_Omega]

@PeterC

Says you. Again, as I pointed out before. I show you what the Bible clearly says and shows, and you say it means this or that. Does it, though? Or are you simply seeing it because it fits your belief?

I understand why you’re saying that, but I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what I’m doing. Every one of us in this discussion is interpreting the text. None of us are simply repeating the words of Scripture without interpretation—including you. The moment any of us says, “this verse proves the Trinity” or “this verse proves something else,” we’ve already moved from quotation to interpretation.

My point has simply been that the passage itself shows simultaneous activity, but simultaneous activity does not automatically equal multiple divine identities. That conclusion still requires a theological step beyond what the text explicitly states.

Take the baptism scene again in Gospel of Matthew 3:16–17. The text shows Jesus in the water, the Spirit descending, and a voice from heaven. I fully acknowledge that those things occur at the same moment. What the text itself does not explicitly say is that this must mean three eternal divine persons or three separate divine consciousnesses. That conclusion is an inference drawn from the scene.

In the same way, when I say the passage shows distinction of manifestation rather than division of divine identity, I’m also offering an interpretation. The difference is simply which interpretation best fits the broader testimony of Scripture.

From my reading, the rest of the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God is one and that He alone created, rules, and saves. The prophets especially stress that there is no other beside Him and that He does not share His glory with another. Because of that consistent emphasis, I try to read passages about Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that preserves that strict monotheism while also taking the incarnation seriously.

So the question really isn’t whether someone is “seeing what they want to see.” The real question is which explanation accounts for all of the biblical data most coherently.

You believe the best explanation is three distinct persons sharing one essence. I understand that position, even if I don’t agree with it.

My understanding is that the one God revealed Himself in the man Christ Jesus, with the relational language between Father and Son tied to the incarnation and mission of the Messiah rather than to multiple eternal divine identities.

So yes—we’re both interpreting the text. The conversation really comes down to which interpretation better fits the whole witness of Scripture.

[PeterC]

@The_Omega

The prophets especially stress that there is no other beside Him and that He does not share His glory with another.

Absolutely correct. This is why Jesus made this statement.

“And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Mark 10:18

When Jesus was here, He was Human. He could see, feel, and even become tempted, sin, and with sin. Otherwise, living a sinless life would be pointless.

What about this?

“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”John 17:3

Or here

”For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5

Yes, Jesus is equal to God; however, He was also the flesh of man, therefore inherently sinful. Most definitely not Perfectly Holy as the Father. Not until after His resurrection and ascension into heaven. Some argue that He is still in the flesh, sitting on the right side of the Father. Oh, and this is while the Holy Spirit is living with us.

Peter

[Bruce_Leiter]

@NeutralZone, we must always interpret Scripture in its whole context. For example, John 1:1 clearly echoes Genesis 1:1, which says that “in the beginning” of the universe, God begins and continues creating all of it.

Besides, the verses immediately following John 1:1 narrow the phrase “in the beginning” to the start of creation, since it says that the Father creates it all through the Word, later to become Jesus.

I submit that you’re trying to fit Scripture into your preconceived ideas instead of letting the Bible form those ideas.

[TheologyNerd]

Genesis 1:1 LXX

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

John 1:1

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

So much for using “in the beginning” to discredit the Deity of the Logos.

[PeterC]

@TheologyNerd

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Not sure what your point is. This is translated “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The translations

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You are going to hate this one. New Living Translation

In the beginning, the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Peter

[TheologyNerd]

My point is that “in the beginning” is used both in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Our Jehovah’s Witness friend was using this as proof that the Logos can’t be God, by that same argument that would mean God isn’t God in Genesis 1:1.

I was arguing against our JW friend, not you.

[PeterC]

@TheologyNerd

I was arguing against our JW friend, not you.

Oops. Sorry my Brother. May God be with you.

Peter