Is Jesus God Himself or One Person Within God?

Theology
122

For teaching I use the KJV because the KJV is (was?) the most common version around. However, I had to spend half my time having to translate and explain textual terms, language usage, context, correct mistranslations, historical settings, etc. But it worked. Not at all sure I can do that anymore, my memory is getting shorter every day. Okay, end of the sob story.

Do you know how to sign out of this forum? I remain signed in all the time.

1 Like
123

No idea, perhaps @PeterC can be of assistance?

J.

124

I don’t know - but at least as a contributor.

I just received a forum message asking if I knew that I could send you private messages. How do I do that?

125

You already did brother Art. We are in communication via private messages.

J.

126

Please, @The_Omega, don’t interpret Scripture by what it doesn’t say, as you have done a few times in your recent posts. For example, in point 4, you say, “John does not revise that explanation.” No, he assumes that the readers know that God is one God, but he, with expanding revelation, explains that oneness as also having three distinct entities doing everything.

God’s oneness is assumed throughout the Old Testament ever since Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

What you said, “What you are assuming—without textual proof—is that relational language requires eternal interpersonal distinctions within God’s inner being,” is not true.”

No, my assumption comes with textual proof in all of John’s gospel:

“The Word was with God, and the Word was God (verse 1b).”

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John does not “undo” Isaiah; God uses him to provide progressive revelation by revealing more about himself.

I have said it over and over that the Gospel of John is the “Scripture [that says] that God’s oneness consists of three divine persons.”

That is the reason a liberal scholar, who wrote a commentary on that gospel but didn’t believe in God’s inspiration of it, said, at his conclusion that John believed in the Trinity.

That said, I’m done!

128

@The_Omega

Thank you for your response.

129

I’m late to the discussion, so if I repeat something, move on. But my two cents on the discussion:

’The Omega’, you are correct that nowhere in the Bible does the concept of the Trinity advanced. But there are verses which would seem to indicate this possibility, if not the specific concept.

You mention John’s Gospel, first chapter and first verse, but you only quote part of it!

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. **2 **He was with God in the beginning. **3 **Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. **4 **In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. **5 **The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Consider the following I came across:

:one: There Is One God

  • Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

  • Isaiah 45:5 – “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”

  • 1 Corinthians 8:4 – “There is no God but one.”

Christian doctrine strongly affirms monotheism.

:two: The Father Is God

  • John 6:27 – “God the Father has set his seal on him.”

  • Philippians 1:2 – “Grace to you and peace from God our Father…”

This is the least disputed point.

:three: The Son (Jesus) Is God

  • John 1:1,14 – “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh.”

  • John 20:28 – Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”

  • Colossians 2:9 – “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

  • Hebrews 1:8 – The Father says of the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

  • Titus 2:13 – “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

:four: The Holy Spirit Is God

  • Acts 5:3–4 – Peter says lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.

  • 1 Corinthians 3:16 – “You are God’s temple and God’s Spirit dwells in you.”

  • 2 Corinthians 3:17 – “Now the Lord is the Spirit…”

:five: The Three Are Distinct Yet United

Jesus’ Baptism

  • Matthew 3:16–17

    • The Son is baptized

    • The Spirit descends like a dove

    • The Father speaks from heaven

All three are present simultaneously.

The Great Commission

  • Matthew 28:19
    “Baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Notice “name” is singular — yet three Persons are listed.

Apostolic Blessing

2 Corinthians 13:14
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

A far less theological illustration I might offer solely to make a point.

I am ME.
I am my parents’ child.
I am my wife’s husband.
I am my siblings’ brother.
I am ME.

God is God
He is God the Father, He created the universe, our Earth and everything that lives upon it.
He is God the Son, He took on human flesh (while still being God) and came to Earth to bring His forgiveness.
He is God the Spirit, He is here with us today to be part of our lives in all things that we do.

130

You just “steelmanned” his case, be prepared for stiff opposition @Hatfield.

J.

131

Welcome to the discussion @Hatfield

You laid that out well. I have tried many different methods, @Johann has tried. Others have tried. If you have time, or you are really bored, check out the whole thread. We even explained it in Greek as asked to do so. Perhaps this will help.

Peter

132

@PeterC
I’ve said all I need to say on the discussion.

The issue isn’t about being right or wrong, it is about having YOUR reasons for what you believe. After several hours of pondering my response to this discussion, I got myself to a point where I had to get OFF the computer for a while because of the headache I’d given myself.

I live my life in my faith of Jesus being my Lord, and as such my faith in God the Father and the Holy Spirit as I’ve outlined above. I don’t live my life in my PROOF, because that denies FAITH. The Bible teaches me that Jesus died for my sins. For me, that is enough.

133

Let me clarify something, because I think a word got blurred.

I am not claiming the passage shows how many eternal divine centers of self-consciousness exist within the one God.

My entire point is that it doesn’t define that.

When I said that moving from the scene to “eternal divine centers of self-consciousness” is an inference, I was not accusing you of doing something illegitimate. I was pointing out that the step from narrative differentiation to ontological definition is reasoning beyond the explicit wording of the text.

You’re right about one thing: both of us are reasoning from evidence. Neither of us is simply reading the word “Trinity” or “modal manifestation” in Matthew 3. We are both drawing conclusions.

The difference is this:

You see the simultaneous interaction in the scene and conclude it requires distinct eternal divine persons.

I see the same scene and conclude it does not require that metaphysical conclusion — especially in light of passages that strongly emphasize divine singularity (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5).

So no — I’m not saying the passage teaches “one eternal divine center.” I’m saying the passage does not define divine ontology at all. It records an event.

From there, we each synthesize with the rest of Scripture.

That’s not hypocrisy. That’s hermeneutics.

The real question isn’t “Who is concluding?” We both are.

The real question is: Which conclusion best harmonizes all the data without forcing the text to say more than it says?

I’m familiar with the echad / yachid distinction. But I don’t believe that argument carries the weight that is often placed on it.

First, Deuteronomy 6:4 says:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

The word used is אֶחָד (echad). That’s true.

But echad is the ordinary Hebrew word for “one.” It overwhelmingly means single, one, or alone in numerical and exclusive contexts. It does not automatically imply a composite unity. It can describe a compound grouping — but that depends on context, not on the word itself.

For example:

  • Genesis 42:13 — “We are twelve brethren… the youngest is this day with our father, and one (echad) is not.”
    That doesn’t imply a composite unity. It means one individual.

  • Exodus 12:46 — “In one (echad) house shall it be eaten.”
    That’s singular.

  • 2 Samuel 13:30 — “Absalom hath slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one (echad) of them left.”
    Again, singular.

The word itself doesn’t carry built-in plurality. Context determines nuance.

Second, the claim that yachid would have meant “absolute oneness” is overstated. Yachid often means “only” or “only child” (Genesis 22:2; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:20). It emphasizes uniqueness or preciousness, not necessarily metaphysical singularity.

If Moses had written “The LORD is yachid,” that would have sounded more like “The LORD is an only one” in a relational or possessive sense — not necessarily a better philosophical safeguard.

Third — and most important — the force of the Shema isn’t carried by the noun alone. It’s carried by the surrounding exclusivity language throughout Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

Isaiah 44:6:

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

Isaiah 45:5:

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

That’s not merely numerical. That’s exclusive identity language.

So when I appeal to divine oneness, I’m not building an argument on echad alone. I’m appealing to the consistent biblical insistence that there is no other divine identity beside Him.

If someone believes the one God eternally exists as three persons, they must show that this plurality does not compromise that exclusivity — not merely point out that echad can sometimes describe a composite grouping.

Because grammatically, lexically, and contextually, echad does not demand composite unity. It simply means one.

So, the question I’m still asking: where does Scripture explicitly redefine that oneness as tri-personal rather than exclusively singular in divine identity?

134

@Hatfield

@Peterc did not rebuke you, brother; rather, he was offering constructive encouragement, urging you to continue participating and contributing to the discussion in a positive and meaningful way.

Keep up the good work.

J.

135

Johann:

Closing this thread is a convenient way for the Trinitarians who are showing up in here to avoid the problem they are confronted with: the fact that their belief in a 3-in-1 god is not supported by scripture and the fact that the Trinity doctrine didn’t show up in Christendom until the 4th century AD, when two pagan Roman emperors got involved with power-hungry Roman Catholic Bishops. That, Johann, is the reality that Trinitarians will avoid at all costs.

NeutralZone

__________________________

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

136

JesusFan:

That’s the Trinitarian claim. That claim is contradicted by scripture which says:

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)

NeutralZone

__________________________

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

137

TheologyNerd:

Everything you posted above amounts to your personal philosophy. Please quote scripture that you think supports your above Trinitarian claims.

Another thing, don’t quote more than three “Trinity scriptures” at a time. In that way, everyone reading this thread will have a chance to carefully examine that first set of three “Trinity scriptures.” Then we will move on to another set of three “Trinity scriptures.”

Notice that I put the words Trinity scriptures in quotation. I did that because I am pointing out that no such scriptures actually exist in God’s inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

NeutralZone

__________________________

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

138

Actually, Bruce_Leiter, there is nothing in John’s gospel–or anywhere else in the entire Judeo-Christian Bible, for that matter–that indicates the Abrahamic God is three persons combined into a single “godhead” aka Christendom’s Trinity.

Now, suppose you quote at least one instance in the book of John showing, to quote you, “John believed God is three Persons in one God.”

NeutralZone

__________________________

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

139

The doctrine of the Triune YHWH is not “personal philosophy” @NeutralZone it is deeply embedded in the Tanack.

J.

140

@The_Omega, you are reading and interpreting the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament, whereas the New Testament reveals more about the Old Testament as it reveals more about God, because of the coming of Jesus Christ. It’s called progressive revelation. Do you use that principle of interpretation?

The text Isaiah 45:5 that you constantly bring up says that Yahweh is the one and only God, and so he is, since he guides Cyrus, who doesn’t acknowledge him. However, in the light of John 1:1 and the rest of the Gospel of John, it’s clear to me that the Yahweh who speaks in Isaiah 45:5 is three Persons in that one, only true God, because the New Testament explains more about who Yahweh is. You can interpret the Bible the way you want to, and I can my way.

However, progressive revelation can be demonstrated in many New Testament texts. For example, the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 is much more than the literal Jerusalem in ancient Israel.

141

Not true…Very Biblical, not handed down from catholic tradition

142

Bruce, I absolutely affirm that revelation unfolds. The question is not whether there is progressive revelation, but what kind of progression we are talking about.

There is a difference between expansion and redefinition.

If progressive revelation means that later Scripture gives greater clarity, depth, and fullness to what was already revealed — I agree. If it means that later Scripture introduces categories that alter or qualify God’s earlier singular self-definition — that is where I become cautious.

When Isaiah 45:5 says, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me,” that is not a vague statement awaiting metaphysical clarification. It is a direct, exclusive claim of divine singularity. The question then becomes: does the New Testament expand that confession, or does it reinterpret what “one” meant all along?

You appeal to John 1:1. I agree that John reveals something profound about the Word. But notice what John does not say. He does not say, “In the beginning were three persons.” He does not say, “The one God is three centers of self-consciousness.” He says the Word was with God and was God. That requires careful interpretation — but it does not automatically equal a tri-personal ontology unless that framework is already assumed.

If progressive revelation is invoked, it must still remain consistent with earlier revelation. Later light cannot contradict earlier light; it must harmonize with it.

You suggest that in light of John, Yahweh in Isaiah is three persons. But Isaiah never hints that his emphatic monotheism is internally plural in that way. The burden, then, is to show that the New Testament itself explicitly reframes that Old Testament insistence — not that later theological synthesis does so.

Take your example of Revelation 21–22. The New Jerusalem being more than ancient Jerusalem is an expansion of imagery and fulfillment. It does not negate the historical Jerusalem. It deepens and fulfills it. That is development without contradiction.

So the real issue is this:

Does the New Testament reinterpret the meaning of “one God,” or does it reveal how the one God has acted in Christ while maintaining that same singular identity?

When I read the New Testament, I see repeated reaffirmations of Jewish monotheism:

  • “The Lord our God is one Lord.”

  • “There is one God.”

  • “God is one.”

The apostles never say, “You thought God was one person, but now we reveal He is three.” Instead, they proclaim that the one God has revealed Himself in and through Jesus Christ.

So yes, I use progressive revelation. But I understand it as progressive unveiling of God’s redemptive action and self-disclosure — not progressive correction of His earlier self-definition.

If you believe John explicitly redefines Isaiah’s monotheism into tri-personal ontology, then the question remains the same as before:

Where does the New Testament say that the oneness confessed in Isaiah actually meant three co-equal divine persons?

If that step is theological synthesis rather than textual declaration, then we are both reasoning — not one of us merely “accepting revelation” while the other resists it.

That’s where the real discussion lies.

1 Like