So you claim, Johann. Yet, you’ve failed to quote even one example of the supposed “deeply embedded” example from the Tanack aka the Hebrew Scriptures aka Old Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. No need for anyone to wonder why you didn’t do so. A little birdie told me no such scriptures exist. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Proceed.
NeutralZone
__________________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
It’s important, AWB. One’s worship would be in vain (useless) if one is worshipping a non-existent Trinity god.
‘{8} This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. {9} It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:8-9)
Christendom’s Trinity is a man-made doctrine not supported by scripture. The doctrine did not show up in Christendom until the 4th Century AD, as I previously stated.
True worship is the difference between everlasting life and death.
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)
NeutralZone
__________________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
@NeutralZone, you are right to say that which God we worship makes all the difference. I worship the one God that is emphasized in contrast to many false gods that the nations around Israel worship. I also worship, at the same time, the three Persons of that ONE God, who shows himself clearly in the Gospel of John.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jhn_10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Jhn_14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Joh 10:39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
Jhn_14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
It wasn’t church councils that made up the Trinity, but they faithfully discerned that teaching based on the Scriptures themselves.
I appreciate the Gospel of John in Scripture. That really matters to me.
Let me walk through the very passages that have been cited, because I believe they are central — especially in Gospel of John.
The key question is: what would “Word” (Logos) have meant in a first-century Jewish monotheistic context?
In Jewish thought, God’s “Word” was not a second person of God alongside Him. It was God’s self-expression, His creative utterance, His self-revelation. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made.” No Jew reading that imagined a second person of God standing next to Yahweh creating.
So when John says “the Word was with God,” that can naturally mean God’s own self-expression was with Him — belonging to Him — and “was God,” meaning it was fully divine because it was God Himself expressed.
Then verse 14:
“And the Word became flesh…”
John does not say “a second person of God became incarnate.” He says the Word — God’s self-expression — became flesh. That aligns perfectly with 1 Timothy 3:16: “God was manifest in the flesh.”
That is incarnation language, not multiplication language.
The word “one” (hen) is neuter — one thing, one essence, one reality — not “one person.” Jesus is not claiming to be the same human person as the Father. He is claiming unity.
From a Oneness perspective, this makes perfect sense: the Father (God as transcendent Spirit) is fully present in the Son (God manifested in flesh). Which is exactly what He explains in John 10:38:
“The Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
That reads very naturally as indwelling — not eternal interpersonal circulation of divine persons — but God dwelling fully in the man Christ Jesus.
Yes, Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father in role and relationship. But that distinction makes complete sense within the incarnation.
As man, He prays.
As man, He is sent.
As man, He obeys.
That does not require three eternal divine centers of consciousness. It requires real humanity.
When He says in John 14:26 that the Father will send the Spirit in His name — and then earlier in 14:18 says, “I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you” — that strongly suggests continuity, not separation. The Spirit is not “someone else” in a different divine identity. It is Christ present by the Spirit.
Which aligns with Paul saying in Romans 8:9:
“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
The Spirit of God.
The Spirit of Christ.
Not three Spirits.
I agree the councils did not invent Scripture. But they did employ philosophical categories — ousia, hypostasis, homoousios — that are not themselves biblical vocabulary. Those were explanatory tools.
My concern is not that they were malicious. My concern is whether those metaphysical constructions are required by the text — or whether the simpler biblical synthesis suffices:
One God.
That one God’s Word became flesh.
The Father dwelling fully in the Son.
The Spirit being God active and present.
You worship one God in three persons.
I worship one God who manifested Himself in flesh and works by His Spirit.
The dividing line is not whether Jesus is divine — we both (Oneness and Trinitarian) affirm that.
The dividing line is whether Scripture demands eternal personal distinctions within God’s inner being — or whether the only real distinction revealed is between God as eternal Spirit and God as incarnate man.
Error right here…
So when John says “the Word was with God,” that can naturally mean God’s own >>self-expression<< was with Him… and “was God,” meaning “it” was fully divine because it was God Himself expressed.
SELF-EXPRESSION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Jesus Christ is NOT God in Oneness, not even in the “picture”, and is “the Father”…the Father “became flesh”…?!
J.
I’ll say this and then later describe what I believe in a different light.
When I say this does not require three divine persons or three separate centers of consciousness, I’m starting from a very simple conviction: Scripture never explicitly describes God as three divine minds relating to one another internally. It consistently speaks of one God who reveals, speaks, acts, and saves.
I understand that Trinitarians are careful to say they do not believe in “separation.” They emphasize one essence. But when I look at the classical Trinitarian model — even the well-known diagram that says:
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Spirit
The Spirit is not the Father
— I cannot ignore what that logically implies.
If the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, then we are dealing with real distinctions. Not just modes of action, but personal distinctions. And if those distinctions are described as “persons,” and persons are defined as distinct centers of consciousness or self-awareness, then there is differentiation at the level of identity.
I’m not accusing anyone of teaching three gods. I know orthodox Trinitarianism rejects that. But I am saying this: once you affirm three distinct “whos,” even within one divine essence, you have introduced multiplicity at the level of subjecthood.
When Jesus prays, is that one center of consciousness speaking to another?
When the Father sends the Son, is that one “who” sending a different “who”?
If so, then we are no longer just talking about one God acting in different ways — we are talking about interpersonal relationship within the Godhead.
And that is precisely what I do not see demanded by the biblical text.
From my perspective, Scripture shows one God who:
Speaks as Father
Reveals Himself in flesh as Son
Works and indwells as Spirit
But these are not three divine minds. They are three ways the one God makes Himself known.
The distinction between Father and Son, for example, does not require two eternal centers of divine self-awareness. It can be understood as:
God in His transcendent identity (Father)
God manifested in genuine humanity (Son)
The Son prays because the Son is authentically human. The distinction is between divine transcendence and incarnate manifestation — not between two eternal divine subjects.
So when I hear someone say, “There’s no separation in the Trinity,” I understand what they mean — they mean no division of essence. But the diagram itself insists on distinction of persons. And if each person is not the other, then there is real differentiation within the Godhead.
My question becomes: Why is that necessary?
Why can’t the biblical data be explained by one indivisible God expressing Himself in different ways without multiplying eternal centers of consciousness?
For me, strict monotheism means not only one divine essence, but one divine subject.
One “I.”
One will.
One self-awareness.
And that one God fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.
So when I say this does not require three divine persons, I mean that nothing in the text forces me to posit three eternal divine “whos.” The distinctions in Scripture can be understood as distinctions of role, manifestation, and relational posture within the incarnation — without dividing the one divine identity into multiple centers.
That is why I believe the model of three eternal persons is a theological inference, not a biblical necessity.
(Continued………Soon) Have to write it, edit it and spell check all that good stuff before presentation. (I am always careful not to respond rashly or quickly without proofing and structure.)
When I talk about [God’s own self-expression was with Him — belonging to Him — and “was God,”] it’s light being the creative cause of the Word expressed, Its not about physics. It’s simply about revelation.
When I approach this, I do so from a conviction that God is absolutely one — not one being shared by multiple eternal persons, but one indivisible divine reality. I do not see “persons of God” existing alongside one another. I see one God who revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ.
So when I read Book of Genesis 1, I don’t see multiple divine centers of consciousness acting. I see the one God moving, speaking, revealing.
“In the beginning… God said, Let there be light.”
Before anything has shape, before sun or stars, before visible structure — there is light. That matters to me. Because light is what makes revelation possible. Without light, there is no visibility, no distinction, no order. Everything remains undifferentiated.
To me, that first light is not another “who” within God’s inner being. It is the self-disclosure of the one God. It is His own nature shining outward so that what He speaks can take visible form.
Then when I turn to Gospel of John 1, I see John intentionally echo Genesis. “In the beginning was the Word…” But I do not read “Word” as a second divine person standing beside God. I read it as God’s own self-expression — His mind articulated, His will revealed, His reason expressed.
And John immediately says, “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.”
That connection is inseparable to me. The Word is not separate from God. It is God expressing Himself. And the life within that expression is light.
So here’s how I understand it:
God speaks — that is His Word.
God reveals — that is His light.
God acts — that is His Spirit.
Not three persons.
One God in action.
Light, then, becomes the creative cause in this sense: it is the manifestation of God’s self-expression. When God speaks, illumination accompanies that speech. Illumination allows what is spoken to take ordered form.
Light reveals.
Light distinguishes.
Light energizes.
Light brings life.
Without illumination, expression remains hidden. The Word is present, but not perceived. Once light shines, the Word becomes effective in visible reality.
That’s why I see a direct line from Genesis to redemption. Paul says the same God who commanded light to shine out of darkness shines in our hearts (2 Corinthians 4:6). He connects creation light with salvation light.
In my understanding, that means this: when God reveals Himself, He shines. When He shines, His Word becomes effective. When His Word becomes effective, new creation begins.
Now when John says the Word became flesh, I do not see an eternal second person stepping into humanity. I see the one God bringing His own self-expression into visible, tangible form in Jesus Christ.
The Word — God’s self-revelation — becomes embodied.
The light — God’s illuminating life — becomes visible.
The invisible God makes Himself known in a man.
Jesus is not one person of God among others. He is the fullness of the one God revealed bodily. The light that shone in Genesis is the same light shining in Christ. The Word spoken in creation is the same Word made flesh.
So when I say light is the creative cause of the Word expressed, I mean this:
God’s self-expression becomes manifest through His own illuminating nature.
Illumination produces order.
Order produces life.
And that life reaches its fullest revelation in Jesus Christ.
Creation begins with “Let there be light.”
Redemption culminates with the Light of the world standing among us.
One God.
One self-expression.
One revealed fullness in Christ.
Jesus DID Claim to be God: The Evidence
0:00 – The Christology Paradox
8:44 – Do Scholars Think Jesus Claimed to be God?
13:24 – Jesus Forgives Sins (Mark 2)
30:09 – How Matthew Changes Mark
37:23 – Jesus as a Disciple of John the Baptist
42:14 – Jesus Says “I am”
56:22 – Walking on the Water
1:03:04 – Does Jesus Use God’s Name?
1:08:51 – Worship
1:20:21 – Loving Jesus More Than Parents
1:29:53 – Jesus’ Trial and Blasphemy
1:57:21 – A Request to Listeners
J.
Bruce_Leiter:
The Trinity doctrine is pagan in origin. The doctrine did not show up in Christendom until the 4th Century AD when two pagan Roman emperors got involved with Roman Catholic bishops that were vying for power.
None of the verses you presented in your latest post support the doctrine. What you’ve done is ignore the context to all of those verses that you quoted from the book of John. (Context refers to surrounding words, verses, and chapters.) I will show you what I mean by using the very first verse you quoted. John 1:1 has three independent clauses. Notice the word that I am going to bold within the very first independent clause.
Joh 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
According to John 1:1 at clause #1, the spirit person referred to as “the Word” had a beginning. According to scripture, God does not have a beginning.
“Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.“ (Psalm 90:2)
Definition of everlasting:
1: lasting or enduring through all time : eternal
(Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
NeutralZone
__________________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
Incorrect @NeutralZone and you want to use Merriam Webster to prove your point?!
J.
If that’s your idea of an effective rebuttal, Johann, try again. I quoted scripture from Psalm 90:2 that says God is everlasting. John 1:1 says the exact opposite about Jesus the Son aka “the Word.” It says he had a beginning. An everlasting person cannot have a beginning.
Now, as soon as you can find a common English dictionary that defines the word “everlasting” any different from how Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines it, you will have made a point. Until you do so, your above response amounts to tripe.
NeutralZone
__________________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
I’ll leave you with this @NeutralZone and move on.
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”[1] (~John 17.5)
Joh 17:5 And now give me kavod, Avi, along with Yourself with the kavod which I was having with You before HaOlam came to be [Yn 1:1 3; Prov 8:30; 30:4].
Now we move carefully through the Greek text, shall we?
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι.
The temporal frame: καὶ νῦν
“And now” marks transition from completed earthly mission in verse 4 to anticipated exaltation. It is not mere chronological sequencing, it signals redemptive-historical movement from humiliation toward glorification through the cross and resurrection.
The imperative: δόξασόν με
Aorist active imperative of δοξάζω, “glorify.” The aorist imperative here carries ingressive force, requesting decisive action. In Johannine theology, “glorification” encompasses crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as one unified exaltation event. The cross is not defeat but the pathway to manifested glory.
The relational address: σύ, πάτερ
The emphatic σύ places stress on the Father as the agent of glorification. The Son is not self-exalting; glorification is intra-Trinitarian action. The vocative πάτερ maintains filial distinction.
The prepositional phrase: παρὰ σεαυτῷ
Literally “beside yourself” or “in your presence.” The preposition παρά with the dative denotes personal proximity and relational fellowship. This is not abstract divine glory, it is glory located in the immediate presence of the Father.
The dative of sphere or association: τῇ δόξῃ
“The glory.” In Johannine usage, δόξα refers to the visible manifestation of divine identity. Earlier in the Gospel, the Word “was God” and yet “was with God” ~John 1.1. In 17.5 that pre-incarnate coexistence is now explicitly linked to shared glory.
The relative clause: ᾗ εἶχον
“Which I was having.” εἶχον is imperfect active indicative of ἔχω. The imperfect tense denotes continuous possession in past time. This is not prospective or foreknown glory; it is actual prior possession. The Son claims ongoing possession of glory in pre-temporal existence.
The temporal qualifier: πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι
“Before the world was.” πρὸ with the articular infinitive marks temporal antecedence. The phrase literally means “before the world to be.”
This locates the Son’s possession of glory prior to creation itself. It is ontological preexistence, not merely covenantal foreordination.
The theological implications follow directly from the grammar, if you are interested.
First, preexistence. The Son existed before the cosmos came into being. This aligns with John 1.1–3 where the Word exists “in the beginning” and is agent of creation.
Second, shared divine glory.
In Isaiah 42.8 Yahweh declares he will not give his glory to another. Yet here the Son speaks of glory he possessed with the Father before creation.
The syntax does not suggest delegated creaturely honor but shared pre-temporal divine glory.
Third, redemptive trajectory. The request to “glorify” occurs on the eve of crucifixion. In Johannine paradox, the cross is the means by which pre-existent glory is publicly manifested. The resurrection then vindicates that glory historically. Thus humiliation and exaltation are not contradictory movements but covenantally ordered stages.
Fourth, intra-Trinitarian distinction without ontological division. The Son speaks to the Father, relational distinction is preserved. Yet the shared pre-creation glory establishes equality of divine status.
Therefore, exegetically, John 17.5 affirms that the Son possessed real, continuous glory in personal communion with the Father before the existence of the created order, and that the impending cross and resurrection constitute the historical manifestation of that eternal glory.
With thine own self (para seautōi). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. Jhn_1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (Jhn_1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō, I used to have, with attraction of case of hēn to hēi because of doxēi), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” (cf. Jhn_17:24). It is small wonder that those who deny or reject the deity of Jesus Christ have trouble with the Johannine authorship of this book and with the genuineness of these words.
But even Harnack admits that the words here and in Jhn_17:24 are “undoubtedly the reflection of the certainty with which Jesus himself spoke” (What Is Christianity, Engl. Tr., p. 132). But Paul, as clearly as John, believes in the actual pre-existence and deity of Jesus Christ (Php_2:5-11).
Which is diametrically opposed to your “diatribe” that Messiah had a “beginning”
Shalom and be blessed.
J.
I figured you would take off and run, Johann. And if you think I have the time or the inclination to read your wall of text, keep dreaming. I read just the first sentence you wrote above, followed by your cherry-picked verse from John 17:5.
John 17:5 says nothing resembling Jesus/the Word always existed. That verse of scripture is merely telling the reader that Jesus (the son) existed before all other creations. And that is correct. Scripture says Jesus is the first of Jehovah’s created beings.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation.“ (Colossians 1:15 – World English Bible)
All created beings had a beginning. Colossians 1:15 says Jesus was the first to be created.
Not surprisingly, you could not find a dictionary that defines the word “everlasting” any differently than Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Psalm 90:2 says the Abrahamic God is everlasting (has no beginning and no end). John 1:1 at clause #1 and Colossians 1:15 both say Jesus Christ was created. Not only that, scripture throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures aka New Testament informs us that Jesus Christ literally died. An everlasting person cannot die. But that’s the least problem for you and other Trinitarians. Scripture says no one has seen God at ANY TIME.
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.“ (John 1:18 – American Standard Version)
If Jesus were the Abrahamic God in the flesh, that would be a contradiction of John 1:18. God’s inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, does not contradict itself.
Also, look at John 1:18 again where I Italicized the word begotten. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as begotten. The word “begotten” is the past participle of the word “beget.” Below is the definition of the word “beget.”
“Word forms: begets, begetting, begot, begotten
(Source: Collins Dictionary)
Unfortunately, like all of the Trinitarians that I have debated over the years, you refuse to be corrected by scripture.
NeutralZone
__________________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
I appreciate the care you’re taking with the Greek, especially where English translation falls short of the true meaning behind the passage. I don’t dismiss grammar, and I don’t dismiss John 17:5. I simply disagree with the theological conclusion you’re drawing from it. Plus if we speak entirely in Greek alone quite a bit of people on this forum won’t understand.
Let me walk through it carefully and consistently from my perspective.
First, when Jesus says, “And now, Father, glorify me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (Gospel of John 17:5), I absolutely affirm that the text speaks of glory before creation. The question is not whether pre-creation language is present. The question is what kind of preexistence is being described.
You emphasize the imperfect εἶχον (“I was having”) as continuous possession. That’s fair grammatically. But grammar alone does not decide ontology. Scripture frequently speaks of realities that existed in the mind, purpose, or decree of God before they existed historically. For example, believers are said to be chosen “before the foundation of the world.” The Lamb is described as slain “from the foundation of the world.” That does not mean the crucifixion literally happened before creation. It means it was present in the divine purpose.
In Johannine theology especially, categories of foreordination and heavenly origin are often expressed in concrete relational language.
Second, the phrase παρὰ σεαυτῷ (“beside Yourself”) does indeed indicate proximity or presence. But proximity language does not automatically require two eternal centers of consciousness. If the Word in John 1:1 is understood as God’s own self-expression — His reason, His wisdom, His revelatory self-articulation — then that Word can be described as “with God” without being a second divine subject. God’s Word can be “with” Him in the sense that it is intrinsic to Him, belonging to His own divine life.
When Proverbs speaks of wisdom being “with” God before creation, it uses similar relational imagery. Yet no one argues that Wisdom in Proverbs is a second divine person literally standing beside Yahweh. It is poetic personification of God’s own wisdom. John is writing in a Jewish monotheistic framework. He does not introduce multiple divine beings. He introduces God revealing Himself.
Third, regarding Isaiah 42:8 — “I will not give my glory to another.” I agree completely. That is precisely why I do not believe Jesus is “another” alongside God. If Jesus were a second divine person distinct from the Father as a separate center of consciousness, then Isaiah becomes very difficult. But if Jesus is the one God manifest in flesh, then the glory is not given to “another.” It is God glorifying Himself in and through His incarnate self-revelation.
The Son is not “another god.” The Son is God manifested in genuine humanity.
Fourth, you say this establishes intra-Trinitarian distinction without ontological division. But here is where I respectfully differ. If the Son consciously possessed glory “with” the Father before creation, and if that requires personal communion between two divine “whos,” then we are no longer speaking merely of one divine self-consciousness. We are speaking of two self-aware divine subjects relating to one another. That is precisely what I do not see required by the broader scriptural witness to absolute monotheism.
From my understanding, the “glory” spoken of in John 17:5 is the glory of the divine identity that belonged to the Logos — God’s self-revelation — before the incarnation. That glory was veiled in flesh (John 1:14). The prayer in John 17 is the incarnate Messiah, in His authentic humanity, asking that the divine glory inherent to God’s eternal self-expression be fully manifested again through death, resurrection, and exaltation.
The distinction in John 17 is not between two eternal divine minds. It is between:
• God as transcendent Father
• God as incarnate Son
The Son speaks because the Son is truly human. The human consciousness of Jesus prays to the Father. That does not require two eternal divine consciousnesses. It requires one God who truly entered human existence.
You mention Philippians 2:5–11. I affirm it wholeheartedly. But even there, the movement is from pre-incarnate divine status (μορφῇ θεοῦ) into servanthood and then exaltation. That passage speaks of divine status and incarnation — not necessarily of multiple eternal divine persons in mutual dialogue before creation.
As for the claim that Messiah having a “beginning” contradicts this — I would clarify carefully. The humanity of Messiah has a beginning. The incarnation has a beginning. But the divine identity expressed in Him — the Word — does not begin. It is eternal because it is God Himself.
So when Jesus speaks of glory before the world was, I understand that as the eternal divine glory belonging to God’s own self-expression — the Logos — now manifested in a man. The prayer is that this glory, veiled in humiliation, be openly revealed again through exaltation.
In other words:
I affirm preexistence.
I affirm divine glory.
I affirm equality with God.
What I do not affirm is that this requires three eternal centers of divine self-awareness in communion with one another.
John 17:5, in my view, is entirely coherent within strict monotheism: one God, whose eternal Word existed with Him because it is His own self-expression, now incarnate, praying that the divine glory intrinsic to God be manifested through the redemptive mission.
That is not a denial of the text.
It is a different reading of what the text requires ontologically.
When I keep saying I don’t believe in “three eternal centers of divine self-awareness,” I’m not trying to be cute or provocative. I’m trying to protect what I see as the Bible’s own logic of strict monotheism and the real incarnation.
Here’s what I mean in plain terms.
I believe the man Christ Jesus was born in time. He is not an eternal human. He is not an eternally-begotten “person” who later adds humanity. He is the Word made flesh—God truly manifested as a real man. That means His humanity is not a costume, and His human life doesn’t start “in eternity.” It starts where all human lives start: in history.
So when I look at Jesus, I see two things held together without confusion:
He is fully human—real flesh, real human development, real human limitations, real human emotions, a real human mind, a real human will.
He is truly God manifest—not a second divine subject standing beside the Father, but the one God present and revealed in that man.
That’s why I don’t talk about two or three eternal divine consciousnesses. Because the “other consciousness” Trinitarianism needs in order to make the Father-Son relationship eternal is, in my view, supplied by the incarnation itself.
Let me unpack that.
When Jesus prays, I don’t hear “God talking to God” as two eternal divine selves having a conversation. I hear a genuine human praying to God.
If Jesus is truly human, then it makes perfect sense that:
He prays,
He learns obedience,
He submits,
He is tempted,
He says “not my will, but Yours,”
He depends on the Spirit.
Those are not “problems” to solve by inventing another divine mind. Those are the necessary marks of authentic humanity.
So for me, the Father/Son language in the Gospels isn’t forcing me to posit two eternal divine subjects. It’s showing me the relationship between God and the truly human Messiah—God as the transcendent Father, and God revealed in genuine humanity as the Son.
This is the part I wish people would hear me on.
I fully affirm that there is real distinction in Jesus—He has a human will. That’s not optional. If He didn’t, He wouldn’t be fully human.
But I do not conclude from that that there must be two divine wills.
I see it like this:
Human will: belongs to the man, the flesh, the humanity that began in time.
Divine will: belongs to God alone, eternal, one, indivisible. (Externally and Internally)
So when Jesus says things like, “not my will but Yours,” I do not translate that into “the eternal Son’s divine will is different from the Father’s divine will.” I translate it into: the human will of the incarnate Messiah is submitting to the one divine will of God.
That preserves two crucial truths at the same time:
Jesus is genuinely human (real will, real submission)
God remains one (one eternal will, one eternal mind)
I know Trinitarians often say, “We don’t believe in separation,” and “We don’t believe in three gods.” I get that.
But the minute you say:
the Father is not the Son,
the Son is not the Spirit,
the Spirit is not the Father,
and you call those distinctions “persons,” you have introduced distinct “whos” at the level of subjecthood. And if each “person” is truly personal, then each has some form of self-awareness, will, and relationship.
In other words, persons is not a harmless label. It implies real centers of consciousness. Otherwise “person” becomes a word with no content.
That’s why I keep coming back to it: because I’m not willing to place plurality inside God’s eternal selfhood.
For me, strict monotheism isn’t only “one essence.” It’s also one divine subject:
one eternal “I,”
one eternal mind,
one eternal will,
one indivisible God. (Externally and Internally)
This is the core.
I don’t need to posit:
an eternal Son consciousness alongside the Father consciousness,
plus a third Spirit consciousness,
to account for the Gospel data.
I can account for it by taking the incarnation seriously:
God can be transcendent as Father, while also being present in history as Son, because the Son is God manifested in real humanity.
So the “distinction” the New Testament shows is not God divided into multiple eternal selves. The distinction is:
God in His transcendent deity (Father),
God revealed in the man He begot and indwelt (Son),
God active as His own Spirit presence (Spirit).
Not three divine minds.
One God, acting and revealing Himself in a way that is consistent with His oneness.
If I accept three eternal centers of self-awareness, then I have—in principle—three eternal “I’s.” And even if I insist they share one essence, I’ve still introduced plurality into what God eternally is.
But the Bible’s monotheism reads to me like this: God is not a community of divine selves. God is one—not one kind, not one class, but one singular divine identity.
And then the shock of the New Testament is not “there were always three.” The shock is: the one God has come among us in flesh.
That is why I keep insisting on this wording:
The man Christ Jesus began in time.
He is fully human with a real human will.
The only divine will present in Him is the one divine will because He is God manifest.
Therefore there is only one eternal divine mind, not two, not three.
That’s not me trying to be stubborn. That’s me trying to keep together what I believe Scripture holds together:
the full reality of the incarnation,
and the absolute oneness of God.
I was trying so very hard to stay out of this debate again. Been here done that. However, THIS? Perhapse you should read that again.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In the begining God. God is already there. “the Word was with God.” the Word was already there, later becomes Jesus, who was already here,
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
In the begining was God, Jesus as the Word who created all things, and the Holy Spirit.
“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2
Really not sure where you got the Word had a begin? He didn’t. He also has not end.
Peter
Incorrect @NeutralZone
The Bible teaches that Jesus was not created but was rather the Creator.
“In [Jesus Christ] all things were created: . . . all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).
The doctrine of the eternality of Christ is one of the distinguishing marks of biblical Christianity.
While Jesus is held in high esteem by Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others of various theological beliefs, those groups teach that Jesus was a created being.
It is orthodox Christianity’s affirmation of the full deity of Christ and His uncreated nature that makes Christianity unique from all other religions and philosophies.
Various world religions may agree on some important issues such as the existence of a transcendent, objective morality and the value of a strong family life, but the answer to the question “who is Jesus Christ?” quickly separates those who adhere to biblical Christianity from those who do not.
The early creeds of the church unequivocally teach that Jesus was not created but that He is an eternally divine Person, the Son of God.
Muslims teach that Jesus was a virgin-born human prophet, but came into existence just like everyone else. Mormons, who adhere to a modern-day form of Arianism, believe that Jesus had a beginning, just as God the Father had a beginning.
Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus was the first creation of Jehovah and was originally called Michael the archangel. So on which side of the creator/creature divide does Jesus actually fall? Is Jesus a creature, and thus part of the created order, or is He, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Creator of all created things?
Is Jesus heteroousios (“of a different substance”) than the Father, as the 4th-century heretic Arius held; or are Christ and the Father homoousios (“of the same substance”), as Athanasius maintained and the Council of Nicea decreed?
When attempting to answer the question of “was Jesus created?”
…there is no better person to look to than Jesus Himself. During His public ministry, Jesus continually assumed for Himself divine prerogatives. He continually exercised rights that would never be appropriate for a created being. He said that He was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), and, since the Sabbath was instituted by God, Jesus’ claim to be “Lord” of the Sabbath was an assertion of deity. Jesus spoke of His unique, intimate knowledge of the Father (Matthew 11:27) and of the glory He shared with the Father “before the world began” (John 17:5). Jesus accepted the worship of others (Matthew 14:32–33) and described a future time when He will sit in judgment over all nations (Matthew 25:31–44). Luke tells us that Jesus went so far as to personally forgive a woman’s sins, something only God can do, and attributed her forgiveness to her faith in Him (Luke 7:48–50)!
Jesus’ disciples were equally clear in their belief in Jesus’ deity and uncreated nature. John tells us that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God” (John 1:1). After having encountered the risen Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). The apostle Paul referred to Christ as “God over all” (Romans 9:5) and stated that “in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). In the early days of the church, Jesus was both the object of prayer (Acts 7:59) and the One in whose name the forgiveness of sins was proclaimed (Acts 2:38; 10:43). After having interrogated Christians under the threat of death, the Roman administrator Pliny the Younger wrote in his letter to the Emperor Trajan (c. AD 110) that “[the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light when they sang in alternative verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letters 10.96).
Jesus, God the Son, was not created. He has always existed; He has no beginning or end. The Son took on human flesh at a particular point in human history (John 1:14). Christians refer to this event as the Incarnation (“the act of being made flesh”). This act was integral to our salvation (Galatians 4:4–5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:22). From the Incarnation onward, the eternal, uncreated Son is both truly God and truly man.
But there was never a time when the Son did not exist. He was never created. Jesus always was and will forever remain “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13).
Are you dogmatic, or willing to reconsider your erroneous belief?
Table of Contents
“IN HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED” (COLOSSIANS 1:16)
“ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING THROUGH HIM” (JOHN 1:3)
“THROUGH WHOM ALSO HE MADE THE WORLD” (HEBREWS 1:2)
THE WORK OF THE FATHER AND THE SON IN CREATION
Further Reading
The following excerpt is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 4: Doing What Only God Does: Jesus’ Divine Deeds, Chapter 32: The Son as Maker and Sustainer of All Things, pp. 612-623.
In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library. All emphasis will be mine.
J.
This is entirely incorrect, @The_Omega, and because you have adopted a fixed dogmatic position, one that in its theological structure parallels the exclusivist claims found in Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, I do not believe it would be productive for me to enter into what would likely become a circular and unprofitable exchange. Over the time I have known you, I have not engaged in discussions that simply rehearse entrenched positions without genuine exegetical openness, and I do not intend to begin doing so now.
Shalom.
J.
If I could propound the nature of the relationship between Father and Son as I see it, I would welcome input.
The Father is God the Creator of all things.
He made a body for Himself, from which He established reality as we know it today.
He then created a body for that which would be not Him, in the same likeness He crafted for Himself, and He called this one “man.”
Not Him is not good, so inevitably disobedience surfaced.
But He preserved a lineage for Himself to take His Omnipotence into the body with which He would demonstrate His profound love and spread His divine Message.
Upon His resurrection, Jesus became the firstborn of the ‘new men’ with ‘new hearts’ who serve Him day and night with spiritual sacrifices.
Jesus Christ is “not God” in perfect obedience and unity with “Father God” meaning that Jesus Christ is a physically separate entity from the Father. He contended with His flesh as we all do, but in fulfillment of all God’s divine promises, Jesus overcame His flesh.
He proved it can be done, He demonstrated obedience unto perfection. Revelation tells us that Jesus gives His glory back to the Father.
Christ calls the obedient His brothers and sisters. Christ calls the Omnipresent One Father. Christ calls the seeking ones lost sheep. Christ calls the wicked ones hypocrites.
Christ calls me, so I will choose His perspective over that of any other. No, I am not perfected yet, but such is the seed of the flesh for which I am eternally grateful.
Elaborate here for me, and beginning to understand why newcomers are restricted in their posts, are you saying Messiah is NOT God?
J.