StephenAndrew, peace to you as well—and thank you for your passion, even if your post reads like it was written while simultaneously speaking in tongues, decoding Latin, and juggling Marian dogma.
Let’s be real: your message is heartfelt, but it’s a theological smoothie—blending truth, tradition, and mystical poetry until nothing has a clear edge. So allow me to respond with clarity, Scripture, and the logic you’re claiming.
1. You say: “One God in Oneness, logically.”
No issue with one God—we’re in full agreement there. But “Oneness” as you describe it isn’t logic. It’s modalistic compression. You collapse the Father, Son, and Spirit into a single person, then stretch Him into multiple roles like a divine rubber band. That’s not biblical logic—it’s spiritual origami.
2. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
Absolutely. But let’s not twist Paul’s words. He didn’t say, “Jesus is the Father.” He said Jesus reveals the unseen God. That’s consistent with Hebrews 1:3, which calls Him the “express image” of the Father’s person (hypostasis)—not His own.
Jesus is not the whole of God in a body. He is the Son, distinct from the Father who sent Him (John 5:30) and from the Spirit whom He sends (John 15:26). The Bible’s not confused. We shouldn’t be either.
3. John the Baptist… baptized Jesus so Jesus could become Christ?
That’s not Scripture—that’s a theological improv session.
Jesus was always the Christ. He didn’t become Christ through John’s baptism—He revealed Himself through it.
John 1:33 says John baptized so that Jesus would be made manifest to Israel, not to change His nature.
And John himself said, “I need to be baptized by You.” (Matt. 3:14)
Let’s not elevate John the Baptist beyond what’s written. He’s the forerunner, not the foundation.
4. Marian theology and “Mary’s Glorious Assumption”?
That’s straight Catholic tradition—not Scripture. Respect to Mary, but she’s not the co-redeemer, the Queen of Heaven, or part of some divine duo.
“There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5)
Jesus didn’t baptize Mary so she could be assumed into heaven. That’s theology from Rome, not from the Book.
5. Born again? Yes. But let’s make it biblical.
You repeat “born again” like a mantra, but Jesus used it in John 3:5 to speak of being born of water and the Spirit—not of mystical womb-soul unions or sanctified fetal joy. Salvation isn’t about ancestry, biology, or baptismal bloodlines. It’s about faith in the finished work of Christ.
Final Word:
Stephen, your heart is full—but your doctrine is overflowing into places Scripture doesn’t walk.
God is not a confusing cloud of shifting roles and poetic symbolism. He is:
Father, who sent the Son
Son, who obeyed unto death
Spirit, who indwells and sanctifies
One God. Three Persons. Perfectly revealed. Eternally true.
Let’s build theology on Scripture, not sacred sentiment. Peace and truth together—that’s the goal.
“One God in Three Hypostases, eternally distinct yet indivisibly one, unchanged, ineffable and orthodox unto the ages.”
Indivisibly in One Holy Family from two natures from three gods personal in being from Creator, Father Transformer, Motrher and Glorifier and transfiguration Son becoming One Holy Spirit Family One God in being. and together becoming again One Holy Spirit Family in being, most Logically.
Tertullian looked at a fountain and saw the Holy Spirit as the water and the water going up as lesus and thr water from the father in an analogy he used to resolve the Trinity. In generalization I think ther are better analogies.
I have faith in the Same God of Abraham as Jesus deliveres in the flesh, but this is only generalization in logic for my understanding, logically.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” — Colossians 2:8 (KJV)
The serpent didn’t stop whispering in the garden. He found a new garden—the early church—and whispered again: “You can explain God better than the apostles could.” That whisper became a storm, and that storm swept across centuries.
By the second and third centuries, theologians like Tertullian and Origen began interpreting Scripture through the lens of Greek philosophy. Influenced by Plato’s concept of divine emanations, and Stoic logic, they introduced terms like substance, essence, and persona—words the Bible never used to describe God.
They didn’t derive their theology from Pentecost—they drew it from Athens, Alexandria, and Rome. They weren’t defending apostolic doctrine—they were harmonizing Christianity with the pagan intellectualism of their day. They said, “To win the philosophers, we must speak their language.”
But in doing so, they replaced divine revelation with human speculation.
The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) wasn’t a revival meeting. It wasn’t a Holy Ghost prayer gathering. It was called by Emperor Constantine, a political leader trying to stabilize an empire by unifying Christian belief. He wasn’t baptized in Jesus’ name. He wasn’t even doctrinally sound. But he inserted himself into doctrine, and with the help of bishops eager for political protection, codified the “Son as co-eternal with the Father.”
Then came the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), where the Holy Spirit was added to the divine formula—not by revelation, but by philosophical symmetry. They needed a “third” to complete the triangle, and thus the Trinity was born—not in Scripture, but in council chambers, through debate, compromise, and political ambition.
This was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was a return to the polytheistic gods of Rome—three divine beings, united only by essence. It was paganism rebranded as orthodoxy. And those who rejected it? Those who clung to the apostolic Name of Jesus, who declared “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one”? They were labeled heretics. Their writings were burned. Their baptisms declared invalid. Their voices—silenced.
This wasn’t theology—it was theological colonization. A hijacking of truth by the traditions of men. And the motive? It was simple: control.
Control the doctrine, and you control the church.
Control the church, and you control the people.
Control the people, and you control the empire.
It wasn’t about understanding God. It was about redefining Him into something tame, something manageable—something that fit into human systems rather than divine mystery.
But Paul warned us. He said, “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine… and shall turn away their ears from the truth.” That time came. And the truth was exchanged for a lie—a lie that split God into three, diminished the Name of Jesus, and replaced the Spirit’s fire with philosophical fog.
The_Omega, that’s a passionate polemic—but let’s be clear: you didn’t quote Scripture to dismantle the Trinity—you quoted history rewritten through Oneness lenses and then layered it with suspicion. That may stir emotion, but it doesn’t hold up under biblical light. So let’s test your claims—not by fear of councils, but by the fire of the Word.
1. “Greek philosophy invented the Trinity”?
False. The doctrine of the Trinity didn’t come from Athens—it came from Jerusalem, Pentecost, and the mouth of Christ Himself:
Matthew 28:19 – “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
John 14:16 – “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter.”
2 Corinthians 13:14 – “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost…”
This isn’t Plato—it’s the plain teaching of Scripture. The councils didn’t invent the Trinity—they defended what the apostles preached against rising heresies like modalism and Arianism.
2. “Nicaea was political, not spiritual”?
Let’s assume Constantine had political motives. Fine. That changes nothing about the biblical case for the Trinity. If the text supports it, it doesn’t matter if Caesar or your cousin declared it. Truth stands or falls on Scripture, not on who agrees with it.
Besides, you’re quoting Colossians 2:8—but you skipped Colossians 2:9:
“For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
Amen. And guess what? That same book affirms distinction within deity—Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1). Not acting like He’s beside someone, actually beside the Father.
3. “Trinity is paganism rebranded”?
No sir. The triune nature of God is woven through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation:
Genesis 1:26 – “Let Us make man in Our image…”
Isaiah 48:16 – “The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, have sent Me.”
Revelation 1:4–5 – “From Him who is, and who was, and who is to come… and from Jesus Christ.”
You can call it “philosophical fog” all day—but that’s just avoiding the biblical blaze that refuses to be snuffed out by oversimplified Oneness slogans.
4. “The Trinity splits God into three”?
Wrong. The Trinity preserves monotheism by affirming one Being, three Persons. Not three gods. Not three parts. Not three modes.
To deny that, you have to:
Ignore Jesus praying to the Father
Rewrite the Spirit’s intercession in Romans 8
Flatten the glory of John 17 into a monologue
That’s not sound doctrine. That’s sound distortion.
Final Word:
You rail against tradition, yet cling to a man-made theology from the 20th century. You warn of deception, yet embrace a doctrine that turns Jesus into His own Father and prayer into theater.
You claim to honor Christ’s name, yet deny the triune glory He revealed.
This isn’t a war between Scripture and tradition. It’s a battle between Scripture rightly divided, and Scripture reinterpreted to fit a system.
One God. Three Persons. No philosophical fog. Just biblical fire.
The real danger? Not Nicaea—but ignoring what the apostles clearly taught because it doesn’t fit your formula.
True SincereThinker and my Faith is with the Church and I am only generalizing the logic with your help and support and I see your faith is strong, and I am only seeing the Logic, not tyring to change God only be able more logically to see Him for all even the unbeliever now can truly see the logical God as A Family and personal Gods in being becoming again through the Logical Christ, Jesus conceived by the Power of The Holy Spirit Family One God in being becoming again in all mankind One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
I accept your disbelief in Doctrine, and perhaps you can help?
Thanks Omega, then do you see powers in being before creation? From the Father as Creation?
“The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, have sent Me.” The Spirit is Have sent Him, Plural Colossians 2:9:“For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
The Fullness of the Godhead Body is from the Father through the Mother for the Son in The Christ becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
The phrase “from him through him for him in him” is a powerful statement of God’s sovereignty in creation and all things, as found in Romans 11:36. It emphasizes that God is the source, the means, the purpose, and the ultimate destination of all things.
Romans 11:36 For from him, The Father, and through her, The Mother, and for Him Jesus, are all things. To him The One Holy Spirit Family One God in being be the glory for ever. Amen.
To me maybe there is an gender mistranslation in Romans through Him, for Through Her, the Mother, and or even a faux pas a social blunder not seeing a woman in the Trinity, leaving Mary out of the Trinity and improperly seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person instead of a family of God in being becoming again in all through the Christ, Jesus conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit Family of God in all mankind becoming again.
The Logical fullness of the God Head bodily has to consist of a Mother together with the Father and the Son in One Family Of God preexisting, in all generalization.
Here is logical Trinity not even a non-believer can deny, to me.
Romans 11:36 For from him, The Father, and through her, The Mother, and for Him Jesus, are all things. To him The One Holy Spirit Family One God in being be the glory for ever. Amen.
And we know I am not preaching or proselytizing, only generalizing the faith logically for even the Child to understand.
StephenAndrew, peace to you as well—and thank you for the sincerity of your inquiry. But brother, what you’ve presented isn’t a “logical Trinity”—it’s a poetic collage that sounds spiritual while drifting far from the clarity and authority of Scripture.
Let’s draw the line where the Word does.
1. Isaiah 48:16 — “The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, have sent Me.”
This verse is gold—and it doesn’t support modalism. It reveals three distinct entities:
“The Lord GOD” — the Father
“His Spirit” — the Holy Spirit
“Me” — the Son, the Servant speaking
This is Old Testament Trinity, loud and clear. Not three metaphors. Three Persons. One God.
2. Colossians 2:9 — “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Yes! All the fullness of deity dwells in Christ—but don’t twist that to mean Jesus is the entire Godhead, or that the Father and Spirit ceased to exist outside of Him.
If Jesus is the Father and the Spirit, then who is He communing with, submitting to, and glorifying in John 17? Himself?
No. The Son reveals the fullness of God, but He is not the totality of God’s personhood. That’s why Scripture speaks of:
The Father who sends (John 3:17)
The Son who obeys (Phil. 2:8)
The Spirit who proceeds (John 15:26)
3. “From the Father through the Mother for the Son…”
Respectfully, that’s mystical language not found in Scripture. Mary was blessed—but the Godhead doesn’t flow through Mary. She bore the Son’s humanity, not His deity.
God didn’t become a family—He is Father, Son, and Spirit from eternity, long before Mary’s womb or Joseph’s lineage.
4. “Logical Trinity atheists can’t deny”?
The Trinity doesn’t rest on human logic—it rests on divine revelation. Atheists don’t reject it because it’s illogical. They reject it because they’re spiritually blind (1 Cor. 2:14). Truth isn’t proved by poetry or philosophy—it’s declared by Scripture.
Final Word:
You’re reaching for deep things, Stephen, and I commend that. But let’s make sure our depth doesn’t drift into speculation.
Stick to what’s written:
One God in three Persons—Father, Son, and Spirit.
Not imagined. Not invented. Revealed. Eternal. True.
Has anyone ever been able to explain born again saved so even a child can understand it?
I propose a contest who can do the best job, and this task is beyond even priceless beyond earthly treasures to the one who holds this stories truth through the power, to me. And also with no charge, like Grace freely given with nothing expected in return, and I know all will love beyond love my story, to all.
Who wants to go first, because my story is perfect logic, rational and logically follows the Two Nature God becoming again in all Faiths From the Faith from Abraham, becoming born and becoming saved becoming again One God in being, in all. I always tell the ending of the story first.
OK, I will try now.
And the story goes like:
In all generalization, the two Sacraments from death to life are Baptism and Penance, for proper understanding of “The Parable of the Story of The Two Nature God becoming again in all manking One Holy Family One God in being”, by Stephen
In all generalization, in the beginning, after everything else is created and ready to become and become again, All mankind is first created From the Father, failed from the corrupt spirit through the created souls of all mankind for the mortal flesh, The Body through Two Natures, Spirit and life, God and Temple to become from Baptism transformed into the Church from the living waters through the souls of all for the flesh to be able to become from death to life becoming the New Eve in all mankind becoming “reborn” immortal through the flesh for the soul sanctified from the Power of The Holy Spirit through the souls of all for the flesh becoming into immortality in Holy Spirit incorruption saved until the first sin of concupiscence and now ready for Heavens entry, as a Baptized infant, Born again pleasing to the Father as The Christ from the Jordan River. Baptized by His Cousin, now Brother through the Blood of God, and the greatest man ever even born yet least in the Kingdom, John The Baptist, we are reborn sanctified through both natures, Spirit and life, God and Temple, from the incorruptible Holy Spirit through transformed flesh immortality becoming the New Eve through the Immaculate Conception for the Virgin Birth of the Holy Family One God in being for Jesus, God of Justice becoming the New Adam through Holy Spirit incorruption in the Christ in all mankind becoming from Sacrifice and Penance, forgiven, and “Saved” becoming immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
I love this story only gets better every time I, We, tell it, now how about a Hallelujah, because pretty soon we all will be passing out the Logical Keys to the Kingdom, to all. One more time, Hallelujah, Great God is Good, Amen brothers and sisters.
The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from Jerusalem, Pentecost, and the mouth of Christ Himself is historically and theologically misleading. While Scripture certainly mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it never defines them as three co-equal, co-eternal persons within a triune Godhead. That precise formulation arose centuries later—not in the upper room, but in the philosophical halls of Alexandria and councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). The terms and categories used to define the Trinity (e.g., hypostasis, ousia, co-equality, eternal generation) are rooted more in Greek metaphysical constructs than in the language or worldview of first-century Jewish monotheism. What Jesus and the apostles preached was the oneness of God, and that this one God had come in the flesh—not that there were three divine “persons” eternally relating within God Himself.
Why Matthew 28:19, John 14:16, and 2 Corinthians 13:14 Don’t Teach the Trinity
Matthew 28:19 mentions three titles—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—but commands baptism in the singular “name”, not names (plural). That singular name is Jesus (Acts 2:38), in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). The passage identifies roles and manifestations, not persons.
John 14:16 shows Jesus (as a man) praying to the Father for another Comforter—not as separate divine persons, but as a revelation of the same God working through different manifestations. In fact, Jesus goes on to say in John 14:18, *“I will not leave you comfortless: *I will come to you.” The Holy Ghost is Jesus in Spirit form returning to indwell believers (Romans 8:9–11).
2 Corinthians 13:14 is a benediction, not a doctrinal formulation. Paul often used triadic language to describe God’s multifaceted work in redemption, but this doesn’t equal a tri-personal God. The grace (Son), love (Father), and fellowship (Spirit) reflect functions and relationships between God and man, not within an internally divided deity.
Oneness Pentecostals are often falsely lumped in with heresies like Modalism, Arianism, or Modalistic Monarchianism, but these associations are inaccurate:
Modalism (Sabellianism) taught that God merely appeared in three sequential modes—Father in the Old Testament, Son during Christ’s ministry, and Spirit after Pentecost—as if He stopped being one to become the other. This denies the simultaneous working of God’s manifestations.
Oneness Pentecostals reject this. They affirm that God is always Father, always Word, and always Spirit, but that the fullness of God was manifest in Jesus Christ, who is both fully human and fully divine. The Father didn’t cease to be God while Jesus walked the earth—He dwelt in the Son (John 14:10).
Arianism claimed that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to the Father and not fully God.
Oneness theology totally opposes this. Jesus is fully God and fully man—not a created lesser being, but God Himself manifested in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). His divinity is not inferior or separate from the Father, but identical.
Modalistic Monarchianism overemphasized the oneness of God to the point of collapsing all distinctions, sometimes leading to a denial of the real human nature of Christ.
Oneness believers make a strong distinction between the humanity of the Son and the deity of the Father who indwelt Him. Jesus could pray, be tempted, and submit, not because He was a second person, but because He was truly human. His divine nature didn’t pray to His divine nature—His human will submitted to the divine Spirit within.
Oneness Pentecostals affirm the absolute oneness of God, who is spirit and invisible, and who fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. They reject both the philosophical tritheism of the Trinity and the distortions of historical heresies. They preach the apostolic message—that Jesus is the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and that the fullness of the Godhead is not divided among three persons, but is embodied in one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and one glorified Christ who is both Lord and God (John 20:28).
[quote=“SincereSeeker, post:105, topic:3453”]
Let’s assume Constantine had political motives. Fine. That changes nothing about the biblical case for the Trinity. If the text supports it, it doesn’t matter if Caesar or your cousin declared it. Truth stands or falls on Scripture, not on who agrees with it.
Besides, you’re quoting Colossians 2:8—but you skipped Colossians 2:9:
“For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
Amen. And guess what? That same book affirms distinction within deity—Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1). Not acting like He’s beside someone, actually beside the Father.[/quote]
The assertion that Christ is literally seated beside another divine person misreads symbolic language and contradicts the consistent biblical testimony that there is no one beside God—no co-equal, co-eternal divine being standing next to Him in essence, power, or personhood. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes God’s absolute and indivisible oneness, ruling out any notion of internal divine distinction as imagined in Trinitarian doctrine.
First, the claim that Colossians 3:1—“Christ sitteth on the right hand of God”—proves a literal second divine person is flawed. The phrase “right hand of God” is symbolic, drawn from Hebrew idiom, representing power, authority, and exaltation, not physical proximity beside another being. God is Spirit (John 4:24) and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17; Colossians 1:15), so He has no literal right hand. The “right hand” is the place of honor (Psalm 110:1), and Jesus being at that “right hand” means He has received all power and authority as the revealed image of the invisible God (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10).
Now let us examine how Scripture consistently affirms that no one is beside God:
Isaiah 43:10 – “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
God denies any other divine being before or after Him.
Isaiah 44:6 – “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
There is no divine being “beside” God—no second person, no eternal Son, no co-equal Spirit.
Isaiah 44:8 – “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
The omniscient God declares there is no one beside Him—this is an emphatic denial of multiple divine persons.
Isaiah 45:5 – “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”
This clear monotheistic declaration cannot be harmonized with the idea of co-equal persons “next to” each other within God.
Hosea 13:4 – “Yet I am the Lord thy God… and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.”
Only one Savior, and that is the one God—which the New Testament identifies as Jesus (Titus 2:13).
Deuteronomy 4:35 – “Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.”
In light of these scriptures, to claim that another divine “person” is seated next to God is to introduce a division in the Godhead that the Bible forcefully denies. Rather than indicating two divine persons, Jesus sitting at the right hand points to the glorified humanity of Christ, now exalted with all authority, as the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). The invisible Father has no body or location—He is fully expressed and revealed in Christ Jesus, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).
Therefore, Scripture doesn’t support the Trinity—it supports Oneness. God is one, and He alone is Savior, Redeemer, Creator, and King—not beside, but in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).
The claim that the “triune nature of God is woven through Scripture” from Genesis to Revelation collapses under the weight of careful biblical exegesis and the testimony of God’s own declarations. The passages cited—Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 48:16, and Revelation 1:4–5—are often misunderstood and misused to support a doctrine that the Bible never explicitly teaches: the Trinity. What these scriptures show, when rightly interpreted, is not three divine persons in one being, but rather the one true God revealing Himself in various ways to accomplish His redemptive work.
Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image,” is often quoted as evidence of plurality in the Godhead. However, it is not followed by “So they created man,” but rather, Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image.” This shows that the singular God is speaking. The plural language can be understood in several ways: as a majestic plural (common in ancient Near Eastern kingship language), a conversation within the divine counsel of angels (which Job 38:7 implies were present at creation), or as the one God foreknowing His incarnation and redemptive plan. None of these interpretations require three co-equal divine persons.
Isaiah 48:16, which says, “The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, have sent Me,” is best understood as the voice of the Messiah, the Servant of the LORD, who was anointed and sent by God through the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 61:1). This verse does not imply eternal distinctions of persons within the Godhead, but rather the mission of the incarnate Son—Jesus Christ—as the Word made flesh, who was filled with the Spirit and sent by the Father (John 3:34–35). This reflects functional roles in redemption, not ontological divisions within God.
Revelation 1:4–5 refers to: “Him who is, and who was, and who is to come”— a clear reference to God’s eternal nature—and then to “Jesus Christ, the faithful witness.” While the passage uses triadic language, it is not defining God as three persons. Triadic expressions occur throughout the New Testament to describe God’s operations, not His internal composition. Moreover, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus Himself says, “I am Alpha and Omega… the Almighty,” showing that He is not merely one of three, but the full revelation of the eternal, omnipotent God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not woven through Scripture—it is read into it, often by imposing post-biblical philosophical categories developed in early church councils influenced by Greek metaphysical thinking, not Hebrew monotheism. The biblical blaze is this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). The New Testament affirms that this one God was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 3:16), in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). Oneness theology does not reduce God—it magnifies Him by refusing to divide Him. The Trinity is not the revelation of Scripture; it is the reinterpretation of Scripture through the lens of human philosophy.
The assertion that the Trinity “preserves monotheism” by claiming one Being in three Persons is internally contradictory and biblically unsupported. While Trinitarians insist they are not teaching three gods, their definition—three distinct persons, each with their own center of mind, will, and self-awareness—does not preserve biblical monotheism but introduces a form of tri-theism disguised in philosophical terminology. The Bible never uses the word “Persons” to describe God. Instead, it proclaims over and over that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), without internal division. Trinitarianism claims to avoid “modes” or “parts,” but by maintaining three co-equal “I”s capable of communicating with one another, it functionally divides God into three identities—which no amount of abstract terminology can conceal.
The examples given—Jesus praying to the Father, the Spirit interceding in Romans 8, and the dialogue of John 17—are better explained through a biblical Oneness perspective that recognizes the full and genuine humanity of Christ, including a human will, mind, and capacity for prayer, while also affirming that the divine nature dwelling within Him was the Father (John 14:10). Jesus prayed as a man, not as a second divine person to a first. Romans 8 does not reveal a separate spirit-being interceding, but the Spirit of God Himself working through us, making intercession that aligns with the will of God. And John 17 is not a “flattened monologue” under Oneness theology—it is the genuine human High Priestly prayer of Christ’s flesh to the eternal Spirit, showing submission, not separation.
Rather than distorting doctrine, Oneness theology preserves both the true humanity of Jesus and the undivided deity of God. It avoids the philosophical complexity and unbiblical formulations of Trinitarianism and stays anchored in the clear biblical truth: God is one, not three, and that one God was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:16).
The charge that Oneness believers follow a “20th-century man-made theology” is a common but deeply flawed misrepresentation. The doctrine of One God revealed in Jesus Christ is not new—it’s apostolic. What’s truly modern is the formalized doctrine of the Trinity as it is understood today, which developed centuries after the apostles through creeds and councils such as Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), heavily influenced by Greek philosophical categories foreign to biblical thought.
Terms like “Trinity,” “God the Son,” “God the Holy Spirit,” “eternal Son,” “eternally begotten,” “co-equal,” “co-eternal,” and “persons” not in the Bible. Formalized centuries after the Apostles died.
Greek philosophical terms such as homoousios (same substance) and hypostasis (person or underlying reality) to describe the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. These philosophical categories were foreign to the Hebraic mindset of the apostles and early church, who affirmed that God is one (Deut. 6:4) and that He was revealed in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). The concept of “eternal generation”—that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father—is also nowhere in Scripture but was introduced to explain how the Son could be divine yet not a second God. Instead of biblical language, Trinitarian creeds rely on extrabiblical terminology to articulate what the Bible itself explains in simpler, unified terms: God is one Spirit (John 4:24), invisible (1 Tim. 1:17), and has made Himself known fully and bodily in Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9).
Oneness theology, by contrast, simply affirms what the apostles taught: that God is one (Deut. 6:4), that He was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), and that the Father dwelt in Christ (John 14:10). Jesus is not praying to Himself; His human will is in submission to the divine Spirit within Him—a mystery of the Incarnation, not a performance or a contradiction. Scripture never says “God the Son” or presents three co-equal divine persons relating eternally within God.
We should consider the dual nature of Christ in the framework of biblical terminology. The term “Father” refers to God Himself—God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. “God the Father,” therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.
“Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.
These are theological inventions, not biblical revelations. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny Christ’s glory—they exalt it, recognizing that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9), and that He is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The real danger is not rejecting the Councils—it’s rejecting the identity of Jesus as the one true God revealed in flesh, and replacing that revelation with a tri-personal abstraction that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever preached.
Rationally we have to think logically for a moment to realize who The God of Abraham logically is.
The God of Abraham is the Two nature God from spirit through life becoming again in all One Holy Spirti Family One God in being.
Early teachers of Trinity Logic did not understand the Logic of the Mind of God and now today we can literally understand the God of Abraham from two natures failed becoming again in One Body with both natures fulfilled from the Holy Spirit through the immortal Imaculate flesh in One God, truthfully, in all generalization.
Do you both want to know the Mind of God, logically? I can help if you can hear me.
In only generalization, logically speaking, We have to be able logically and in all generalization see the Holy Spirit as a Family of God and we also have to see logically the Mother in the Trinity pre-existing together with the Father and the Son in intelligence logic fulfilled undefiled before creation was ever created was even created becoming transformed becoming again in all through God and Temple, Spirit and Flesh, immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured in One Body One Holy Spirit Family of God, in all generalization.
I appreciate your willingness to explain Pentecostal Oneness with careful attention to detail. I admit, I was unfamiliar with the concept, at least as you presented it, until I carefully read your posts. It is easy, although unadvisable, to form any opinion on an idea by strictly listening to its detractors. Until today, I admit, that is what I have done.
However, in your very logical approach to a defense of “Oneness” I have some difficulty with some of your assertations. For example, (1) you seem to be defending “Oneness theology” by denigrating the term “trinity” (along with the terms “substance”, “essence”, and “persona”) as third century constructions, simply because you cannot find the terms used in any earlier writings. I don’t think this is a fair assertion, and I doubt that logic would hold for many other terms that you and I do employ on a regular basis. (2) Without showing any evidence of their nefarious intentions, or their reasons to construct a trinitarian theology of convenience, you simply state the intentions and assert the reasoning of these early church fathers ipso facto. I’m sure none of us would accept someone stating our personal intentions or asserting our reasoning without evidence. (3) Without demonstrating any evidence that the church fathers began interpreting scripture though the lens of Greek philosophy, influenced by Plato and stoicism, you present your assertation as fact, and in so doing disparage the character of those members of Our Beloved Body of Christ. This kind of logic suggest that if a secular explanation for an event can be surmised than we needn’t think there was a spiritual influence involved. This in the face of many other historical events for which the world has secular explanations, but for which Christians understand, by faith, were actually intricately managed by the hand of God. I don’t think I need to give examples of this for us to clearly see the hole in the logic.
Secondly, I take issue with anyone defending Oneness theology by asserting trinitarians believe in three gods, in a divided godhead, polytheism, or any other similar false accusation. I hold the same distaste for anyone trying to defend the trinitarian doctrine by resorting to accusations that the Oneness camp denies the deity of Jesus, the existence of God’s Holy Spirit, or any similar false accusations. I appreciate that you set the record straight by rejecting the narrative that Oneness Pentecostals are lumped in with heresies like Modalism, Arianism, or Modalistic Monarchianism. You have been heard here!
Lastly, I would like to state my understanding of The Word of God as revelation; an UNveiling, delivering light as understanding. God has lovingly made Himself known to humanity through various ways. The writer of Hebrews says:
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Hebrews 1:1-4
When we say “God has spoken to us”, we intend that God has communicated to us in ways that He knows we can receive, understand, and apply. God is not hamstrung by our inability to understand transcendent concepts, but rather lovingly unveils them to us, communicates ideas for us through His Holy Spirit, internally, in groanings too deep for words:
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Romans 8:26
God is communicating to us through His Holy Word, speaking truths to us, truth that we can grasp, ingest, and apply to our lives. Although the Word of God is deep, and unfathomable, and beyond the mastery of the most brilliant scholar, it is also designed to be accessible and intelligible to a mere child, with the assistance of The Holy Spirit of God. I do not think of The Word of God as a puzzle to be deciphered, or an esoteric mystery to be cracked by devout academics, I expect God to know how to record something that makes sense to a simpleton like myself. With that in mind, I read the testimony of John (among so many others in the Word of God), and I expect his words, and the recorded words of Jesus, to make sense as I apply myself to yielding to the teaching of God’s Holy Spirit. If God is communicating, (not obscuring) His word to me through these recorded words of Jesus, I do not need the “halls of Alexandria, or the councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) to receive the clear understanding that Jesus is communicating a relationship within His own being.
I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. John 5:30
…And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. John 5:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. John 5:37
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:37-40
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. John 7:16-18
Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” John 8:28-29 (NKJV)
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. John 14:9-14
"If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:15-17
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. John 14:23-24
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 things that I said to you. John 14:26
These, and so many other passages clearly communicate a divine LOVE relationship within The Godhead. Godly Love must have a lover.
I accept that you maintain that God is One, and there is no other, there is none beside Him. He will not share his Glory with another. He alone is God. That message is clearly communicated in scripture, and by Jesus Himself. That cannot be questioned. But God is also communicating to us some transcendent relational aspect of His being, one that we do not experience the same way in our mortality, but none-the-less clearly exist in God’s self-revelation of Himself. He simply states it in so many places and communicates it in too many ways to ignore the LOVE relationship that is expressed within the Godhead. The term trinity may not be holy and perfectly accurate, but it is a mere mortal attempt to not deny the LOVE relationship within the Godhead that God speaks so often about. I believe we will one day understand that internal LOVE far better than we have ever been able to explain it so far. I doubt if either the Oneness camp or the Trinitarian camp have a perfect understanding of the mystery of The Godhead. But both have a clear understanding of the unifying work of The Holy Spirit, and our admonisments to yield to His unifying efforts. Until then, we, with the heavenly seraphim can only express our heartfelt praise as:
“Holy, Holy, Holy, is THE Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come!” Revelation 4:8
StephenAndrew, peace to you, brother—and thank you for sharing from the heart. Your zeal is evident, and it’s clear that you love the Lord and long for others to experience the truth of salvation. But if I can speak plainly: we need to slow the train down and get back to the rails of Scripture, because the Gospel isn’t supposed to be a theological riddle—it’s the power of God unto salvation.
You asked a beautiful, simple question:
“Has anyone ever been able to explain being born again so even a child can understand it?”
Let me give it to you straight—Bible in hand, child in mind.
What does it mean to be born again?
Jesus answered that in John 3:3:
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
To be born again means that your old sinful self dies, and God gives you a new heart, a new spirit, a new life. You were born once into this world—you need to be born again by the Spirit of God.
How does it happen?
Not by long stories or poetic parables—but by faith in Jesus Christ and the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
Repent – turn from sin
Believe – that Jesus died and rose again for you
Receive – the Holy Spirit, who gives you new life
So here it is, for a child:
“Being born again means God gives you a brand-new heart so you can love Him and live for Him. It’s like starting over, but this time, with Jesus inside you.”
No mystical layers. No cosmic metaphors. Just the Gospel—simple, saving, and straight from the Word.
Now Stephen, I appreciate your creativity, but when we start wrapping salvation in layers of symbolism, mystical timelines, and invented sacramental systems, we risk burying the very message we’re trying to share. The Gospel isn’t complicated—it’s glorious. And it doesn’t need a rewrite—it needs a reverent reading.
So here’s my challenge back to you:
Let’s put aside “The Parable of the Two Nature God Becoming Again in All Mankind” and instead open up to Romans 10:9:
“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
That’s the story. That’s the key. That’s the Kingdom.
Now that’s worth a Hallelujah.
Let’s get back to that truth—and pass it on plainly, so even the littlest lamb can follow the Shepherd home.
The_Omega, I appreciate the depth of your reply—and the intensity. But at the end of the day, what we’ve got here is a high-powered engine running off the wrong fuel. You’ve packed your argument with history, philosophy, and plenty of “let me tell you what it doesn’t say”… but not one verse that clearly affirms your position. Let’s hit this squarely, Scripture-first, no fog, no fluff.
1. “Three persons” = philosophical invention?
You say “three persons” is post-biblical, but Scripture gives us all the raw material, whether the word is there or not:
The Father speaks from heaven (Matt. 3:17)
The Son is baptized in the water (Matt. 3:16)
The Spirit descends like a dove (Matt. 3:16)
Three present. Three distinct. One God.
That’s not Greek metaphysics. That’s Gospel boots-on-the-ground reality.
2. You say “God is one,” so He can’t be three Persons.
Of course God is one—we affirm that without blinking. But the Shema (Deut. 6:4) says "YHWH is one,” not “God is one person.” That’s your insertion, not the Bible’s declaration.
Echad (Hebrew for “one”) is used for compound unity:
“One flesh” (Gen. 2:24) – two persons, one union.
“One people” (Ex. 19:8) – many individuals, one nation.
You’re applying a Greek idea of numerical oneness to a Hebraic concept of unified essence—the very thing you accuse Trinitarians of doing.
3. Colossians 2:9 means Jesus is the Godhead?
Careful. The verse says:
“In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
Yes, Jesus is fully God—but not the entirety of God in totality. The fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily, yes. But that doesn’t mean the Father and Spirit disappeared into the Son.
This same Paul later says:
“Christ is seated at the right hand of God.” (Col. 3:1)
So unless He’s seated at the right hand of Himself, you’ve got a distinction within the Godhead—just like the Bible says.
4. Jesus praying is not the human nature talking to the divine nature.
This is where your argument collapses under its own weight. If Jesus’ human will is praying to His divine Spirit, you’re making Him into a man possessed by God—not God Incarnate.
When Jesus says:
“Glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5),
He’s not reminiscing with His own nature. That’s the eternal Son speaking to the eternal Father—both divine, both relational, both real. You either believe the words or you redefine them. There’s no middle ground.
5. “Another Comforter” is not the same Person in a new costume.
“I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter…” (John 14:16)
“Another” (Greek: allos) means “another of the same kind”—not “Me in a new form.” Two verses later, Jesus says:
“I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” (John 14:18)
Is that a contradiction? Not at all—because the Spirit is also fully God, and Jesus’ return through the Spirit is not modalism, it’s Trinitarian consistency. One essence. Three Persons.
6. “Trinity is not in the Bible”? Neither is ‘Oneness’.
You want to talk terms? Fine. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible. Neither is:
“Oneness doctrine”
“God the Son” (you’re right)
Or “God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit”
But let’s be honest: neither is “manifestation of the Godhead in three roles”—which is what you preach.
We don’t build theology on words—we build it on the revelation those words point to. And the entire narrative arc of Scripture points to a God who:
Sends His Son (John 3:16)
Who prays to the Father (John 17)
And sends the Spirit (John 15:26)
You call that philosophical? I call that plain text.
Final Word: You’ve built a beautiful wall around a small room.
Oneness theology sounds like it’s defending God’s glory. But in reality, it’s shrinking Him, flattening His self-revelation, and turning rich relational language into divine theater.
God is not a ventriloquist.
God is not a one-man stage show.
God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—eternally, simultaneously, and perfectly One.
So you can quote Isaiah all day—“I am God, and there is none beside Me.”
We say amen—and still affirm what Jesus revealed.
Not three gods.
Not three masks. One God. Three Persons. Full fire. Zero fog.
Now I say this with all love and candor: logic without Scripture is just poetry with a superiority complex. And right now, what you’re offering sounds more like a theological riddle wrapped in mystical word salad than the clear revelation of the God of Abraham.
Let’s cut through the fog.
1. “The God of Abraham is the Two Nature God…”
That’s not what Abraham believed. That’s not what Moses preached. That’s not what Jesus revealed. The God of Abraham was not described in terms of “two natures” or “immaculate immortal flesh”—He was known simply and powerfully as:
“I AM.” (Exodus 3:14) “The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deut. 6:4)
And when God manifested in the flesh, He didn’t become a new being—He revealed Himself in the person of the Son, distinct from the Father, empowered by the Spirit.
That’s not fuzzy logic. That’s Scripture, straight up.
2. “Trinity teachers didn’t understand the logic of the Mind of God…”
Brother, that’s a bold claim. You’re asserting that Athanasius, Irenaeus, and the apostles themselves missed something that you’ve now unlocked through logic?
News flash: we don’t come to know God through logic—we come by revelation.
“No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27)
So if your “logic” leads you to a God that doesn’t align with the clear testimony of the Word—Father, Son, and Spirit working in perfect unity—then it’s not the mind of God you’re hearing. It’s the echo chamber of human reason.
3. “Do you want to know the Mind of God?”
I already do—it’s in the Book.
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus…” (Philippians 2:5)
And guess what that passage reveals?
A divine Person, the Son, who was with God, equal with God, and humbled Himself to obey the Father.
That’s not Oneness.
That’s not fuzzy logic.
That’s Trinitarian truth—straight from Scripture.
Final Word:
Stephen, your passion is real—but passion without precision leads to confusion, not revelation.
God doesn’t need us to decode Him. He’s already revealed Himself:
The Father, enthroned in glory
The Son, crucified and risen
The Spirit, dwelling in His people
One God. Three Persons. Fully revealed. Eternally true.
So if you truly want to know the mind of God, open the Word—and let it speak for itself.
Certainly, SincereSeeker, through your faith through the God from the Faith of Abraham are we saved.
Here is just logical generalization in what is the Faith of Abraham becoming again through both natures, spirit and life to unite all and One in being One Holy Spriti Family One God in being, rationally from the One Father through the One Mother for the One Son in the Christ to unite all mankind One God in being One Holy Spirit Family One God in being, all together, and follows the promise God made through the Faith of Abraham of Gods promise He swore to Abraham by His own Name eternal life to Abraham’s descandants out o teh Bosom of Abraham for all and 2000 years later He fulfilles his promise through His son through all becoming again One God through both natures, spirit and life in One Holy Family One God in being in all generalization is born again and saved,
And saved literally is Saved is through the New Adam from becoming Holy Spirit Incorruption From reborn through the New Eve becoming transformed immortality of the flesh becoming again in all through both natures, God and Temple through The Christ from Sacrifice through Penance in Confession hearing the words of Absoultion forgiven becoming again sanctified immortally glorified and incorruptibly transfigured One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.
We know through the Faith of Abraham we are saved, I am just explaining the Logicof teh Mind of God how so even a child can understand rebirth and salvation for all becoming again One God.
Salvation faithfully is from the cross for all who believe, so true, SincereThinker.
StephenAndrew, peace to you as well—and thank you for the effort to articulate what’s clearly on your heart. But allow me to gently yet firmly bring this conversation back to the Word, where clarity lives and confusion dies.
You quoted Romans 10:9, and that’s a solid anchor:
“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Now that is salvation—simple, sharp, Spirit-breathed. Not wrapped in mystical metaphors about “New Eve flesh,” “Holy Spirit incorruption,” or “becoming again One God in being.” That’s not the Gospel—that’s doctrinal spaghetti.
Let’s untangle:
Faith of Abraham? Yes. But Abraham believed God—not a system of layered mystical rebirths.
Reborn through the New Eve? Not in the Bible.
Holy Spirit Family One God in being? Sounds spiritual. Means nothing. Scripture never speaks that way.
Salvation isn’t about decoding some cosmic family reunion in symbolic language. It’s about faith in Christ, repentance from sin, and receiving the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Period.
For a child to understand salvation, here’s how Scripture puts it:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31)
You don’t need a theology degree. You don’t need mystical grammar. You don’t need 40 lines of cosmic metaphors.
You need Jesus.
Final Word:
Stephen, I appreciate your energy—but truth doesn’t need embellishment, and salvation doesn’t need a decoder ring.
Let’s put aside the “One Holy Spirit Family” poetry, and get back to Golgotha, where one Man, fully God and fully man, died once for all—so that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
That’s the Gospel.
That’s salvation.
That’s enough.
The passage in Matthew 3:16–17 indeed reveals a powerful and meaningful moment in the life of Christ, but it does not necessitate or define the doctrine of three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons within a single essence. The text describes a unique manifestation of God at a pivotal moment in salvation history—not a revelation of an eternal tri-personal Godhead. In fact, Oneness believers affirm the full reality of this scene: the Son is baptized (as a genuine man), the Spirit descends (not as a second person, but as the one eternal Spirit of God coming upon the man), and the Father speaks from heaven (the omnipresent Spirit expressing His divine approval). This is not evidence of three separate “persons” in the philosophical sense later defined by Nicene and post-Nicene theology, but rather a demonstration of God’s ability to manifest Himself in multiple ways simultaneously. The term “person” as defined in Trinitarianism goes far beyond the plain biblical narrative—introducing distinct centers of consciousness and will, which leads to division in God’s essence. Matthew gives us the “raw material,” yes, but how that material is shaped must stay consistent with the Hebraic monotheism that defines God as one undivided Spirit (Deut. 6:4; John 4:24). The scene at Jesus’ baptism is no more a proof of three divine persons than the burning bush is proof of a binitarian God. It is a theophany—a revelation of God’s manifested presence in redemptive action, not an unveiling of multiple persons within God’s being. God is omnipresent. He can speak from heaven, descend in visible form, and walk in flesh—all without being three persons. Oneness theology understands this as the one God manifesting Himself through the humanity of Christ, through His Spirit, and through His divine voice.
The argument that the Hebrew word “echad” (אֶחָד) allows for a compound unity and thus supports Trinitarianism misunderstands both the linguistic usage of the term and the theological context of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4. While it is true that echad can, in some cases, refer to a collective or unified group (e.g., “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24), the context determines its meaning. In Deut. 6:4, the statement “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” is not merely asserting that God is united in purpose—it is declaring His exclusive, indivisible identity in opposition to the polytheism of surrounding nations. The verse doesn’t say “YHWH is a unified group,” but rather YHWH alone is God—one, not several. If Moses had intended to suggest a compound unity or a multi-personal deity, the Hebrew language had other constructions or clarifications to express that—but instead, it uses echad in the same way it uses it to describe singular, indivisible things (e.g., one day in Genesis 1:5, one king in 1 Kings 11:13).
The apostolic writers were Hebraic monotheists who did not parse God’s nature into three eternal persons. The Shema was Jesus’ own creed (Mark 12:29), and He never redefined it. To interpret echad as proof of a tri-personal God is to read into the text what it never explicitly teaches, whereas the plain, consistent testimony of Scripture affirms the oneness of God in being, person, and name (Isa. 44:6, Zech. 14:9). Therefore, echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms the absolute, indivisible oneness of God, not a compound plurality.
Colossians 2:9 does not merely affirm that Jesus is “fully God”—it declares that all the fullness of the Godhead (Greek: theotēs, meaning the very nature and essence of God) dwells bodily in Him. Notice this first: not upon Him, not near Him, not behind Him—but IN Him. The word dwelleth—katoikei in Greek—doesn’t mean to visit or pass through. It means to settle permanently—to inhabit as a home. This is not a passing presence. This is not God dropping in from time to time like a guest. This is eternal indwelling. God didn’t rent space in Jesus’ body—He fully resides there. This is not a mere statement of divine participation; it is a declaration that everything that makes God who He is—His nature, authority, power, and identity—is fully embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. To suggest that this means Jesus contains the “fullness” but not the “totality” is to split hairs in a way that the inspired text does not support. Paul does not leave room for a divine remainder existing outside of Christ. Instead, he roots the entire nature of deity in the bodily person of Jesus, who is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15).
As for Colossians 3:1, “seated at the right hand of God” is not spatial language describing two thrones or two divine persons side by side. Rather, it is symbolic, royal language that communicates authority, exaltation, and divine approval. In ancient Jewish context, the “right hand” was the place of power and honor—not a second deity or distinct divine person. To be at God’s right hand means Christ, as the glorified man and mediator, is invested with all divine authority (cf. Matthew 28:18). He is not seated beside Himself, nor is He seated beside a co-equal eternal person. He is seated in the exalted role of God manifest in glorified flesh—the One who now reveals the Father (John 14:9).
To interpret Colossians 2:9 as supporting a division within the Godhead is to miss the radical Oneness proclamation Paul is making: that the invisible, omnipresent Spirit has permanently and fully revealed Himself in the man Christ Jesus. There is no need to fracture God into multiple persons. Jesus is not part of the Godhead—He is the embodiment of it.
The fullness of the Godhead in Christ does not mean the Father and Spirit were absorbed into a body, but that the entire character, authority, power, and identity of God is made known in Christ. Jesus could say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), not because He is the Father as Spirit, but because He is the visible, bodily expression of the Father—the image of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3).
So, God remains uncontained in His essence (1 Kings 8:27) while being fully revealed in Christ’s person (Col. 2:9). The invisible, omnipresent Spirit didn’t become another person in Christ—He became fully visible and knowable in Christ without ceasing to be omnipresent.
The argument that “another Comforter” (Greek: allos) in John 14:16 proves a separate divine person within the Godhead overlooks the full context and revelation Jesus gives just a few verses later. While allos does mean “another of the same kind,” Jesus clearly identifies Himself as that Comforter in verse 18 when He says, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” This is not a contradiction—it’s a clarification. He doesn’t say, “Someone else will come to you,” but “I will come.” Jesus, speaking as the one in whom the Father dwells (John 14:10), promises to return not in the same bodily form, but through the indwelling of His Spirit—the Holy Ghost. That’s why He also says in verse 17 that the Comforter “dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Who was with them at that moment? Jesus Himself. Therefore, the “another Comforter” is not a second divine person, but the same divine Spirit—now coming in a new dimension: not walking beside them in flesh, but living within them by the Spirit.
Trinitarian theology claims this reveals three distinct persons, but the biblical text reveals one God manifesting Himself in different ways for the sake of redemption. Oneness theology doesn’t teach that Jesus is putting on a new costume—it teaches that the same God who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) is now coming in Spirit form to dwell in believers. Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), not merely one in essence, but in identity and power. So when He sends the Comforter, He is not dispatching a different divine person—He is fulfilling His own promise to be with us and in us (John 14:17–20), just as Isaiah prophesied: “His name shall be called… The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6). The Comforter is not someone else—He is Jesus in Spirit.
The narrative arc of Scripture—from Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD (Deut. 6:4) to God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16)—points to a God who is absolutely one, not divided internally into persons but revealed fully in Jesus Christ. That is not philosophical—that is the apostolic doctrine plainly declared in the Word.
The_Omega, I appreciate the detailed volley—you brought everything but the kitchen sink. But let’s make this plain: Scripture isn’t a jigsaw puzzle that only Greek philosophy can solve. You don’t need a PhD in Nicene linguistics to see who God is—you need faith, a Bible, and eyes open to the text, not tradition.
Let’s walk through your points, not with tradition, but with truth.
Matthew 3:16–17 – “Three distinct persons”?
You say: three present = three persons.
I say: one omnipresent God manifesting Himself—not compartmentalized, not divided, not sitting in divine chairs doing heavenly introductions.
Oneness believers affirm the scene:
The Son is baptized—as man, not second person.
The Spirit descends—not a “separate being,” but the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
The Father speaks—because He’s omnipresent.
This is not three divine “I’s”. This is one God, revealing Himself in time, working redemption.
And if the baptism proves separate persons, then the burning bush proves God is a shrub.
Let’s be honest: you’re doing the very thing you accuse Oneness of—reading a theological construct into the text.
Yes, “echad” can mean compound unity in some cases. But context rules meaning. And in Deut. 6:4, Moses isn’t saying, “The LORD is a united trio.” He’s saying, “YHWH alone is God.”
If God meant “three persons in unity,” Hebrew had the word “yachid” for singularity and other constructions for plurality. He didn’t use them. Instead, He said “one LORD.” And Jesus reaffirmed this as the greatest commandment—not the soft launch of Trinitarianism (Mark 12:29).
Colossians 2:9 – “Not the entirety of God”?
That’s where you minimize the text.
“In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”
Not a slice. Not a sample. All the fullness—permanently dwelling (katoikei).
And Paul didn’t add footnotes like, “…except for the remainder of the Father and the separate will of the Spirit.” That’s your insertion, not his.
Then you jump to Col. 3:1 to say Christ is sitting beside God. But the “right hand” language is a Jewish metaphor for exaltation, not seating charts.
Psalm 110:1, “Sit at My right hand”—isn’t about spatial furniture. It’s about divine authority.
Christ is not seated “next to another person of God”—He is the manifested image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). The “right hand” is position, not personhood.
John 17 – “Jesus praying to the Father proves two divine persons”?
No, it proves one divine Spirit dwelling in a fully human man. Hebrews 5:7 says Jesus offered prayers “in the days of His flesh.” Not in the days of His pre-existent second-personhood.
“Glorify Me with the glory I had with You…” (John 17:5)
That’s the man praying—anticipating the return of divine glory He laid aside (Phil. 2:6–9), not the Son chitchatting with another uncreated being.
God didn’t send someone else to do the work—He came Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). That’s not a dialogue between persons. That’s the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16), not a Trinitarian TED Talk.
John 14 – “Another Comforter means a different person”?
Jesus said:
“I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” (John 14:18)
You say He meant, “Someone else is coming who’s not Me.”
Jesus says: “I will come.”
The Spirit wasn’t new. He was with them (in Christ), and would be in them (John 14:17). That’s not a separate person—it’s the same divine presence in a new dimension.
Romans 8:9 – “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”
So which is it?
Spirit of Christ?
Spirit of God?
Holy Ghost?
Yes. All one. All Him.
“Oneness doctrine isn’t in the Bible either.”
True. But “doctrine” doesn’t need branding—it needs biblical backing.
And we’ve got it:
Deut. 6:4 – One God
Isaiah 44:6 – No God beside Me
John 14:9 – “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father”
Col. 2:9 – All fullness in Christ
1 Tim. 3:16 – God was manifest in the flesh
You’ve got triadic mentions, yes. But triadic ≠ tri-personal.
That’s why not one apostle baptized in three titles.
They all baptized in Jesus’ name—because they understood the Name.
“The name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” = Jesus.
Final Word:
You say Oneness theology is poetic.
I say Trinitarianism is philosophical.
You say we’re shrinking God.
I say you’re dividing Him.
The early church didn’t preach Greek categories. They preached Christ—and in Him, the fullness dwells.
What does it mean to be born again?
How does it happen?
So here it is, for a child:
1. “Three persons” = philosophical invention?
2. You say “God is one,” so He can’t be three Persons.
3. Colossians 2:9 means Jesus is the Godhead?
4. Jesus praying is not the human nature talking to the divine nature.
5. “Another Comforter” is not the same Person in a new costume.
6. “Trinity is not in the Bible”? Neither is ‘Oneness’.
Final Word: You’ve built a beautiful wall around a small room.
Let’s untangle:
John 17 – “Jesus praying to the Father proves two divine persons”?
John 14 – “Another Comforter means a different person”?
“Oneness doctrine isn’t in the Bible either.”