Is Jesus God Himself or One Person Within God?

Theology
81

Let me try to say this more clearly and anchor it directly in Scripture.

I am not arguing that one divine person merely pretends to be Father at one moment, Son at another, and Spirit at another — as though God were switching masks. I reject that caricature.

I believe what Scripture repeatedly affirms: there is one God.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
“Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me… beside me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:10–11)
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” (Isaiah 45:5)

That is not philosophical monotheism — that is absolute, exclusive divine singularity.

Within that one divine Being, Scripture reveals different realities:

1. God as transcendent, invisible Spirit.

“God is a Spirit.” (John 4:24)
“The King eternal, immortal, invisible…” (1 Timothy 1:17)

2. God manifest in real humanity — Jesus Christ.

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)
“God was manifest in the flesh.” (1 Timothy 3:16)
“In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

That is not a second divine being — it is the one God dwelling fully in a genuine human life.

Jesus Himself said:

“The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:10)
“I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Not one in agreement only — but one in divine identity.

3. The Holy Ghost as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ indwelling believers.

Scripture uses this language interchangeably:

“The Spirit of God dwell in you.” (Romans 8:9)
“Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9)
“The Lord is that Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:17)
“Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Colossians 1:27)

The Holy Ghost is not described as a separate divine being from God — but as God’s own Spirit, and even as the Spirit of Christ.

So what I am affirming is this:

  • One Divine Being.

  • One eternal Spirit.

  • That one God manifest in flesh in Jesus Christ.

  • That same Spirit now indwelling believers.

Simultaneous manifestation does not require multiple divine beings. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son stands in the water, the Spirit descends, and the voice speaks from heaven — yet Scripture still insists there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6, 8).

If saying:

  • God is one,

  • God was manifest in Christ,

  • God’s Spirit dwells in us,

equals “modalism,” then Isaiah’s strict monotheism would also be labeled modalism — because Isaiah leaves no room for multiple divine persons alongside Him.

I am not denying the distinctions Scripture reveals.
I am denying that those distinctions require three eternal, independent centers of divine consciousness.

There is one God.

That one God is transcendent as Father, manifest in flesh as Son, and present in us as Holy Spirit.

If that position is wrong, it must be shown wrong from the text itself — not by attaching a historical label, but by demonstrating where these Scriptures are being misread.

82

GOSPELS – Distinction of Persons

Matthew 3:16–17 – The baptism of Jesus: the Son in the water, the Spirit descending like a dove, and the Father’s voice from heaven. All act simultaneously. Modalism would have to claim one person speaking, descending, and being baptized at the same time.

Matthew 11:27 – “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son…” Reciprocal knowledge presupposes two subjects.

Matthew 28:19 – The Great Commission: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The singular “name” does not collapse the distinctions in function and relational identity.

Mark 1:10–11 – Same baptism scene as Matthew, reinforcing Father speaking, Spirit descending, Son receiving baptism.

Luke 1:35 – The angel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of the Most High will overshadow her; the child will be called the Son of God. Father, Spirit, Son are distinct in action.

Luke 2:49 – Jesus in the temple: “Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” Recognition of distinct Father.

Luke 22:42 – Jesus in Gethsemane: “Not my will, but yours be done.” Distinction of wills between Father and Son.

John 1:1–2, 14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Pre-existence, coexistence, distinction with unity.

John 3:16–17 – “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” Sending language presupposes distinct persons.

John 5:19–23 – Jesus speaks of doing nothing of Himself but only what He sees the Father doing, yet will judge all. Sending, obedience, and judgment are distributed among persons.

John 8:58 – “Before Abraham was, I am.” Affirmation of eternal pre-existence of the Son, distinct from temporal appearance.

John 10:30–33 – “I and the Father are one” – unity of essence, but the context shows Jewish leaders understood a distinction; He is not claiming absolute personal identity, which a modalist would.

John 14:9–11 – “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Modalists quote this, but the verse presupposes relational distinction: the Father is in me, I am in the Father.

John 17:1–5 – The high priestly prayer: pre-incarnate glory, mutual recognition, and relational distinction before creation.

John 18:11 – “The cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” Sending and obedience to the Father.

John 20:21–22 – Jesus says “As the Father has sent me, I also send you,” and breathes on the disciples, giving the Spirit. Distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit in redemptive mission.

ACTS – Historical Sending and Distinction

Acts 1:4–5, 8 – Jesus commands baptism and promise of the Spirit, showing temporal and functional distinction.

Acts 2:32–33 – The Father raised Jesus; the Spirit is poured out; believers receive testimony. Triadic distinction.

Acts 2:38 – Peter commands baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Modalists say this collapses the Trinity, but the context shows Father, Son, and Spirit at work in conversion.

Acts 10:38 – God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power. Distinction in roles.

Acts 13:2–4 – Church fasts and prays; the Spirit says “set apart for me Barnabas and Saul,” sending them. God speaks via Spirit distinct from apostolic actors.

PAULINE LETTERS – Sending, Obedience, and Intercession

Romans 8:9–11 – Spirit of God dwells in believers; the Spirit gives life. The Spirit is distinct from Christ.

Romans 8:26–27 – Spirit intercedes according to the will of God. Distinction between intercessor and divine will.

Romans 8:34 – Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of God. Sending and intercession involve at least two persons.

1 Corinthians 12:4–6 – One Spirit, one Lord (Jesus), one God (Father) with different operations. Personal distinctions in unified action.

2 Corinthians 1:21–22 – God establishes believers with Christ and seals them with the Spirit. Triadic interaction.

2 Corinthians 5:19–21 – God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ. Christ’s role is distinct from the Father’s initiative.

Galatians 4:4–6 – God sent His Son; believers receive the Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit each act distinctively.

Ephesians 1:3–14 – Spiritual blessings in Christ from the Father; the Spirit seals believers. Each person of the Godhead operates distinctly.

Philippians 2:5–11 – Christ’s incarnation and obedience unto death; exaltation by the Father. Distinction and relational sequence.

1 Thessalonians 1:3–4 – Work of faith in the Son, love from God the Father, sanctification by Spirit.

1 Timothy 2:5 – “One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” – presupposes distinction between God and mediator.

2 Timothy 4:22 – “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.” Implicit triadic blessing pattern.

Hebrews 1:1–3 – God spoke through the Son; the Son upholds all things by His word. Distinction in persons and roles.

Hebrews 5:7–10 – Jesus prays to the Father; obedience unto death. Distinction of wills.

Hebrews 7:25 – Christ intercedes for the saints. Intercessor distinct from God who grants salvation.

Hebrews 10:5–14 – Son offers His body as prepared by the Father. Sending and offering require personal distinction.

1 Peter 1:2 – Chosen according to Father’s foreknowledge, sanctified by Spirit, sprinkled by the blood of Christ. Triadic distinction in salvation.

1 John 4:14–15 – God sent the Son; believers confess the Son distinct from the Father.

Revelation 1:4–6 – Grace from God the Father, fellowship of the Spirit, Jesus Christ made priestly mediator.

Revelation 5:6–10 – Lamb and throne; Father on throne; Spirit’s testimony implied in worship context. Distinctions maintained in eternal worship.

J.

83

Your position is most commonly called Oneness theology, historically known as Sabellianism or modalistic monarchianism.

The classical name attached to it comes from Sabellius, a third century teacher who argued that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct eternal persons but different manifestations of the one God. Because of him the view was labeled Sabellianism.

Short version.

J.

85

Before anyone told me what the Trinity was…at one time I said God was manifested as 3 distinct persons and someone said that was modalism. Had no clue of the theological " scholarly terms" that is merely what I said because that is probably how I saw God.

I still have no complete grasp…of what all you guys are saying…
But the mere fact That my intuition was and remains that there is a difference between the Holyghost and Holy Spirit may seem to lean in that direction on that aspect.

For I see one receiving the Spirit of the Father
Same Spirit in Jesus, The Holy Spirit, JESUS ACTING UPON His Fathers will, by doing it and Hence Holyghost power

However Jesus going back to the Father says restore the glory that I had while I was with you..dont quote off memory

This does not sound like They are the same in identity. It sound like they had unity.

That’s all I have…work with me, in small paragraphs- I can only grasp so much at a time

86

One God Being who within Himself are 3 eternals Persons

87

Johann, if we’re going to begin with the Shema, then let’s let it stand in its full weight.

“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.” (Deut 6:4)

That is not a statement about abstract “essence.” It is a covenantal declaration of exclusive divine identity. The Hebrew construction places YHWH front and center, and the predicate אֶחָד (echad) affirms indivisible oneness. Isaiah intensifies that boundary:

“Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.” (Isa 43:10)
“Beside Me there is no God.” (Isa 44:6)
“I am the LORD, and there is none else.” (Isa 45:5)

That is the immovable foundation. No Israelite reading that would walk away imagining multiple self-conscious divine subjects within YHWH.

Now here is where I need you to stop collapsing categories.

Oneness Pentecostals are not classical modalists.

Classical modalism (Sabellianism) taught that:

  • The Father became the Son.

  • The Son became the Spirit.

  • The distinctions are merely sequential masks.

  • There are no real distinctions whatsoever.

Oneness believers do not teach that.

We affirm:

  • The Father speaks from heaven.

  • The Son prays to the Father.

  • The Spirit descends.

  • These occur simultaneously in events like the baptism.

We do not deny distinction in revelation.
We deny multiple divine beings or multiple eternal divine centers.

That is not Sabellian mask-theory.

The difference is critical.

Modalism says:

One person appearing in three temporary roles.

Oneness says:

One divine Being — eternally Spirit — manifest in real humanity as the Son, and present as Spirit in operation, without dividing the divine identity.

Scripture says:

  • “God is Spirit.” (John 4:24)

  • “The Word was God… and the Word was made flesh.” (John 1:1,14)

  • “God was manifest in the flesh.” (1 Tim 3:16)

  • “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9)

That is incarnation language — not second-person metaphysics.

When Jesus says, “The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works” (John 14:10), that is not one person pretending to be another. That is God dwelling fully in a genuine human life.

When Romans 8:9 speaks of “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ” interchangeably, that is not three divine beings interacting. It is one divine Spirit.

So please stop placing Oneness Pentecostals in the same category as modalists as though we deny all distinction. We do not.

The disagreement is not over whether Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable in Scripture.

The disagreement is whether those distinctions equal three eternal, co-equal, self-conscious divine persons — or whether they are the one God revealed:

  • transcendent as Father,

  • incarnate as Son,

  • indwelling as Holy Spirit.

That is a theological disagreement.

But labeling it “modalism” as shorthand ends the discussion before it begins.

If you believe the Trinity is the only faithful reading of the data, argue it from the text.

But don’t reduce Oneness theology to Sabellianism. They are not the same thing, and serious discussion requires acknowledging that distinction.

88

I appreciate the tone at the end of what you wrote. I really do. And I’m not interested in going in circles either. But before you bow out, let me say this plainly and respectfully.

The baptism of Jesus is not a “glass of unknown liquid.” It is a historical moment recorded in Scripture. The text tells us what happened. It does not leave us guessing about categories that the text itself never names.

Let’s look at it carefully.

In Gospel of Matthew 3:16–17, it says:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Three things are happening at once:

  • Jesus is in the water.

  • The Spirit descends like a dove.

  • A voice speaks from heaven.

Those are the facts.

Where we differ is not on what happened — it is on what the text requires us to conclude about what happened.

You say I am interpreting. Of course I am. So are you. Everyone who reads Scripture interprets it. The question is not whether there is interpretation. The question is whether we are adding conclusions the text itself does not demand.

When I say the passage shows one God acting in layered ways at the same moment, I am not denying what is happening. I am simply refusing to import philosophical categories that the text does not articulate.

The passage never says:

  • “Three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons are now simultaneously manifest.”

  • It never uses the word “Trinity.”

  • It never defines metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead.

It records an event.

Now, here is the key: Scripture elsewhere is unambiguous that God is one.

In Book of Isaiah 44:6, God says:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

In Isaiah 45:5:

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”

So whatever happens at the Jordan cannot contradict the absolute oneness God declares of Himself.

You use the analogy of a glass. But here’s the difference: if we have other passages that explicitly tell us what the liquid is, we do not get to ignore them when looking at the glass.

The baptism of Jesus must harmonize with:

  • God saying He alone is Savior (Isaiah 43:11).

  • God saying He created the heavens by Himself (Isaiah 44:24).

  • The New Testament affirming that in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

So when I say one God is manifesting in layered ways at that moment, I am not dismissing your verses. I am trying to let all of Scripture speak together without multiplying divine centers of consciousness unless the text explicitly requires that move.

You say I wave passages off. I don’t believe I do. I wrestle with them. I read them. I try to stay inside the grammar and the narrative flow. But I will not affirm something simply because it is inferred if that inference seems to strain the repeated declarations of divine singularity.

And respectfully — when you say I believe something because it “does not explicitly say” otherwise — that cuts both ways. The baptism account does not explicitly say “three eternal persons.” It also does not explicitly say “one person acting in modes.” We are both drawing theological synthesis from the data.

So the real question is this: which synthesis best preserves all the explicit statements of Scripture?

If you choose to bow out, I won’t press you. But I am not trying to win a chess match. I am trying to be faithful to what I believe Scripture plainly affirms: one God, who revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ, and who can manifest Himself in heaven, on earth, and by His Spirit at the same time without ceasing to be the One God.

Peace to you as well. I mean that sincerely.

1 Like
89

Johann, let me respond directly to the way you framed those texts.

You listed:

  • Gospel of John 10:30

  • Gospel of John 14:9

  • Book of Isaiah 9:6

and said Oneness believers read them as “personal identity” rather than “unity of essence.”

That’s not quite accurate.

The claim is not that Jesus is the Father in a simplistic role-swap sense. The claim is that the one divine identity of YHWH is fully present and manifested in Christ — not divided, not shared among multiple divine centers.

Let’s stay in the text.

John 10:30 — ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν

Yes, ἕν is neuter. That does not mean “one person.” It means “one thing,” “one reality,” “one essence.”

But here’s the key: whatever that “oneness” is, it is strong enough that the Jewish audience immediately concludes:

“Thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33)

They do not accuse Him of claiming to be a second divine person alongside God. They accuse Him of making Himself God.

So the unity is not mere agreement of will. It is unity at the level of divine identity.

A Oneness reading says: that fits perfectly with Israel’s confession of one YHWH. A Trinitarian reading says: that is unity of essence between distinct persons. The grammar itself does not demand the latter; it simply establishes profound unity.

John 14:9 — ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα

Jesus does not say, “He who has seen me has seen another divine person distinct from me.”

He says, “has seen the Father.”

And then:

“The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (14:10)

That is indwelling language. Not cooperation between two divine beings. Not partnership between co-equal centers of deity. Indwelling.

Paul echoes this:

Epistle to the Colossians 2:9
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
“In Him dwells all the fullness of Deity bodily.”

All the fullness. Not part. Not one-third. Not a representative slice.

If all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily in Christ, then the divine identity is not distributed among three independent centers. It is fully present in Him.

Isaiah 9:6 — אֲבִי־עַד (Avi-‘ad)

The child born is called:

  • אֵל גִּבּוֹר (El Gibbor) — Mighty God

  • אֲבִי־עַד — Father of eternity / Everlasting Father

The same “El Gibbor” appears in Isaiah 10:21 for YHWH Himself.

So the Messiah bears titles that belong to YHWH. Not a secondary deity. Not a lesser divine person. The Mighty God. The Father of Eternity.

You can argue that “Everlasting Father” refers to a functional role, but the text undeniably places Father-language upon the Son.

You say Oneness believers “insist this means personal identity.”

What is actually being insisted is this:

  • There is one divine identity — YHWH.

  • Jesus is called Mighty God.

  • Jesus says seeing Him is seeing the Father.

  • All the fullness of Deity dwells bodily in Him.

The question then becomes: where is the second divine identity?

If the Son is fully God, and the Father is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God — yet each is a distinct center of self-awareness — how does that not introduce plurality at the level Isaiah explicitly denies?

That is the tension.

The Oneness position is not pretending relational distinctions do not exist in the narrative. It is saying those distinctions do not require three eternal divine persons.

God can be:

  • transcendent (voice from heaven),

  • incarnate (Son in flesh),

  • immanent (Spirit descending),

without becoming three Gods.

So when you say “They read this as personal identity,” that oversimplifies the position.

The reading is this:

The one God of Israel has manifested Himself fully in Jesus Christ. Not partially. Not representationally. Fully.

If that is wrong, it must be shown wrong from the text itself — not from later theological categories imposed upon the text.

The question remains:

If all the fullness of Deity dwells in Christ, what divine identity exists outside of Him?

90

Why not quote the verse…

Joh 10:29 My μου - ὁ Father Πατήρ who ὃ has given [them] δέδωκέν to Me μοι is ἐστιν, greater μεῖζόν than all, πάντων and καὶ no one οὐδεὶς is able δύναται to seize [them] ἁρπάζειν out of ἐκ the τῆς - τοῦ Father’s Πατρός. hand. χειρὸς

You know nothing of the Hebrew or Koine Greek texts, friend, I do, and like @PeterC I’m bowing out of this discussion, not playing chess with an AI chatbot.

But I’ll leave you with this.

Greek adjectives agree in gender with the noun they modify or imply. Because ἕν is neuter rather than masculine, it does not mean “one person” in the sense of one male individual. If Jesus had used the masculine εἷς, that would more naturally point to one personal subject. So it is correct to say that the neuter form does not support a claim that the Father and the Son are one person.

However, moving from that to what you are saying “it means one thing, one reality, one essence” goes beyond what grammar alone guarantees.

The neuter ἕν simply means “one.” It leaves the category open. In context, it points to unity of some kind, but the nature of that unity must be determined by the broader passage and the Gospel’s theology, not by gender agreement alone.

In John 10, the surrounding verses speak about divine prerogatives. Jesus gives eternal life. No one can snatch His sheep from His hand. Then He parallels that with the Father’s hand. The unity in view is not mere agreement of purpose, because the shared ability to secure eternal life belongs to God. Yet the text also maintains distinction. “I and the Father” are two subjects joined by “and.” The verb “are” is plural.

That rules out modalism. Two subjects, one something.

Wallace and the BASIC grammar on this.

a. Is Qeovß in John 1:1c Indefinite?
If qeovß were indefinite, we would translate it “a god.” If so, the theological
implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word
was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.
The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often,
those who argue for such a view do so on the sole basis that the term is
anarthrous. The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives. Thus grammatically such a meaning is improbable.
As well, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already
existed in the beginning. Further, the evangelist’s own theology militates against
this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point
that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).
b. Is Qeovß in John 1:1c Definite?
Although it is certainly possible grammatically to take qeovß as a definite noun,
the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names,
none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite qeovß in John 1:1c.
Further, calling qeovß in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed
the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition
with logoß v (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem with
this argument is that the qeovß in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the qeovß in 1:1c
is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, **is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.**11
The Article: Special Uses and Non-Uses of the Article 119
11 For references and quotations, see ExSyn 268.

c. Is Qeovß in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for qeovß is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives
fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel
and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which
was already present in the beginning (ejn ajrchç/. . . qeo©ß h\n [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (sa©rx ejgevneto [1:14]). The grammatical structure of
these two statements mirror each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word,
rather than his identity. But qeovß was his nature from eternity (hence, eijmiv is
used), while savrx was added at the incarnation (hence, givnomai is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses
that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is
identical. The idea of a qualitative qeovß here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the
essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word
was God and yet was distinct from the Father.12

I had to copy and paste this as I can’t share the link from my computer.

So you are already in error on two counts especially here…“ἕν is neuter. That does not mean “one person.” It means “one thing,” “one reality,” “one essence.””

Sloppy eisegesis and ChatGpt is not going to help you.

J.

91

Your words, @The_Omega: “The tension in Gethsemane only makes sense if the will that shrinks from the cup is truly human. The cup represented suffering, shame, and death. A genuine human will would recoil from that. That recoil is not sin — it is humanity. Yet that human will fully submits to the divine will.”

Your quote, @The_Omega, says, “So what we see is not ‘God the Son submitting to God the Father’ as two divine centers of consciousness negotiating. What we see is the Incarnate Christ — the one God manifested in flesh — allowing His authentic human will to be brought into perfect submission to the eternal divine will.”

“What makes sense” is your problem. What makes sense to you and to me is not the issue here. What the Scriptures reveal is that Jesus is both all-deity and all-human. That mystery is what we might try to solve with “what makes sense,” but the Bible only lays it out but doesn’t solve the mystery. Therefore, we shouldn’t try to solve it either.

92

I haven’t read through the whole post because I can only take so much knowledge in at once without connecting it somewhere

So im off this post for a long while…But now I kind of understand some of the people I ran into in the past.

93

Maybe sorry for my incovience. Jesus was one of the angels. And they acepted him. Because he defieted sin. And the power shook the foundation to the ground. Built it back in a matter of 3 days. and he defiined it all. That would earn the badge. A title if you will, conquerer. Our rightous king. Savior of us all. Our high priest who lives. In our hearts minds and souls

94

Either way, you still sit with a problem…

Rev_20:6; Rev_22:3. S. Augustine is therefore right in stating that ἐσμέν refutes Sabellius, who denied the distinction, while ἕν refutes Arius, who denied the equality, between the Father and the Son. Comp. Tert. adv. Prax. 22; Hippol. c. Noet. 7.

Augustine is commenting on John 10:30, where Jesus says, “ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν” (“I and the Father are one”). He argues that the plural verb ἐσμεν (we are) affirms personal distinction and the neuter ἕν (one) affirms unity of substance or essence.

Here is the relevant excerpt:

“For we have ‘ἐσμεν’ (we are), not ‘ἐστίν’ (he is), and the predicate is not masculine but neuter, so as to indicate that persons [personae] are distinguished yet not severed; and that they are equal, not by identity of number, but by unity of substance.”

  • Augustine, On the Trinity 7.8.12

Augustine uses this argument explicitly against Sabellius, who collapsed persons into a single mode, and Arius, who denied the full divinity or equality of the Son. The logic he gives is:

Plural verb ἐσμεν refutes Sabellian modalism (which makes Father and Son only modes of God, not distinct persons).

Neuter predicate ἕν refutes Arian subordinationism (which makes the Son unlike the Father in being or essence).

Together they affirm distinct persons in one divine essence.

(e.g., Tertullian against Praxeas, Hippolytus against Noetus) use the same pattern to argue against Sabellian positions. They insist that Scripture teaches personal distinction without division of essence.

To show the exact Greek in John as Augustine sees it:

ἕν is neuter, not masculine.

ἕν with ἐσμεν (plural) therefore indicates unity of what (“one essence”), not identity of who (“one person”).

So the text I quoted to you reflects an early patristic exegesis grounded in grammar:

ἕν with a plural verb → distinction of persons + unity of substance.

That is precisely why Augustine says Sabellius and Arius are each refuted by the passage: Sabellius by the plural verb (you cannot collapse Father and Son into one person) and Arius by the neuter one (you cannot assign dissimilar essence).

As always, I can share links for references outside Scripture, you are not interested.

If you were honest, I would go the proverbial extra mile with you since I love a healthy, edifying debate.
However, I know what you are doing, just looking at the machine learning algorithms, a dead giveaway, makes you, in my opinion, dishonest.

So I’ll leave this thread and discussion. So many contradictions and yet you cannot see them, circular reasoning.

J.

95

Any verse you can point me to that explicitly say Yeshua is an angel @Hungry ?

no canonical New Testament text explicitly says Jesus is an angel. In fact, the dominant trajectory of the New Testament is to distinguish Him from angels and to place Him above them.

The clearest text is Hebrews 1. The author constructs a sustained contrast between the Son and the angels. After quoting Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 to establish Sonship, he asks rhetorically, “To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?” (~Hebrews 1:5). The implied answer is none. The Son is categorically distinguished from the angelic order. Later in the same chapter, angels are described as “ministering spirits” (~Hebrews 1:14), whereas the Son is enthroned and addressed as God (~Hebrews 1:8). The logic is not that Jesus is a high angel, but that He transcends the class entirely.

Colossians reinforces this distinction. The Son is described as the one “by whom were all things created… whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” (~Colossians 1:16). In Second Temple Jewish cosmology, such language often includes angelic hierarchies. If all such beings are created through Him, He cannot be one of them in the same sense.

That said, there are passages that have led some interpreters, ancient and modern, to speculate.

One is Galatians 4:14, where Paul says the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” Some groups have tried to read this as equating Christ with an angel. Grammatically, however, it is comparative language about reception, not ontology. It does not say Christ is an angel; it compares modes of honor.

Another debated area involves the “Angel of the LORD” in the Old Testament. Some early Christian writers saw appearances of the Angel of the LORD as pre-incarnate manifestations of the Son. But that is a christological interpretation applied retrospectively. The New Testament itself does not state that Jesus is an angelic being by nature.

Historically, certain movements, such as Arianism in the fourth century and later groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, have identified Christ with a supreme angelic being, often Michael. However, this identification is theological inference, not an explicit biblical declaration.

If you are looking strictly for a verse that says, “Jesus is an angel,” you will not find one in the canonical Scriptures. What you will find instead is a pattern: Christ shares in divine prerogatives, receives worship, is enthroned, creates, judges, and is explicitly distinguished from angels.

Correct?

J.

96

@Hungry, tell me, on what Bible verses do you base your comment that “Jesus was one of the angels”?

97

Firstly I want to state that I’m not trying to argue. But I think it is important to point out that I think phrasing it this way can be misleading, and is the sort of way of talking about the Trinity that has led people like @The_Omega to be confused about the Trinity.

Speaking of there being three Persons within God can, potentially, lead someone to imagine that “God” refers to a circle divided into thirds, with each third of the circle being a Divine Person.

Whereas the more precise language for the Trinity is that each Person is, Himself, fully God. We speak of, for example, the Son being homoousian with the Father, that is; having the same Being as the Father, being of the same Being with the Father; so that the Father shares His Eternal Being with His Son.

So that each Person is of the Same Being; because of the eternal relationships of the Three: The Son is God because He is of the Same Being as His Father–the Son is therefore “only-begotten”; and the Holy Spirit is God because is of the Same Being as the Father and the Son–the Spirit is therefore “proceeding” from the Father (and the Son).

The key word here is perichoresis. Literally “around rotation” or “to make space around”; referring to the interpenetration of the Three Persons, the mutual co-inherence of the Three Persons. The way in which the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father; the Father is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father; the Spirit is in the Son and the Son is in the Spirit. This perichoresis is why, for example, Jesus can refer to the Holy Spirit as distinct from Himself, “I will send you another Comforter” and also speak of Himself as fully present through the Spirit, “I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you”. Or the way in which the Son is the “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His Hypostasis”–the Son bears, in Himself, the Father; even as the Son is, from all eternity, “in the bosom of the Father”.

So we shouldn’t speak as though there are three beings within a super-being; but rather the Three Persons of which there is only one Being–indivisible God. So that the Godhead of the Father, the Godhead of the Son, and the Godhead of the Spirit is all One and the Same Godhead. Because there is only one God. The Threeness is the inter-relationality of the Three; the Oneness is the indivisible Being of the Three.

One God in Three Persons; meaning each Person is Himself the one and only God. And yet each Person is never alone, but always in the other. The Father is never alone, He is always the One who begets His Son and spirates His Spirit; the Son is never alone, He is always the the One begotten of the Father, through whom the Spirit proceeds; the Holy Spirit is never alone, He is always the One who proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

98

There is ONLY one true distinction in God and is ONLY one true mystery in God.

First, Scripture is relentless about divine oneness. Don’t understand why comprehension here is so lost.

In Book of Isaiah 45:5, God says:

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”

In Isaiah 43:11:

“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”

That is not qualified. That is not layered with metaphysical footnotes. It is absolute.

So whatever distinctions we speak of must never divide God into multiple divine selves, multiple centers of consciousness, or multiple beings sharing a nature. Scripture never describes God that way.

Now — what distinction does Scripture actually reveal?

The only real distinction revealed in the New Testament is between:

God as eternal, invisible Spirit
and
God manifest in genuine humanity.

That is the distinction.

In Gospel of John 4:24, Jesus says:

“God is Spirit.”

Spirit, by nature, is invisible, omnipresent, not limited by flesh.

But in John 1:14:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

The eternal Word did not become a second divine person. The Word became flesh. That is incarnation language.

Then First Epistle to Timothy 3:16 says:

“God was manifest in the flesh.”

Not “a second divine person was manifested.”
Not “one of three persons took flesh.”
It says God was manifested in flesh.

So the only distinction Scripture forces us to acknowledge is this:

  • As God, He is eternal, invisible, omnipresent.

  • As man, He is visible, localized, capable of hunger, fatigue, suffering, and death.

That explains why Jesus can pray.
That explains why Jesus can say, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
That explains why He can truly die.

Because as man, He is fully human.
As God, He remains fully divine.

There is no need to introduce three eternal divine centers to explain that. The distinction is between deity and humanity, not between divine persons.

Now, what is the only real mystery?

Paul tells us directly in 1 Timothy 3:16:

“Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…”

The mystery is not how three divine persons share one essence.

The mystery is this:

How the infinite, eternal, self-existent God clothed Himself in authentic humanity without ceasing to be God.

That is staggering.

How can the One who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24) also be a baby in a manger?
How can the One who created the stars nurse at a woman’s breast?
How can the One who said in Isaiah 44:24, “I stretched forth the heavens alone,” hang on a cross?

That is the mystery.

Not plurality within God.
Not eternal interpersonal dialogue within the divine essence.

1 Like
99

On what premise do you draw this conclusion? Accusing me of this constantly is slander and not the Spirit of Christ. Repeatedly implying dishonesty without evidence is bearing false witness.

You have not demonstrated a single instance of me misquoting a text.
You have not shown where I have inserted something into the passage that is not there.

Instead, you are asserting that because my replies are structured, consistent, and grammatically clean, they must be generated by a machine.

If I prepare my thoughts in advance, check my spelling, and structure my reasoning carefully, that does not make me dishonest. It means I take Scripture seriously enough to think before I speak.

You say you “know what I am doing” by “looking at machine learning algorithms.” What exactly does that mean? What measurable criterion are you using? Sentence length? Logical flow? Use of Greek terms? That is not evidence. That is assumption.

Show me where my exegesis of Matthew 3 is grammatically impossible.
Show me where Isaiah’s declarations of absolute divine singularity are being mishandled.
Show me where John 1 demands multiple eternal divine persons rather than distinguishing between God and the incarnate manifestation.

But accusing me of dishonesty because my writing is polished does not address a single theological claim.

I am here to discuss Scripture. If we can do that, I welcome it. If not, then calling names will not advance truth for either of us.

1 Like
100

Yes.

But aren’t you, though?

Yup. It records three unique persons operating at the same time. It does not say oneness. All are one God. You do.

Before Abraham, I AM

The Spirit walked on the Water. Genesis 1. The Word created all things. John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3

Yet you claim you are right, and all those who see the scriptures the way I do are wrong, yet you say, they make you right? You see why I’m getting a bit frustrated? You answer your own debate.

As do I.

Peter

101

Modualism, oneness, Unitarianism, Arianism are all heresies regarding God