Questions:
If someone can/has actually figured out God’s mode(s) of existence, how does that knowledge enhance one’s relationship with God and the rest of mankind? That is, what value does one receive from gaining such knowledge? Or simply, what is the purpose of this discussion?
Please, I really would like to know.
Where does scripture say Jesus was an angel
Its in rev brother he is a angel of the lord.
Its not one verse its all thru the bible. I would have to do alot of reading to put it together again but its pretty sound. How els can there only be one like him? The one tru living god. Unless you want to go the route were god our father is jesus. But be carful with that study. To deny one could be to deny them all. Are they seperate beings or just one. If there is only one i go with my father you can have jesus. Understand
The answer is in the spirit. to be in a spirit with one is to be all who are in the same spirit. God says a name and what follows. Here i am. They have there uniqieness. Im here. But they are also in the same spirit. Wich makes them one body. Everyone has there part. father is king. Of all spirit
I’m not denying what is happening in the text. I’m denying that the text forces the philosophical conclusion you are drawing from it.
There’s a difference.
At the Jordan, three distinguishable actions occur simultaneously: Jesus stands in the water, the Spirit descends, and a voice speaks from heaven. I affirm that without hesitation. That is what the passage says.
What I do not see the passage doing is defining how many eternal divine centers of self-consciousness exist within the one God. That step is an inference. A theological one. And if you’re allowed to make an inference, I’m allowed to question whether that inference is required.
When you ask, “Aren’t you denying what is happening?” it feels as though the assumption is that unless I adopt your explanatory framework, I must be rejecting the event itself. That isn’t accurate.
I’m not denying:
• The Son is present.
• The Spirit descends.
• The Father’s voice speaks.
I am questioning whether that narrative moment demands the conclusion of three co-equal, co-eternal, distinct divine persons — or whether it can be understood within the consistent biblical insistence that God is one (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5).
Interpretation is happening on both sides. You interpret the differentiation in the scene as proof of personal plurality within the Godhead. I interpret it as God revealing Himself in relational distinction without multiplying divine identity.
That is not denial. That is theological reasoning.
If I were to say the voice did not speak, or the Spirit did not descend, or Jesus was not present, then yes — I would be denying the text. But I’m not doing that.
I’m asking a narrower question:
Does the passage explicitly define metaphysical plurality within God, or are we moving from narrative differentiation to ontological conclusion?
Those are not the same thing.
If you believe the grammar demands that move, then show where the text itself crosses that line — not where later theology explains it, but where the passage itself requires it.
I don’t claim I am “right” because I declared myself right. And I’m not saying you’re wrong because you disagree with me. That’s not what I’m doing.
What I’m saying is this:
If Scripture repeatedly and explicitly declares that God is one — “I am the LORD, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:5) — then any interpretation of a narrative scene must harmonize with that unambiguous foundation.
That doesn’t make me automatically correct. It means I’m trying to let the clearest statements interpret the less-defined moments.
You’re reading Matthew 3 and concluding that the simultaneous differentiation requires three eternal divine persons. I’m reading the same text and asking whether that conclusion is demanded, or whether it’s an inference layered on top of the event.
That’s not circular reasoning. It’s hermeneutics.
You say I “answer my own debate.” But what I’m actually doing is this:
Start with explicit doctrinal declarations (God is one).
Refuse to contradict them with an inference drawn from narrative.
Seek a model that allows both texts to stand without tension.
You’re doing something similar — just starting from a different interpretive grid.
The frustration may be coming from the fact that we’re both trying to protect something we believe Scripture clearly teaches. For you, the differentiation at the Jordan feels decisive. For me, the absolute divine singularity of Isaiah feels decisive.
That doesn’t mean either of us is arguing in bad faith.
If I were saying, “I’m right because I say so,” you’d be correct to call that out. But what I’m saying is, “Show me where the text requires the ontological leap you’re making.”
If you can demonstrate that from the grammar and flow of the passage itself — not from later doctrinal formulation — then I will have to reckon with that.
Until then, I’m not answering my own debate. I’m simply declining to concede a conclusion the text isn’t demanding.
For me, this discussion isn’t about “figuring out” God in the sense of dissecting Him like a specimen. None of us can exhaustively comprehend the infinite. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Psalm 139:6).
But Scripture also calls us to know Him as He has revealed Himself.
That tells me knowing who God is — as He truly is — is not a side issue. It touches eternal life.
So why does it matter?
Because how we understand God shapes:
• How we worship
• How we pray
• How we interpret Scripture
• How we understand salvation
If God is absolutely one in personal identity, that frames how I understand the incarnation, the cross, and redemption. If God eternally exists as three distinct persons, that frames those realities differently. These aren’t abstract puzzles — they shape the story of who saved us.
For example, Isaiah 43:11 says, “Beside me there is no saviour.” When I read that alongside the New Testament proclamation that Jesus is Savior, I want to understand exactly what that means about who Jesus is. That isn’t speculation — that’s devotion.
At the same time, you’re right to imply something important: if this becomes a contest of intellectual dominance, it has lost its purpose. Paul warns that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Corinthians 8:1).
The goal is not to “win.” The goal is clarity — so that worship is directed rightly and so that we speak truthfully about the One we claim to love.
So the value, at least for me, is this:
I want my understanding of God to come from Scripture itself, not from habit, not from tradition alone, not from philosophical inheritance. And if I’m wrong, I want to be corrected by the Word — not by pressure or labels, but by text.
If this discussion produces humility, sharper thinking, and deeper reverence, it has value.
If it produces pride, frustration, or division, then we’ve mishandled it.
That’s why I’m still here.
No you dont hommy . If you know what i am doing? Be the first to inlighten me.
I never said that. Could you show me where I said you are denying what is happening? I just do not understand how you do not see it. Perhaps I’m not being clear?
Let’s try it this way.
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment, heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17
Ok, I say
Yes, as I see it, describe God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three individuals. Yes. It does not explicitly say that. Yet you say
You claim that it shows how many eternal divine centers of self-consciousness exist within the one God. Where does it say that? Or rather, is it not you concluding based on evidence and reasoning, as I am doing?
When the Word calls God, or He says, There is one God and no other, it does not mean what you think. While the Bible clearly states “The Lord is one” (the Shema), the Hebrew word for “one” used in Deuteronomy 6:4 is Echad, which often refers to a “composite unity” (like a cluster of grapes or a husband and wife becoming “one flesh”), rather than Yachid, which means a solitary one.
“Let us make man in our image.” Genesis 1:26
“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah 6:8
Since all three are called “God,” The Fatheris generally accepted as God, John 6:27.
The Son John 1:1 “The Word was God”, John 20:28, Titus 2:13. The Spirit Acts 5:3-4 Lying to the Spirit is called lying to God).
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his followers to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (plural). I understand you will probably want to point to Acts 2:38, baptizing in the name of Jesus only. I believe that “in the name of Jesus” refers to his authority, whereas Matthew 28:19 defines the specific nature of the Godhead that Jesus Himself revealed
Then you have “Person”: Many people confuse “Person” with “being.” God is one being or the what, and three persons or the who.
What about Love? We know that “God is love” 1 John 4:8. For God to be eternally loving before the world was created, there had to be an object of His love. Within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit have loved one another for eternity.
Continued..
Continued for @The_Omega
The Greek Grammar: “One” vs. “One” In the Greek text of John 10:30, the word for “one” is hen (neuter), not heis (masculine). If Jesus meant he and the Father were the same person, he would have used the masculine heis.
By using the neuter hen, he is saying they are “one thing.” Specifically, one in essence, will, and power. Jesus says, “I and the Father are (esmen) one.” The verb esmen is first-person plural.
If I say, “My wife and I are one,” no one assumes we are the same physical human being; they understand we are a unified couple. Jesus uses a plural verb to describe two distinct subjects, I and the Father, who share a singular unity. Jesus clarifies what he means by “oneness” later in his prayer for the disciples:
“All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” John 17: 10-11
He said, “that they may be one, even as we are one.” If “oneness” meant being the same person, would Jesus be praying for all his disciples to physically merge into one giant human body? Instead, he is praying for a unity of purpose and nature, modeled after the relationship between the Father and the Son.
I also see this as what makes the most sense. Take John 14:10
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
If this meant they were the same person, the language of “in” wouldn’t make sense. You aren’t “in” yourself; you are yourself. n: John 14:20 says, “I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” If being “in” someone makes you the same person, then all Christians are also Jesus. I would never make that claim.
I do love and respect you, my brother. Glad I did not bow out yet. By researching this even more, I believe in the Trinity even more. I hope you understand this is not an attack, rather, both of us seeking the Truth.
Peter
I just went back and saw the misunderstanding. When I said “Are’t you though?” I was referring to this. Not that I thought you were denying what was happening. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Peter
Two Powers in Heaven
Two Powers in Heaven is a 1977 scholarly monograph by American historian of religion Alan F. Segal. The work investigates the rabbinic heresiological category of “two powers in heaven,” a charge of dualism used by early rabbis to describe deviant theological views. It became a foundational study for understanding early Jewish monotheism and its boundaries.
Key facts
Author: Alan F. Segal
Published: 1977
Publisher: Brill Academic Publishers
Subject: Early Jewish monotheism and rabbinic heresiology
Influence: Foundational in studies of Judaism–Christianity intersections
Historical and scholarly context
Segal’s study situates the “two powers in heaven” doctrine within rabbinic discussions from the second century CE. He argues that the phrase reflects rabbinic efforts to define orthodoxy by condemning certain theologies—especially those that ascribed divine status to intermediary figures such as exalted angels, personified Wisdom, or the Logos. The work draws on texts from the Talmud, Midrash, and related apocalyptic literature.
Core argument and methodology
Segal’s central claim is that belief in “two powers” was not a foreign import but an internal development within Jewish thought, later rejected as heresy. By analyzing rabbinic, apocalyptic, and mystical sources, he reconstructs how early Jewish monotheism accommodated—and then excluded—complex conceptions of divine plurality. His comparative approach also links these ideas to early Christian Christology and merkavah mysticism.
Impact and legacy
Two Powers in Heaven reshaped modern understanding of Jewish theological diversity during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. It provided a framework for later research on intermediary figures such as the Son of Man, Metatron, and Logos traditions. The book remains a standard reference in religious studies, influencing scholarship on early Judaism, Gnosticism, and the origins of Christian theology.
Highly recommend this book @PeterC
J.
Thank you @Johann It definitly gets my attention. I will have to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. Always willing to learn.
Peter
And there is Benjamin Sommers, but he goes into the woods using sources I don’t want you to read brother.
David using the “Two Powers” against an atheist O’ Conners, suggest you listen to the actual debate, if you have time brother @PeterC
God bless.
J.
How one defines and views the very nature of God would determine if they are trusting in the God of the Bible, who can save them from their sins, or else if holding to a false God who cannot save?
Oneness/Modualism is a heretical view on God
I have the book. It is an excellent publication.
And brother @AWB
Benjamin D. Sommer, a Jewish biblical scholar best known for his work on the Hebrew Bible, wrote material that directly engages the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in his book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. He is not a Christian theologian defending the Trinity; he is a Jewish scholar analyzing how ancient Israelite texts portray God’s embodiment and multiplicity. But in doing so, he makes observations that intersect in a fascinating way with Trinitarian theology.
Ever heard of him?
J.
Yep! LOL I even started a re-read.
Sadly, brother @AWB this will be above most here.
Especially KJV–Only-ists. And atrophy/ Entropy we all struggle with.
And Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach answered Hasatan, It has been written, LO AL HALECHEM LVADOH YCHE-YEH HAADAM, (Not by bread alone will man live Dt 8:3).
Shalom achi.
J.
