I see we are not going to get anywhere substantial. You asked, I gave you the Greek meaning, and you come back with your opinion. Deflecting the answer and taking the same scripture and simply giving your interpretation is not a valid argument.
Says what it says. You are saying something different.
Again, it says what it says. You claim it means something else.
So Jesus is in us and at the right hand of God and getting ready to return? Or is the Holy Spirit, which is one, the one in us who is the third person of the Trinity?
Amen. If you believe in the Trinity, or you believe in oneness, it remains faith in Jesus coming and dying, and resurrecting, that is the only thing that can save.
You maintain that the passage merely shows one God acting in multiple ways at the same time, and that nothing in the Greek requires three distinct divine persons. The difficulty with that claim is not theological terminology but grammatical structure. The text presents differentiated subjects engaged in simultaneous interaction, and Greek morphology does not treat those as a single reflexive self.
In the account recorded in the Gospel of Matthew 3:16–17, the key clause reads: καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός. The demonstrative pronoun οὗτός is masculine nominative singular and functions as the subject of ἐστιν. It refers to Jesus, who is distinct from the speaker. The possessive pronoun μου modifies υἱός and indicates relationship between the speaker and the one identified as Son. The grammar is not reflexive. The speaker does not identify Himself as the Son; He identifies another as His Son. Greek has reflexive forms when self-reference is intended. They are not used here.
The participle λέγουσα, feminine nominative singular, agrees with φωνή and describes the voice as actively speaking. At the same time, πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν contains two present active participles, καταβαῖνον and ἐρχόμενον, both neuter nominative singular agreeing with πνεῦμα. These participles describe the Spirit as the acting subject descending and coming upon Him. The preposition ἐπί with the accusative αὐτόν marks direction toward a distinct referent. The Spirit is grammatically distinguished from the one upon whom He descends.
The structure therefore presents three identifiable referents in coordinated activity: the Son being baptized, the Spirit descending upon Him, and the Father speaking about Him. These are not three descriptions of one subject performing self-directed actions. They are relationally oriented actions between differentiated subjects.
Appeal to omnipresence does not address the syntactical issue. Omnipresence concerns spatial presence. The text, however, describes interpersonal address. One subject speaks of another in the third person. One subject descends upon another. Communication and directional movement presuppose distinction of referents within the sentence itself.
The narrative does not contain later creedal terminology. It does contain ordinary Greek grammar that differentiates speaker, spoken-of Son, and descending Spirit. The morphology requires distinction of subjects. Any interpretation that treats these as merely modes of a single self must explain why the language of relational address and directional action is used instead of reflexive or purely symbolic forms. The text itself presents interaction, not solitary self-reference.
Colwell’s rule states that: "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun…”
It means that if you have decided beforehand from context and other indications that a noun is definite and a predicate nominative and is before the linking verb, then the chances are high that it does not have the article. Some internet resources say the chances are 80% it does not have an article but I can’t find the references to support this.
Note also that the rule does not apply in reverse: if you see a predicate nominative and it is before the linking verb, the chances are high that it is definite. Wallace states that this is how Colwell’s rule has often been wrongly applied in respect of John 1:1c to assert that θεὸς must be seen as definite. In fact this is applying the reverse of Colwell’s rule.
Wallace gives the analogy: if one sees rain, chances are high that there will be clouds. But this does not mean that if one sees clouds, chances are high that there will be rain. Wallace also quotes Harner’s analysis which shows that 80% of the time predicate nominatives before the linking verb are qualitative, 20% definite (and so only rarely indefinite).[1] Wallace thus argues that θεὸς in John 1:1c be seen as qualitative, that is, the Word was equated to the God-attributes. To assert θεὸς as indefinite is rare by Colwell’s rule, and would be Arianism. But to assert that θεὸς is definite could be seen as Sabellianism.
References
Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 256-260.
You don’t bring receipts or share links @The_Omega and @PeterC answered you adequately, not that he had to, since the burden of proof is on YOU, not us re your eisegesis on John 1.1 and many passages.
~John 3:18
John writes that the one believing in Him is not condemned, but the one not believing has already been condemned because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. The perfect tense of “has been condemned” indicates a settled state, not merely future judgment. Unbelief is not neutral ground; it is an existing condition of judgment.
~John 3:36
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The present tense of “abideth” shows continuing divine wrath resting upon the unbeliever.
~John 8:24
Jesus says, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” The future middle “ye shall die” connects unbelief directly with remaining under the guilt of sin at death.
~John 12:48
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him… the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” Rejection of Christ’s word is tied to eschatological judgment.
~Mark 16:16
In the Gospel of Mark, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The contrast is stark: belief results in salvation; unbelief results in condemnation.
~2 Thessalonians 1:8–9
In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul speaks of “them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.” Refusal of the gospel brings judicial consequence.
~1 John 5:10–12
In the First Epistle of John, “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar… and this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Absence of the Son means absence of life.
The pattern is consistent. Salvation is located in the Son; unbelief leaves a person in condemnation already present and finalized at judgment. The New Testament frames faith not as optional enhancement but as decisive response.
These texts form the backbone of the biblical claim: belief in Jesus brings life; refusal leaves one under judgment. The language is not vague, and it is not merely later theology layered onto the text. It is embedded in the words themselves.
You are right that most Christians read Scripture from a Western perspective, looking for benefits or formulas, and it is true that the Hebrew worldview focuses on obedience and relationship with God. Your observation is solid here @AWB .
Where you go off track is trying to figure out God’s composition by comparing Him to humans. Genesis 1:26 says we are made in God’s image, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 shows humans have body, soul, and spirit, but Scripture never says God has those parts. God is spirit (John 4:24), eternal, uncreated, and not like a human in structure. The fact that humans are made in God’s image is about function, relationship, and moral and spiritual capacities, not about mirroring His essence physically or metaphysically.
Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34, as well as 1 Corinthians 3:9, do not make humans ontologically divine. They speak of delegated authority, representation, and co-working with God. Humans are God’s creation reflecting His character, not gods in substance.
So your final instinct is correct: if you cannot figure it out, leave it to God. Scripture gives us what we can know: God is Father, Son, and Spirit; humans are made in His image; our role is obedience, love, and relationship, not reconstructing the inner workings of the divine essence.
Focus on what God reveals directly: His Word, His commands, His promises, and His Son. Everything else, including God’s composition, is beyond human comprehension and meant to be trusted, not figured out.
'“Where you go off track is trying to figure out God’s composition by comparing Him to humans. Genesis 1:26 says we are made in God’s image, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 shows humans have body, soul, and spirit, but Scripture never says God has those parts. God is spirit (John 4:24), eternal, uncreated, and not like a human in structure. The fact that humans are made in God’s image is about function, relationship, and moral and spiritual capacities, not about mirroring His essence physically or metaphysically.
Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34, as well as 1 Corinthians 3:9, do not make humans ontologically divine. They speak of delegated authority, representation, and co-working with God. Humans are God’s creation reflecting His character, not gods in substance.”
My friend, thank you for your insight. I apologize for not making my post clearer.
So, a few comments for clarification. First, I was pointing out that man is a full reflection of God (IN image and OF likeness). Therefore, as we have no direct/full description of God (yes, He is Spirit, and possibly more), we must first understand what that reflection truly represents (not comparing God to man, but the reverse). Second, this thread discusses what constitutes God’s existence (a singularity, duality, trinity, or whatever), not the roles and responsibilities of His various elements of existence – or of man’s. Third, I did not assign divinity to man (used small “g”). And, if I may, you skipped the citing of the scriptural references/bases for your comments.
This is a great statement: “Focus on what God reveals directly: His Word, His commands, His promises, and His Son. Everything else, including God’s composition, is beyond human comprehension and meant to be trusted, not figured out. J” And it is a nice N.T. rendition of Ecclesiastes 12:13,14.
have great respect for you, Johann, and in many areas, your spiritual insights and biblical knowledge measurably exceed mine. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
As you are keeping me on my toes brother @AWB and your spiritual insights.
My mentor Bob Utley would agree with you here and simply love his team.
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the sof (conclusion) of the whole matter; Fear HaElohim, and of His commandments be shomer mitzvot; for this is the whole duty of haAdam.
Ecc 12:14 For HaElohim shall bring kol ma’aseh (every work) into mishpat (judgment), with every ne’lam (secret thing, concealed thing), whether it be tov (good), or whether it be rah (evil).
OJB
When someone raises the question of “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), it’s understandable that the plural wording draws attention. Readers naturally pause over the “us” and “our” and wonder what is being expressed there. However, the text itself does not specify “three,” it does not use the word “persons,” and it does not explicitly define the nature of the plurality. It simply records God speaking in the plural — and then, in the very next verse, the narrative provides immediate clarification.
Genesis 1:27 shifts directly into the singular: “So God created man in his own image… in the image of God created he him.” The verbs and pronouns return to singular form. The passage does not say “they created” or “in their image.” Instead, it emphasizes one Creator acting. Whatever significance the plural carries in verse 26, the inspired text itself anchors the act of creation in a singular divine subject.
Because of that, it’s important to let the passage speak in its own literary and linguistic context. The Old Testament consistently affirms that the LORD created the heavens and the earth alone (Isaiah 44:24), so Genesis 1:26 cannot be read in a way that contradicts that testimony. The plural wording must therefore harmonize with the repeated biblical declaration of God’s oneness.
Throughout Scripture, there are places where God speaks in ways that reflect deliberation, majesty, or the fullness of His self-expression. Genesis 1 portrays God creating by His Word (“And God said…”) and by His Spirit (“the Spirit of God moved…”). The one God is revealed as active, expressive, and purposeful. In that light, the plural language in verse 26 can be understood as divine self-deliberation or majestic expression without requiring the text itself to define a plurality of divine beings.
Importantly, humanity is created in a singular image — not “images.” The unity of that image reinforces the unity of the Creator.
So rather than forcing the verse to answer questions it does not directly address, it may be wisest to acknowledge both elements present in the text: the plural form in verse 26 and the unmistakable singular action in verse 27. The passage invites careful reflection, but it clearly maintains that one God created mankind in His image.
The “therefore” is because the angel is answering to Mary’s question “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
He answers by telling her how the Holy Ghost was going to come upon her and the power (Holy Ghost) was going to overshadow her and that was how she was going to conceive, BUT BECAUSE IT IS DONE BY THE HOLY GHOST, WHO IS GOD BRINGING FORTH THE WORD, WHO IS GOD, that that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God.
He, Jesus, the Word, being the second person of the Trinity.
Why aren’t you following through. You stop there and do not see the witnesses, scripture with scripture.
John 1, The Word, who is God became flesh-called the Son of God-name is Jesus
The Word, is God (John 1:1). Therefore, the Word is spirit. The Word is eternal.
The Word is the Son of God. Luke 1:35, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”.
So, how are you saying that “The Word was not eternally the Son”? WHAT!!!
The Word becoming flesh does not change the state of the spirit. Spirit remains spirit, eternal and that Spirit by the Power of God picked up His body and rose from the dead.
The Word alone is miraculous. How Mary conceived is miraculous, but you that fact that it is the Word becoming flesh and being brought forth, by a virgin woman, by the Holy Spirit and given the most powerful name there is, is the totality of this miraculous conception.
What are you talking about!
This relationship between the Father and the Son, as in the Word? Don’t be ludicrous. That has always been. The Word is eternal. Jesus gives you a little insight to this when saying, before Abraham was, I AM. (John 8:58).
READ!!!
I mean a lot of this should go without saying.
Luke 1:31 “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.”
Life starts or begins at conception. Therefore! An egg was fertilized.
As for you saying that it does not describe a second divine being, I’ve already given the scripture pertaining to the Word becoming flesh in John 1 which this here in Luke 1 is describing. You’ve read the same scripture yourself.
The mystery is revealed. Jesus has the nature of man and of God. He as Son of Man has a will that differs from that of the Father’s otherwise He would not have said, “…if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”, (Luke 22:42).
This shows the difference between the natural man, Son of Man and the Divine man, Son of God
It is no mystery. The Word of God was born man, who like man did as man, yet He was without sin. He suffered and died as man. Yet rose with all power!
וַיֹּאמֶר (vayomer) – Qal, imperfect, 3rd masculine singular, and he said
אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) – masculine plural noun, but grammatically singular here (with singular verbs), God
נַעֲשֶׂה (na‘aseh) – Qal, cohortative, 1st person plural, let us make / we will make
אָדָם (adam) – masculine singular noun, man / human
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ (b’tselmenu) – preposition בְּ + masculine singular noun צֶלֶם + 1st person plural suffix נוּ, in our image
כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ (kid’mutenu) – preposition כְּ + feminine singular noun דְּמוּת + 1st person plural suffix נוּ, after our likeness
Discussion of “us” / “our”:
The first-person plural verbs and possessive suffixes (na‘aseh, tselmenu, d’mutenu) indicate plural speech, literally “let us make … in our image … after our likeness.”
The text does not define the “us”. It does not say “three persons,” nor does it explicitly define the nature of the plurality.
Various interpretations have been proposed:
Majestic plural / plural of deliberation – God speaks in a royal “we” as sovereign ruler.
Heavenly court – God is speaking to the divine assembly of angels.
Trinitarian reading – Christian tradition sometimes sees this as an implicit reference to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
But the Immediate narrative clarification:
Genesis 1:27 continues: So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.
tzelem, tzelem…
The singular verbs in the following verse indicate that, whatever plurality is implied in 1:26, the creation is effected by God singularly.
So, in Hebrew, “us” is נַעֲשֶׂה (na‘aseh), 1st person plural cohortative of “to make,” and “our” is marked by the suffix -נוּ on both image and likeness. The text leaves the exact identity of “us” open; the narrative emphasizes God’s singular act in creation immediately afterward.
So the rule is roughly this-
When a plural noun like Elohim is paired with singular verbs, it is grammatically singular in meaning, despite its plural form.
A first person plural verb like נַעֲשֶׂה (“let us make”) does not demand multiple subjects; context and subsequent singular verbs indicate the action is done by one God.
It is not the number of verbs that “forces” singularity. Rather, the combination of plural forms with singular verbs signals Hebrew stylistic or theological nuance, and the narrative in verse 27 confirms the singular action.
Correct here, I’ll give you that. Not the verse I’ll go to prove the Triune God though.
Show me where it says “three eternal divine persons” and that your conclusion is directly in the text. Otherwise NOT my opinion only Truth.
I’m not saying anything different than the passage. I’m repeating exactly what it records — and I’m being careful not to push it beyond what it actually states.
The scene describes Jesus standing in the water. It describes the Spirit descending in visible form like a dove. It describes a voice speaking from heaven. That is what it says. I affirm every detail of it.
What I am not doing is inserting conclusions the text itself does not spell out.
The narrative presents simultaneous action. It does not explain metaphysical structure. It shows distinction in action and manifestation at a pivotal moment, but it does not define how that distinction functions within the being of God.
The key question is simple: what does the grammar require?
The passage records:
Jesus being baptized.
The Spirit descending.
A voice speaking from heaven.
It does not explicitly state how many divine centers of consciousness are present.
It does not describe multiple divine selves.
It does not explain inner divine ontology.
It does not frame the moment as an interaction between separate divine beings.
If God is Spirit (John 4:24) and not confined by space (Psalm 139:7–10), then God speaking from heaven while manifest in flesh does not require division. It requires omnipresence. The incarnation does not eliminate transcendence.
So when I say the passage shows one God acting in layered ways at the same moment, I am not changing the text. I am refusing to add to it.
If someone believes the scene demands a more complex conclusion, then that conclusion must be demonstrated directly from the wording and syntax of the passage itself — not assumed and then read back into it.
That is not saying something different.
That is simply insisting that we let the text speak — and stop where it stops.
That’s a sincere question, and it deserves a biblical answer.
Scripture clearly says that Jesus, in His glorified body, is at the right hand of God and will return (Acts 1:9–11; Hebrews 1:3). No disagreement there.
Scripture also says believers are indwelt by the Spirit (Romans 8:9–11), and then in the very same passage Paul calls Him both “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ.” He does not separate them into competing identities. He moves between the titles naturally.
Then we read:
“Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).
“The Lord is that Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17).
So we have three simultaneous truths:
Jesus is exalted and will visibly return.
The Spirit dwells in believers.
That indwelling Spirit is identified as the Spirit of Christ.
The apostles did not seem troubled by this. They did not explain it by introducing multiple divine centers. They simply affirmed that the risen Lord now works and dwells in His people by His Spirit.
After the resurrection, Jesus Himself said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:18). Yet in that same discourse He speaks of sending the Comforter. The language overlaps intentionally.
So the simplest reading is this:
The glorified Jesus reigns in heaven in His resurrected humanity.
The same Lord is present with and in His people by His Spirit.
Not two different beings operating independently — but one God revealed and active in different ways.
That keeps every verse intact without forcing them into categories the text itself does not explicitly state.
Now let us proceed morphologically and syntactically.
First clause: Jesus being baptized.
βαπτισθεὶς is an aorist passive participle, nominative masculine singular, from βαπτίζω.
Morphology: tense-form aorist, voice passive, mood participle, case nominative, gender masculine, number singular.
It agrees with ὁ Ἰησοῦς, which is nominative masculine singular.
Syntactically, it is a circumstantial participle, temporal in force: “after being baptized” or “when he had been baptized.”
The main clause verb that follows is ἀνέβη, aorist active indicative, third person singular, referring to Jesus.
Subject here: ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
Finite verb: ἀνέβη.
The participle modifies Jesus. The grammatical subject is a distinct personal referent.
Second clause: The Spirit descending.
εἶδεν is aorist active indicative, third person singular. The understood subject is Jesus, carried over from the previous clause.
Direct object: πνεῦμα θεοῦ, accusative neuter singular.
καταβαῖνον is a present active participle, accusative neuter singular, from καταβαίνω.
It agrees with πνεῦμα.
Syntactically, πνεῦμα is the object of εἶδεν. The participle καταβαῖνον is attributive or descriptive, specifying what the Spirit was doing: “the Spirit of God descending.”
Notice what has happened grammatically. Jesus is the subject of εἶδεν. The Spirit is the direct object of that verb. In Greek syntax, subject and direct object are distinct grammatical roles and distinct referents unless explicitly identified as the same entity by equative structure. There is no equative construction here. No copula. No apposition. No reflexive marking. The Spirit is grammatically and referentially distinct from Jesus.
Third clause: A voice speaking from heaven.
καὶ ἰδοὺ introduces a new scene element.
φωνὴ is nominative feminine singular.
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν is a prepositional phrase modifying φωνὴ.
λέγουσα is a present active participle, nominative feminine singular, agreeing with φωνὴ.
Syntactically, φωνὴ is the subject of an implied verb of being or appearing. The participle λέγουσα introduces the content of speech that follows.
The speech content reads:
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός.
οὗτός is a demonstrative pronoun, nominative masculine singular.
ἐστιν is present active indicative, third person singular, from εἰμί.
ὁ υἱός is nominative masculine singular, predicate nominative.
μου is first person singular genitive pronoun.
The demonstrative οὗτός refers to Jesus. The speaker uses first person singular μου, “my.” Therefore the speaker is not identical with the one referred to as “my Son.” The grammar enforces distinction: the one speaking is first person; the one spoken about is third person.
Now observe the full syntactic configuration:
Jesus: nominative subject of ἀνέβη and implied subject of εἶδεν.
The Spirit: accusative direct object of εἶδεν, modified by its own participle.
The Voice from heaven: nominative subject of λέγουσα, speaking in first person about Jesus in third person.
Three distinct nominative centers of reference appear across the clauses:
ὁ Ἰησοῦς, nominative masculine singular.
φωνὴ, nominative feminine singular.
Within the content of speech, the speaker marked by first person μου, distinguished from the third person referent οὗτός.
In addition, πνεῦμα θεοῦ functions as a distinct accusative entity with its own verbal action.
There is no grammatical mechanism in this passage collapsing these into a single acting subject. Instead, the narrative structure alternates and coordinates distinct subjects and objects with independent verbal actions: Jesus comes up, the Spirit descends, the voice speaks.
From a strictly morphological and syntactic standpoint, the text presents three personal agents with differentiated grammatical roles and cross-referential pronouns that prevent identity collapse.
Greek grammar is not doing theology here. It is simply doing what grammar does: assigning subjects, objects, participles, and pronouns in ways that maintain referential distinction. And in this scene, the distinctions are not subtle. They are structurally unavoidable.
**Mar 1:10 And καὶ immediately εὐθὺς going up ἀναβαίνων from ἐκ the τοῦ water, ὕδατος he saw εἶδεν the τοὺς heavens οὐρανοὺς tearing open σχιζομένους and καὶ the τὸ Spirit Πνεῦμα descending καταβαῖνον as ὡς a dove περιστερὰν upon εἰς Him. αὐτόν· ** Mar 1:11 And καὶ a voice φωνὴ came ἐγένετο out of ἐκ the τῶν heavens: οὐρανῶν “You “Σὺ are εἶ My μου - ὁ Son, Υἱός the ὁ beloved; ἀγαπητός, in ἐν You σοὶ I am well pleased.” εὐδόκησα.
Yes, οὗτός is masculine nominative singular and refers to Jesus. Yes, μου indicates relationship. And yes, the clause is not reflexive. The speaker does not say, “I am My own Son.”
But that does not automatically establish multiple eternal divine persons.
If the incarnation is real — truly real (I believe it is) — then the Son is genuinely human. That humanity is not the Father. It is not the transcendent Spirit. It is the Word made flesh. So when the voice from heaven says, “This is My beloved Son,” the distinction is between the transcendent God and the incarnate Messiah.
That is not reflexive language because the incarnation is not reflexive. The humanity is not identical to the heavenly mode of existence. It is God manifest in flesh — a real human life, standing in the water.
Greek reflexives are used when the same grammatical subject performs action upon itself. That is not the case here. The speaker is in heaven. The Son is on earth. The distinction is spatial and revelatory. But spatial differentiation does not demand ontological plurality within the divine being.
The text certainly shows relational language. What it does not state is that this relationship is between two co-equal, co-eternal divine centers of consciousness. It shows the Father speaking and the Son being affirmed. But within an incarnational framework, that is exactly what we would expect: the eternal Spirit affirming His incarnate self-expression.
Nothing in the morphology requires three divine hypostases. It requires distinction in the scene. It requires real address. It requires authentic relationship between heaven and the Messiah.
What remains unproven is that this distinction must be projected backward into eternal intra-divine plurality rather than understood within the unfolding of God’s redemptive revelation.
Yes, the grammar differentiates subjects. There is a speaker. There is the one being addressed. There is the Spirit descending. No one is denying grammatical distinction. The question is what kind of distinction the grammar requires.
Greek differentiates subjects any time actions are described from different vantage points. That alone does not settle whether we are dealing with multiple divine selves or with one omnipresent God operating simultaneously in different ways.
When the voice speaks from heaven and says, “This is My beloved Son,” that is relational language. But relational language does not automatically equal multiple eternal consciousnesses. It can just as naturally reflect the relationship between God’s transcendent Spirit and His incarnate humanity.
If God truly became flesh, then authentic relational address must occur. The humanity of Jesus is not an illusion. It is genuine. A genuine human life involves prayer, obedience, anointing, affirmation. So when heaven speaks, that does not require two divine minds conversing. It can reflect divine transcendence affirming divine incarnation.
The Spirit descending “like a dove” is also a visible sign. It is not described as a third divine figure speaking independently. It is described as the Spirit of God descending upon Him. That fits perfectly within the prophetic pattern of anointing language without forcing tri-personal ontology.
The key statement — “the text presents interaction” — is true at the narrative level. But interaction in redemptive history does not automatically equal eternal interpersonal structure within the Godhead. It shows differentiated action in revelation. It does not define internal divine metaphysics.
If omnipresence is real, then God can manifest in flesh while speaking from heaven without dividing into separate selves. It was not at all difficult for God to speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the form of a dove even while His human body (Hebrews 10:5 “Wherefore when he (The Word which was God) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:”) was in the Jordan River. The voice and the dove do not represent different persons any more than the voice of God from Sinai indicates that the mountain was a second intelligent person in the Godhead. If incarnation is real, then relational address between heaven and the incarnate Son must be real.
The text shows distinction in action and address. What remains unproven is that such distinction necessitates three eternal, self-aware divine persons rather than one God revealing Himself in layered, simultaneous ways.
This has become a truly meaningful exchange. I’m grateful that we’ve moved past labels and assumptions and are now simply working through the text itself. That’s all I ever hoped for — careful, honest engagement with what is actually written.
May all glory be to our God as we, limited and imperfect as we are, try to handle His Word faithfully. None of us sees exhaustively. None of us speaks flawlessly. Yet we press in because truth matters, and eternity matters even more.
My heart in these discussions has never been to win a point or outmaneuver someone intellectually. It has always been that people would know God as He truly is and find salvation in Him in the midst of a broken and fallen world. These conversations aren’t just for the two people typing. Others are reading. Others are weighing. Others are searching.
So if we continue, let it remain this way — respectful, text-centered, and aimed not at scoring victories, but at illuminating Scripture for every soul following along. So they can decide in their hearts how to respond to God.
They begin with the Shema, because that is the immovable foundation.
~Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.”
Modalists argue that this does not merely affirm one divine essence but one divine person. From there they insist that any doctrine that speaks of three “persons” sounds like tritheism.
Second, texts where Jesus is identified directly with God.
~John 10:30
“I and my Father are one.”
They read this as personal identity, not unity of essence.
~John 14:9
“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”
This is central for them. They argue Jesus is not revealing another divine person but is Himself the Father manifested in flesh.
~Isaiah 9:6
“His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father…”
They emphasize the title “everlasting Father” as applied to the Son.
Third, texts about the fullness of deity in Christ.
~Colossians 2:9
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
This is one of their strongest verses. They argue that if all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, then there cannot be a separate divine person outside Him.
~2 Corinthians 5:19
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.”
They interpret this not as the Father acting through the Son as a distinct person, but as God Himself becoming incarnate.
Fourth, texts where Jesus uses divine self-identification language.
~John 8:58
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
They connect this with the divine name in ~Exodus 3:14 and argue that Jesus is identifying Himself as the one Yahweh.
~Revelation 1:8
“I am Alpha and Omega… the Almighty.”
They see this as direct identification of Jesus with the one God of the Old Testament.
Fifth, baptismal texts.
~Acts 2:38
“Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…”
They argue that since baptism is consistently described in Acts as “in the name of Jesus,” this proves that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but manifestations of the one name, Jesus.
They also appeal to ~Matthew 28:19, arguing that “name” is singular, not plural, therefore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must refer to one personal identity revealed in Jesus.
Now, notice what is happening hermeneutically. Modalists gather texts that stress divine unity and the full deity of Christ, and they interpret relational language between Father and Son as referring either to Christ’s humanity versus His divinity, or to different modes of divine self-manifestation. They will say the Son is the incarnation, not an eternal second person; thus God did not eternally exist as Father and Son, but became the Son in time.
The earliest identifiable teacher associated with what later became called modalism was Praxeas in the late second century. We know about him mostly because Tertullian wrote a polemical work titled Adversus Praxean (“Against Praxeas”). Tertullian accuses Praxeas of teaching that the Father Himself was born, suffered, and died. That position came to be nicknamed “Patripassianism” from Latin pater (father) and passio (suffering). In other words, if Father and Son are numerically the same person, then the Father suffered on the cross. The mainstream church rejected that formulation.
The most famous name tied to modalism is Sabellius, active in the early third century, probably in Rome. Because of him the doctrine is often called “Sabellianism.” Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not distinct eternal persons but different modes or manifestations of the one God. God is Father in creation and law, Son in redemption, Spirit in sanctification. Sequential manifestations, not simultaneous personal distinctions.
Sabellius was eventually excommunicated, traditionally around AD 220 or so, under Callixtus I. Church fathers like Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian argued that Sabellius collapsed real distinctions revealed in Scripture, especially the relationship between the Father and the Son. They considered it a denial of the Son’s eternal personal distinction.
It is important to notice why it was branded heresy. Modalism did not deny that Jesus is fully divine. The church was not reacting against a low view of Christ. The concern was that modalism erased the real relational distinctions revealed in passages like the baptism of Christ, the Son praying to the Father, and the pre-incarnate fellowship described in John 1 and John 17. If Father and Son are merely masks worn by one person, then the New Testament’s relational language becomes either dramatic performance or metaphor. The early church judged that to distort the apostolic witness.
By the time of the fourth century debates, especially around the Council of Nicaea, modalism had already been condemned as inadequate to account for Scripture’s language. Trinitarian orthodoxy developed in part as a careful attempt to avoid two extremes: dividing God into three gods on one side, and collapsing Father and Son into one person on the other.
No, you are interpreting it. I heard you say, or read being the case, the “Passage does not explicitly say,” yet, it does not explicitly say it doesn’t mean.” Get the point.
I present a Glass with half it’s occupencey taken up with clear liquid. That is the facts. Now, some will argue half full. Some will see it half empty. Some say that the liquid is water. Some say it is something other, such as vingaer or volka. Who’s right? Who is wrong? Sadly, some will even argue the glass does not exist.
Now we see other places where it talks about the glass, it says it is orderless. I say it is water, others agree, you say, well, it does not explicitly say it is water, so I will believe it is volka. However, there is not reall evidence as to that being a fact either.
I have posted over and over, passage after passage, and you simply wave it off and say, it does not explicitly state what you do not believe, so it is in your favor. I doubt we can get anywhere but going in circles, so I bow out of the conversation. I understand you have held your views for 35 years. I get it. Peace to you, my brother.
Johann, Just when I was commending you on such good engagement. I don’t measure truth by how many people say I’m wrong. Four people disagreeing with me does not automatically make my position “faulty,” just like four people agreeing with me would not automatically make it correct. Scripture is the authority — not headcount.
You say I’ve been “corrected.” I don’t mind correction at all. But correction requires demonstration from the text. Show me, from the passages we’re discussing, where I have misread the grammar, misapplied a term, or ignored a contextual detail. That’s what I’ve been asking for consistently.
As for “no links, no scholars” — I’m not trying to win by citation stacking. We’re discussing the text of Gospel of John and Gospel of Luke. We can open them and read them together. If I say John 1 calls Him “the Word” and not “the Son” before incarnation, that’s verifiable in ten seconds by anyone with a Bible. That’s not evasion; that’s staying with Scripture.
On the modalism accusation — that label gets thrown around quickly. I have repeatedly affirmed that Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed simultaneously (this is not what Modalism believes) in Scripture. At Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit descends, the voice speaks from heaven, and the Son stands in the water. I do not deny that scene. I do not collapse it into a single theatrical illusion.
What I am questioning is whether Scripture explicitly teaches three eternal, self-conscious divine persons — or whether it presents one God revealed as Father in transcendence, Son in incarnation, and Spirit in operation.
Disagree with that if you must — but engage the actual claim.
Calling something “modalism” without interacting with the textual arguments doesn’t move the discussion forward. It just categorizes and dismisses.
You ask, “Something is wrong, don’t you think?”
What I think is wrong is when discussion shifts from:
“Here’s where your exegesis fails,”
to:
“Four people corrected you.”
“You have faulty theology.”
“You’re a modalist.”
If I’m wrong, show me where. Show me from the Greek of John 1. Show me from the flow of Luke 1:35. Show me where the text explicitly says “the Son” existed eternally as a distinct person prior to incarnation. I am willing to look at it.
But disagreement is not correction.
Labels are not arguments.
Numbers are not proof.
Let’s go back to the text and reason together.
No one can erase what I have personally witnessed over decades. I have seen people genuinely seek God and be baptized in the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. I have seen the joy that floods their hearts, the deep transformation that follows, and the boldness that rises up in them. I have watched miracles unfold — breakthroughs in impossible situations, financial provision arriving at the exact moment of need, jobs opening suddenly, and even people being moved to give vehicles to those who had none.
One precious member of our church suffered three strokes. Doctors had their reports, but the church had prayer. We believed God. We stood in faith. And the Lord touched her body. Today she is back on the platform, lifting her voice in praise as though it never happened. That is not theory. That is not secondhand. That is lived testimony.
These are authentic experiences of God’s power at work — and no one can take that away. To Him be all the glory. Praise God in the Highest.
