Kudos brother she is theotokos, she is the Mother of God, @johann.
Hi @Corlove13 here is a very good link on the Triune Godhead.
Let me know if this helps clarify some of your questions–and do you happen to use any kind of Bible software or study tools?
God bless.
Johann.
Peace to all,
The New Adam is consubstantial with the Father, logically. The New Eve is Co-Consubstantial with the New Adam the New Adan is conceived consubtantially from the Father and The Mother by the Power of the Holy Spirit Family. The Holy Spirit is Consubtantion From The Father through the Mother for the Son, becoming The Christ, consubstantial with all mankind in both natures spirit and life becoming again hyperstatically One Holy Family Consbstantialy in two Natures Spirit and life in One Body becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God substantially now in two natures, One God in being.
We must logically always remember we are wrong when we are told we cannot think.
WE are told,
The Father is God
The Son in God The Holy Spirit is a Person.
And we are not to believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirt Family One God in being
and we are told there is no Mother in the Trinity and the Persons are rated First Second and Third.
That each are Gods and not equal in Powers of God and together One Family on being? and some how not a Family in being because there is no Mother and not all people either are there or saints and angels are also not there. And we are told No Famly of God in The Holy Spirit Family One God in being?
We are Told Jesus is Son of Man but Mary is not Mother of "Son of Man?
Son of God is not Jesus Son of God from the Holy Spirit Family from Heaven?
Jesus is Not Son of Man from the Immaculate Conception, from Mary?
To me they have the Trinity all wrong and it seems to all it is ok? to them?
No one can understand The Mind of God until One things logically, to me.
All the logic I generalize is only generalization and not preaching or proselytizing like you all do, I am only generalizing and I could be silenced, easly for generalizing,
We logically have to be able to see through eyes of two natures, Son of Man and Son fo God eyes.
We don’t waht to be Being silenced from those who cannot see logical because of the faithful? Is ok, to me.
Because we are told faith alone saves.
Peace always,
Stephen
Stephen, I hear that you’re trying to think deeply and logically about the mystery of God, and I respect anyone who seeks to understand. But what you’ve written is not consistent with the testimony of Scripture or with the language God has given us to describe Himself. Let me speak to your points clearly, with the Word of God as the standard.
You say, “The New Eve is co-consubstantial with the New Adam.” Scripture never teaches that Mary—or any created being—is “consubstantial” (ὁμοούσιος) with Christ. That term, used carefully at the Council of Nicaea, refers to Christ being of the same essence with the Father—uncreated, eternal, divine. Mary is a creature. She is the mother of the incarnate Christ in the flesh (Luke 1:35), but she is not of the same substance as the Son in His divinity.
You claim “the New Adam is conceived consubstantially from the Father and the Mother.” This is simply not true. Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father—not created or co-conceived by the Father and Mary. The incarnation happened through Mary, not from Mary in any divine sense. Luke 1:35 says: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” This is not a mutual consubstantial conception involving Mary. Mary is not part of the divine Godhead.
You suggest “the Holy Spirit is consubstantial from the Father through the Mother for the Son.” This has no scriptural foundation at all. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and is sent by the Son (John 16:7)—but nowhere does Scripture say He proceeds “through the Mother.” That is not logic, Stephen, that is invention.
You write that Christ is “consubstantial with all mankind.” This also confuses categories. Hebrews 2:14 says, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” Christ shared in our humanity—He became like us in all things except sin (Hebrews 4:15)—but this does not mean He is “consubstantial” with us in the divine sense. To use that term for all mankind is to collapse the distinction between Creator and creature, which Scripture carefully preserves.
You lament that the Holy Spirit is called a person and not a “Spirit Family.” But Scripture plainly teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person—He speaks (Acts 13:2), teaches (John 14:26), intercedes (Romans 8:26), can be lied to (Acts 5:3–4), and can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Nowhere is He described as a family or a maternal figure.
Your concern about Mary not being called the “Mother of the Son of Man” also misunderstands the titles. Jesus referred to Himself as “Son of Man” dozens of times, and it is clear from the Gospels that He was born of Mary (Luke 2:7). But calling Mary “Mother of the Son of Man” is not used in Scripture, not because it is false, but because it is unnecessary. She is called “the mother of Jesus” (John 2:1). We affirm that Christ is both the Son of God and the Son of Man—fully divine, fully human—without creating confusion in the Godhead or elevating Mary beyond her role.
Stephen, I urge you to come back to the simplicity of the Word of God. You say we must think logically—but the first step of sound logic is starting with true premises. God’s Word is the only sure foundation. When we speculate beyond what is written, we risk creating a gospel that is no longer the gospel.
Faith is not mindlessness. Faith is trusting the revelation God has given, and Scripture says, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Not by generalizing. Not by redefining the Trinity. Not by inserting a “Mother” into the Godhead.
Stephen, I’m not silencing you—I’m inviting you to measure every word by the Scriptures. That’s the only way to know if your logic leads to truth or error.
Peace to you, but in the truth of Christ Jesus as revealed in the Word.
Johann.
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: What Do Catholics Really Believe About Mary—and Should Protestants Care? ONESTOP THREAD
Hi, Good article
Here are some thoughts
There is man
There is Spirit
From Adam came Eve…and from both come children.
But they are all Adam-> man
Henceforth: Example
From GOD (Holy Spirit)came Wisdom(Mother) and From both Christ(annoiting)
But they are all Spirit
So take for example my statement of the Holyghost being different from the Holy Spirit. These are like places moved in us as we branch out in total faith.
One goes from having the Spirit from God holy spirit (life)
To exercising life- (wisdom) to having the annoiting power of the bodily resurrection, Christ
Just a thought that came from other’s ideals.
Not claiming any truth to it…
So them to (baptise) immerse in the name of the f,s,hg is to baptise into God’s presence. Where we should be operating from
Hi @Corlove13
Claim: “There is man, there is Spirit… But they are all Adam—man.”
Genesis 2:7
וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃
“Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.”
→ Gen_1:26–27; Job_33:4; Ecc_12:7; 1Co_15:45.
The term “man” (אָדָם / adam) refers to mankind, not to the spirit realm. Mankind is distinct from God. All humans share Adamic nature, not divine nature.
Claim: “From GOD (Holy Spirit) came Wisdom (Mother), and from both Christ (anointing)… but they are all Spirit.”
Proverbs 8:22–23
יְהוָה קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז׃
“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old.”
→ “Wisdom” in Proverbs is personified literary style–not a separate divine person. See also Job_28:28, 1Co_1:24.
Colossians 2:3
“In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
→ Col_1:15–17; Joh_1:1–3; Heb_1:1–3.
Christ is not born of “Wisdom” as a separate being. He is the Logos, co-eternal with the Father (Joh_1:1).
Claim: “Holy Ghost is different from Holy Spirit.”
Ephesians 4:4
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling.”
→ Eph_4:4–6; Joh_14:26; Joh_15:26; 1Co_12:4–13.
In Greek, “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are both from Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον (Pneuma Hagion). There is no linguistic or theological distinction between the two. “Ghost” is just an older English rendering.
Claim: “To exercise life is wisdom, to have anointing power is Christ.”
1 John 5:11–12
“This is the testimony, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life.”
→ Joh_11:25; Joh_14:6; 1Co_1:30.
Acts 10:38
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…”
→ Isa_61:1; Luk_4:18; Mat_3:16; Joh_3:34.
The “anointing” is not a separate being. Χρῖσμα (chrisma) is from the Holy Spirit and inseparable from Christ Himself (1Jo_2:20, 27).
Claim: “To baptize in the name of F, S, HG is to baptize into God’s presence.”
Matthew 28:19
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
→ Mat_3:16–17; Act_2:38; 1Co_12:13.
Acts 2:38
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
→ Rom_6:3–4; Gal_3:27.
This is not merely symbolic “presence” language. Baptism into the triune name is baptism into union with the Triune God, according to Scripture.
Final summary in Scripture:
Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
1 Corinthians 12:4–6
“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit… one Lord… one God and Father of all.”
→ Any speculative triad that alters this revealed unity and distinction within the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) must be rejected (Gal_1:8–9; 2Co_11:4).
God bless.
Johann.
The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus was created when the Holy Ghost “overshadowed” Mary.
Mary is NOT the Mother of God, she is the mother of the flesh that robed the Spirit. The human Son of man had a beginning and in fact died. Of course God didn’t die…He rose again, but in a resurrected body.
Brother Johann, I appreciate your desire to honor the eternal nature of Jesus, and I know it comes from a sincere heart to lift Him high. However, we must be precise in our language and rooted in the full counsel of Scripture, not post-biblical theological terms like “eternally begotten,” which stem from creedal developments rather than direct scriptural revelation. The Bible never speaks of the “Son” as eternally begotten or existing as a separate “person” prior to the incarnation. Rather, what did exist from the beginning was the Word—not as a man, nor as a separate spirit being, but as the self-expression of the invisible God (John 1:1). That Word was God, not with God in a way that implies a second divine person, but as God’s own divine utterance, His self-revealing nature.
When John 1:14 says the Word was made flesh, it doesn’t say the Son became flesh. The Sonship began in time when the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20). The man Christ Jesus is the full embodiment of that Word—God’s self-expression made visible, tangible, and relatable. Jesus could say “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) not because He existed as a second person in eternity, but because the eternal Spirit who spoke from the burning bush dwelt fully in Him (Colossians 2:9). Christ’s preexistence is not as the “Son” but as the eternal God who would one day manifest Himself in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
So yes, the flesh began at conception—but the Person who took on that flesh was not eternally begotten, but the one true God manifesting Himself. Not a second divine person, not a created being, and not a pre-existent man or angelic entity, but the eternal Logos—God’s own voice—now clothed in humanity to redeem us.
Thank you for your passion and for desiring to uphold the glory of Christ—but I would lovingly encourage a closer look at the actual language of Scripture, not just what tradition has handed down. The phrase “God the Son” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. It is a theological construction rooted in post-apostolic creeds and councils, not in the words inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Bible speaks of the Son of God, but when it defines what that means, it always ties “Son” to the incarnation—to the man Christ Jesus who was born, conceived, sent, and begotten in time.
According to Luke 1:35, the angel explains exactly why Jesus would be called the Son of God: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The Son is not eternal; the Spirit is eternal (Hebrews 9:14), but “Son” is the title of the man born through Mary’s womb, made of a woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4). The Son is the visible vessel of the invisible God.
If we say that “God the Son” took on human nature, we import the idea of a second divine person—eternally distinct from the Father—who then becomes incarnate. But Scripture never teaches that. It teaches, rather, that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Not another God, not a person beside Him, but the one true God revealing Himself through a fully human life. “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), but again—it says the Word, not God the Son. That Word was not another person but the self-expression, the divine utterance of the invisible Spirit, now stepping into human time as the man Christ Jesus.
The Son is always spoken of in terms of birth, humanity, suffering, death, and obedience (Hebrews 5:8). God as Spirit cannot die, but the Son could, precisely because “Son” refers to the humanity—not to an eternal divine person. Jesus prayed, not as “God the Son” to “God the Father,” but as the fully human Son praying to the Spirit that filled and sent Him.
We must allow the Bible to define its own terms. And when we do, we find a beautiful revelation: the eternal Spirit didn’t send another to do the work—He came Himself in the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6–8). The Son is not another member of a tri-personal Godhead, but rather the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is not God the Son—He is God in the Son. He is not a second eternal person—He is the eternal I AM made manifest as a man.
That’s not just theology—that’s revelation.
Brother–go slow with me here, read carefully and thoughtfully-
The Greek text of the NT does not support the Oneness claim that the Sonship began at Bethlehem, nor that the Logos is merely an impersonal “utterance” of God. Instead, Scripture reveals the Son as preexistent, personally distinct, and eternal, as seen in:
Continuous imperfect verbs for preexistence (ἦν, ὑπάρχων)
Aorist verbs for incarnation and manifestation (ἐγένετο, ἐφανερώθη)
Cross references confirming Sonship before birth (John 17:5, Heb 1:2, Gal 4:4)
To reject the Son’s eternal preexistence is to flatten the text and erase the syntax. It is not a question of later theological terms, but of letting the grammar of the Holy Spirit speak clearly.
“The Word was with God” – John 1:1 (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος…)
John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Verb: ἦν (imperfect of εἰμί) – ongoing, durative action in past time.
The use of ἦν (was) throughout John 1:1–2 denotes continuous existence in the past, not a beginning point.
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν implies more than mere proximity; it is personal relationship. As used also in 1 John 1:2, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (“with the Father”), it conveys distinctness in person and communion, not identity as a mere utterance.
If John had wanted to say the Logos was God (in identity only), he could have said καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεός without πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in between.
“The Word became flesh” ≠ “Son began” – John 1:14
John 1:14
Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν…
Verb: ἐγένετο (aorist middle of γίνομαι) – indicates a change of state, not a beginning of existence.
γίνομαι = “to become,” not “to come into existence.” The Logos already existed (ἦν), and became flesh (ἐγένετο), not the other way around.
This disproves the claim that the Word only existed as an impersonal expression. The Word became human flesh, not started to exist.
Cross Reference:
Philippians 2:6–7 – “existing (ὑπάρχων) in the form of God… emptied Himself… being made (γενόμενος) in the likeness of men.”
→ Two distinct verbs: ὑπάρχων (present participle: continuing existence) prior to γενόμενος (becoming).
- The Son Created All Things – Hebrews 1:2–3
Hebrews 1:2
“…δι’ οὗ (through whom) ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.”
Verb: ἐποίησεν (aorist of ποιέω) – decisive creative act, with the Son as agent.
The Father created through (διά + gen.) the Son, not through Himself. This implies distinction.
The Son is ὃς ὢν (being – present participle of εἰμί) the “radiance of His glory.” This participle affirms continuous, ongoing identity, not a role assumed later.
Cross Reference:
Colossians 1:16 – ἐν αὐτῷ… δι’ αὐτοῦ… εἰς αὐτόν ἔκτισται (created in, through, and for Him) – referring to the Son (v.13).
- Luke 1:35 Does Not Establish Inception of Sonship
Luke 1:35
διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται Υἱὸς Θεοῦ.
Verb: κληθήσεται (future passive of καλέω) – “shall be called,” not “shall become.”
The verb κληθήσεται means He shall be recognized as Son of God because of the Spirit’s action in Mary—not that Sonship began at that moment.
The same verb is used in Matthew 5:9 – “they shall be called (κληθήσονται) sons of God.” Their sonship did not begin then–it was declared and recognized.
Galatians 4:4 – “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman…”
→ The Son was already “sent” (ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) before being born. Hope this make sense–
- John 8:58 – ἐγώ εἰμι and Preexistence
John 8:58
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι.
Verbs:
γενέσθαι (aorist infinitive of γίνομαι) – “came into being”
εἰμι (present of εἰμί) – “I am” (timeless present)
Jesus does not say “I was” (ἤμην) but ἐγώ εἰμι, echoing Exo_3:14 LXX – ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.
If Jesus were only claiming the Father’s indwelling, the grammar would support past tense. Instead, He uses a timeless present, affirming personal preexistence.
Cross Reference:
John 17:5 – “Glorify Me… with the glory I had with You before the world was.”
Verb: εἶχον (imperfect of ἔχω) – “I was having” = continual possession in the past.
→ Christ, speaking as distinct from the Father, affirms pre-incarnate glory.
- 1 Timothy 3:16 Cannot Be Used to Deny Personhood
1 Timothy 3:16
“God was manifested in flesh (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί)…”
ἐφανερώθη (aorist passive of φανερόω) – “was made manifest,” not “began to exist.”
The subject (God) pre-exists the manifestation. This verse confirms incarnation, not origination.
Cross Reference:
1 John 3:5 – “He appeared (ἐφανερώθη) to take away sins…”
→ Pre-existent subject appears in human form.
- Colossians 2:9 – The Fullness Dwells Bodily
Colossians 2:9
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.
κατοικεῖ (present active indicative of κατοικέω) – “dwells” (continually).
The verse does not say the man is the deity, but that the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Him.
There is no conflation of person, but indwelling of deity in humanity.
Cross Reference:
John 14:10 – “The Father who dwells in Me does the works.”
→ Indwelling, not identity or mode.
While I respect your commitment to a Oneness view of God, I cannot in good conscience accept that position in light of the full witness of Scripture. The passages you have cited are deeply valued, but they do not override the clear testimony of numerous others which reveal a Triune Godhead–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct in personhood yet one in essence.
This conviction is not based on post-biblical creeds or tradition,** but on the consistent voice of inspired Scripture. For me, the triunity of God is not a negotiable doctrine. It stands as a foundational truth rooted in the whole counsel of God’s Word.
And in the Nicene creed.
If you’re open to it, I’d be glad to share some reputable sources from a scholar I greatly respect–just say the word, and I’ll gladly send them your way. Freely I have received, and freely I give.
God bless.
Johann.
Brother Johann, I truly appreciate your thoughtful tone and careful engagement. You’re clearly passionate about honoring Scripture and rightly dividing the Word of truth, and that’s something I deeply respect. However, I still believe we must let the whole of God’s revelation—not just Greek grammar—guide our understanding. You mention the continuous imperfect verb ἦν in John 1:1, and I don’t dispute that it indicates the eternal existence of the Logos. But here’s the critical point: the Logos is not synonymous with the Son until the incarnation. The text doesn’t say “In the beginning was the Son.” It says, “In the beginning was the Word.” The Sonship, biblically defined, refers to the incarnation—the enfleshment of the eternal Word (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). That Sonship is a manifestation in time, not an eternal relationship between divine persons.
Your appeal to πρὸς τὸν Θεόν as indicating a distinct person is understandable, but that phrase doesn’t require a second divine person—it can be understood as relational language describing the intimate self-expression of God turned toward His own being. Even in 1 John 1:2, “the life was manifested,” it still centers on the same truth: the eternal life which was with the Father is now revealed in the Son, not pre-incarnate Sonship. This is not impersonal. The Word is not a detached utterance, but the living, active, expressive self-disclosure of the invisible Spirit (Hebrews 1:1–3). And that same Spirit, in the fullness of time, robed Himself in flesh (Galatians 4:4)—not a second divine person sent by another, but the one God manifesting Himself.
So no, I’m not flattening the grammar—I’m reading the grammar through the full lens of scriptural context and divine intent. The Word was with God and was God—not someone else beside Him, but His very own eternal essence made manifest in the man Christ Jesus.
When we say that our word is not separate from us, we’re speaking to a deep, God-ordained metaphor embedded in creation itself—a shadow of the divine reality. Our word is the expression of our invisible thoughts, will, and being. It proceeds from us, yet it is not another person beside us. It is us, revealed. So when Scripture calls Jesus the Word (Logos) of God (John 1:1), this is not merely a poetic flourish. It is a declaration of divine self-revelation. Just as a person’s word reveals their heart, mind, and will, so the Logos is God’s own mind, heart, will, and purpose expressed.
The Word is not external to God or a separate divine agent within God. Instead, the Word is the visible, audible, and incarnate manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). When God speaks, He does not produce a second self—He reveals Himself. That’s why Isaiah 55:11 says His Word will not return void—it is not a tool or assistant, but God in self-action. The Logos is not some secondary divine being, but God’s own self-disclosure, which is why John 1:1 doesn’t say the Word was a god or with another god—but that the Word was God. This makes perfect sense if we understand Logos as God’s self-expression.
And just like our word becomes audible through breath (spirit) and sound (body), God’s Word became flesh through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is that Word made tangible (John 1:14). He is not a second divine being eternally seated beside another, but the one true God made known in human form (1 Timothy 3:16). The Son is the office, the role, and the means through which the Word (Logos) is revealed—not a pre-existent Son beside the Father, but the Father revealed through flesh.
Therefore, to suggest that the Word is a distinct person apart from God is like saying a man’s word walks next to him as another being—it’s foreign to both reason and revelation. God’s Word is God going forth, and when that Word took on flesh, we beheld His glory—not the glory of another, but the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
- Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”
- Isaiah 45:21: “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”
- Hosea 13:4: “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.”
Brother Johann, I appreciate the scholarly detail in your reply, but I believe it highlights an important distinction that still upholds the Oneness view when rightly framed. The presence of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν in John 1:1 doesn’t require a separate person, but reveals relational expression—God’s own Logos turned toward manifestation. In Greek, πρὸς can denote intention or communion, but that does not demand personhood independent from God’s own being. The Logos was not with God as another alongside Him, but rather was God—His own self-revealing expression, not a separate “Son” or person in eternity.
When John says ho Logos sarx egeneto, the use of ἐγένετο (became) rightly indicates a change of state—but the question is not whether the Logos preexisted (it certainly did), but whether the Son did. Scripture never says the Son was made flesh; it says the Word was made flesh. That’s a critical distinction. The Logos preexisted because it is the eternal God—His mind, will, and voice—not a second co-eternal person. The Son began when the Word took on human nature by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35). The humanity of Jesus is what began at Bethlehem, not His divine source.
As for Philippians 2:6–7, yes, Christ existed in the form of God and then took on the form of a servant—but this doesn’t demand a preexistent Son-person. It affirms that the eternal God (who already existed in glory) willingly humbled Himself by becoming man. The Greek participles support preexistence of divine nature, not of a separate Son person. Likewise, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16 describe creation through the Logos—God’s own wisdom and power—not a second divine agent. That creative activity becomes associated with the Son only retroactively because the man Christ Jesus now embodies the fullness of that Logos (Col. 2:9).
So the activity of God through the Word is rightly attributed to the Son now revealed—but that doesn’t mean the Son existed as such before Bethlehem. Rather, God who is Spirit (John 4:24) was always the one working through His Word. The Son is the visible expression of the invisible God (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15)—not a second eternal person, but the eternal God made knowable and redeeming in time.
I want to approach this with humility and clarity, because I believe our discussion centers not on denying Christ’s eternal divinity, but on distinguishing what Scripture actually reveals about the timing and nature of the Sonship. The issue isn’t whether Jesus, as the manifestation of God, is eternal—He is. The issue is whether Sonship, as a role or title, existed in eternity past or began in time through incarnation.
Regarding Luke 1:35, the verb κληθήσεται (“shall be called”) absolutely carries a future recognition—but the key phrase is “therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The word “therefore” (διό) links the cause of His Sonship directly to the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and the conception in Mary. The Son is not recognized as such because of a pre-existing status; He is called the Son because of the incarnation. There’s a clear causal link. Unlike the declarative use in Matthew 5:9, Luke’s use is not just recognition—it’s origin. No Scripture ever says the Son took on flesh; it says the Word became flesh (John 1:14). The Word preexisted—not the Son as a distinct person.
Galatians 4:4 does not say “the Son was sent from heaven to be incarnated.” It says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,” implying that the Son who was sent was made of a woman. The sending forth was not necessarily from a preexistent position, but from the divine plan being enacted in real time through the incarnation (compare Romans 8:3). God sending His Son is not evidence of the Son’s eternal existence—it’s the sending forth of the incarnate Christ into His redemptive mission.
As for John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am,” the phrase speaks to Jesus’ identity as the one true God—the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. But notice—He does not say, “Before Abraham was, the Son existed.” He says “I AM,” identifying Himself with the divine being of the one true God, not asserting the eternal existence of a second person in the Godhead. The Spirit of God that dwelled in the man Christ Jesus was the same Spirit that spoke to Moses, and this is what Jesus was affirming.
John 17:5 must also be read carefully. The glory Christ speaks of is not proof of a separate preexistent person. In the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus often speaks prophetically in a way that anticipates the finished work of the cross (cf. John 17:4). He prays to be glorified with the glory He had—not as a second person—but as the very Word of God, now robed in flesh, anticipating the return of that glory once the veil of flesh is lifted through resurrection and ascension. The “glory” was not something shared between two divine persons—it was the eternal Spirit’s glory that was about to be revealed fully in the resurrected Christ.
So again, I affirm that Jesus is eternal—not as the “eternally begotten Son,” but as the Logos, the self-expression of the one true God. The Sonship began at a moment in time—when God manifested Himself in flesh to redeem mankind. That’s not a denial of Christ’s deity; it’s a Scripturally precise understanding of how the invisible God became visible and what that manifestation means.
And this is where it becomes clear, brother–one of us is mistaken. We’re both reading the same Scriptures, yet arriving at very different conclusions. After this, I believe it’s best we leave the matter, as continuing further would be a fruitless exercise.
John 1:1 – The Logos is not the same as the Son?
Modalist claim: “The Logos is not synonymous with the Son until the incarnation.”
Rebuttal:
The Logos is personal and eternally distinct, not an impersonal attribute. The verb ἦν (imperfect active indicative of εἰμί) used thrice in John 1:1—ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος—denotes continuous existence prior to and independent of creation. This is not a verbal abstraction but a personal subject (“ὁ Λόγος”) who is both eternally “with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) and is God in nature (Θεὸς ἦν).
That the Logos is personal is confirmed in John 1:3, where it says, πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο (“all things came into being through Him”). The pronoun αὐτοῦ is masculine and personal, not neuter. An impersonal utterance cannot create all things. Compare Hebrews 1:2, where it is said of the Son: δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας (“through whom also He made the ages”).
Hence, to separate “Logos” from “Son” is unsustainable.
The NT uses these terms interchangeably: John 1:18 – μονογενὴς Υἱός (or Θεός, depending on manuscript) ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός—“the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”—ὢν (present active participle of εἰμί) denotes continuous existence, prior to the incarnation.
- πρὸς τὸν Θεόν – Is this just relational self-reflection?
Modalist claim: “πρὸς τὸν Θεόν doesn’t require a second divine person–it describes the self-expression of God turned toward Himself.”
Rebuttal:
The phrase πρὸς τὸν Θεόν does not suggest internal reflection but face-to-face personal communion. The preposition πρός with accusative denotes movement or orientation toward another. It is used similarly in Mark 6:3, “ἔρχεται πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ” (“He came **to His own country”*)–a direction toward another place or person.
Compare 1 John 1:2 – ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα—again using ἦν and πρὸς, denoting a continuous relational existence between “eternal life” (identified with Christ) and “the Father.”
This language mirrors interpersonal distinction, not introspective monism. The same preposition appears in John 13:3 – πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ὑπάγει (“He was going to God”)—clearly distinguishing between two persons.
- John 1:14 – Was it the Word, not the Son, made flesh?
Modalist claim: “The Word became flesh, not the Son. Sonship began at incarnation.”
Rebuttal:
This is semantic hair-splitting and contradicts internal scriptural usage. John 1:14 – ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“The Word became flesh”)-indeed, it does not use “Son” here, but compare this with Galatians 4:4 – ὁ Θεὸς ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (“God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under law”).
The participle γενόμενον is from γίνομαι (to become), and is aorist middle participle indicating a state that began in time, i.e., the human nature. But the phrase God sent forth His Son implies pre-existence prior to that birth. You cannot “send” a person from God who does not yet exist.
See also Romans 8:3 – τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (“sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”). Again, πέμψας (aorist active participle of πέμπω) indicates a sending from preexistent status.
- Hebrews 1:3 – The Son is the radiance and exact imprint of God
Modalist claim: “The Word is not another person but the self-expression of the invisible Spirit.”
Rebuttal:
This misunderstands Hebrews 1:3 – ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ–“Who being the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.”
Note the present participle ὢν again—denoting continuous existence.
The term χαρακτήρ (from which we get “character”) means exact imprint—used for images struck from a die. It implies personal distinction from the original, though of the same essence. This is not the language of mere functional manifestation, but of real distinction in essence and personhood.
5. Isaiah 43:11 and Oneness Proof-texts – “There is no Savior besides Me”
Modalist claim: “God said there is no Savior besides Him; therefore, Jesus is not another person but the same person.”
Rebuttal:
Isaiah 43:11 – ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν πλὴν ἐμοῦ σωτήρ (LXX). This affirms monotheism, not unipersonalism. The same YHWH who says this sends His Son in the NT. This is resolved in Titus 2:13 – τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”).
This verse identifies Jesus as the one divine Savior prophesied in Isaiah—without denying His distinction from the Father (cf. John 17:1–5).
- The Word as “a man’s word” analogy
Modalist claim: “The Word is not a separate being; just as a man’s word is not another person.”
Rebuttal:
This is a category error. Human analogies fail at the level of divine ontology. The Word of God created all things (John 1:3, Col_1:16; Heb_1:2). Your word has never created a universe. Moreover, the Word in Revelation 19:13 is named ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ and is clearly the glorified Christ, a person riding a white horse.
Analogies cannot flatten clear distinctions in inspired Scripture.
So–let’s end this here brother.
The Logos is eternal (John 1:1), personal (John 1:3), and distinct from the Father (John 1:18), yet fully divine (John 1:1c). The Son is not merely a role played in time, but the eternal, divine person who took on human nature (Philippians 2:6–8). All three persons–Father, Son, and Spirit–act in distinction but perfect unity (Matthew 3:16–17; John 14:16–17).
To deny the personal preexistence of the Son is to depersonalize the gospel and reject the plain grammar of the New Testament.
Let’s bring this discussion to a close, brother–it’s clear we’re not making any headway.
Shalom.
Johann.
I’ll leave you with this on the Deity of Messiah brother,–and Oneness versus Triune Godhead.
God bless.
Johann.
Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.
Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Jhn_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Jhn_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Jhn_1:1, Jhn_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12.
But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Jhn_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Jhn_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mrk_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Jhn_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Jhn_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Jhn_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
A.T Robertson
▣ “was” (thrice) This is an IMPERFECT TENSE (cf. John 1:1,2,4,10) which focuses on continual existence in past time. This TENSE is used to show the Logos’ pre-existence (cf. John 8:57-58; 17:5,24; Col. 1:17). It is contrasted with the AORIST TENSES of John 1:3 (i.e., creation), 6 (i.e., John the Baptist, and 14 (i.e., the incarnation).
▣ “the Word” The Greek term logos referred to a message, not just a single word. In this context it is a title which the Greeks used to describe “world reason” and the Hebrews as analogus with “Wisdom.” John chose this term to assert that God’s Word is both a person and a message. See Contextual Insights, D.
▣ “with God” “With” could be paraphrased “face to face.” It depicts intimate fellowship. It also points toward the concept of one divine essence and three personal eternal manifestations. The NT asserts the paradox that Jesus is separate from the Father, but also that He is one with the Father.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TRINITY
▣ “the Word was God” This VERB is IMPERFECT TENSE as in John 1:1a. There is no ARTICLE (which identifies the SUBJECT, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 66) with Theos, but Theos is placed first in the Greek phrase for emphasis. This verse and John 1:18 are strong statements of the full Deity of the pre-existent Logos (cf. John 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Jesus is fully divine (i.e., the grammatical rule related to two NOUNS with a linking VERB and only one PRONOUN. One must assume the ARTICLE makes both defiite, “Sharp’s Rule”), as well as fully human (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). He is not the same as God the Father, but He is the very same divine essence as the Father.
SPECIAL TOPIC: MONOTHEISM
SPECIAL TOPIC: DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE OT
The NT asserts the full Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but protects the distinct personhood of the Father. The one divine essence is emphasized in John 1:1; 5:18; 10:30,34-38; 14:9-10; and 20:28, while their distinct persons are emphasized in John 1:2,14,18; 5:19-23; 8:28; 10:25,29; 14:11,12,13,16.
SPECIAL TOPIC: FATHERHOOD OF GOD
1:2 This is parallel to John 1:1 and emphasizes again the shocking truth in light of monotheism (cf. Deut. 6:4-6) that Jesus, who was born around 6-5 B.C., has always been with the Father and, therefore, is Deity.
John 1(thrice,therefore%2C%20is%20Deity.
Anyone interested in learning more about biblical hermeneutics–just reach out, and I’ll gladly share the links to the Bible software I use.
God bless this community.
Johann.
Thats what I meant…There
Yes He can possess…In the same way the seed Christ was in Abraham’s loins, The same way woman was in Man.
I didn’t say Christ was a Separate anything.
Yes, wisdom is personified that’s where part of the ideal came from in trying to think about how what I thought about Stephen’s Family Trinity anology could make sense.
Either everything came from the father or it didn’t
And who is in Christ according to Colossians?
I’ve heard that. But there is a difference. For example: When Abram’s name changed to Abraham…was He still a man? And there was only one of Him. So how you took it, is not how I meant it.
The way to the father is through the Son..And the father is in the son, Hence the definition of eternal- that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have SENT.
I don’t believe I said annoiting is a separate being.
What I said was:
One goes from having the Spirit from God holy spirit (life)
To exercising life- (wisdom) to having the annoiting power of the bodily resurrection, Christ
I don’t disagree…Nor did I mention it as a symbol
In some ideals I gathered I picture it may have looked like this:…water baptism going down and literally coming up into the presence of God; The Holy Trinity…HOWEVER it might have been, truly looking to our Help and not to ourselves is an open way of doing what baptism Is symbolizing
And so the will of God is..(don’t quote off my head) that everyone that looks to the son and believes will have life and be raised on the last Day.
1 Like
Great! I mean, that is sweet.
Yes, He can possess–because everything comes from the Father if we take Scripture at its word.
1 Corinthians 8:6 says:
“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
This means the Father is the ultimate source, but He works through the Son in everything. That doesn’t lessen Christ’s divinity—it just shows how they relate.
You mentioned the woman being in the man—that’s actually a great comparison.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8:
“For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.”
And just a few verses later he adds:
“As woman came from man, so now man is born of woman, and all things are from God.”
So the idea of something coming from another doesn’t mean it’s less important or made later. It’s about relationship, not rank.
When you said Christ wasn’t a “separate anything,” I get you—you’re not splitting the Trinity, just trying to explain how Christ comes from the Father while still being one with Him.
That lines up with early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, who said the Son came out from the Father like a flame comes from a flame—not divided, just shared.
As for the wisdom in Proverbs 8—yes, many saw that as a poetic picture of Christ.
The Greek Old Testament says:
“The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways.”
But that word “created” there is often used for “appointed” or “set in place.” Like in Psalm 51, where David says,
“Create in me a clean heart, O God.”
He doesn’t mean “make me from nothing,” but “shape me, appoint me.” So Proverbs 8 is more about showing how Wisdom (and maybe the Son) was with God from the start, not that He was created like a creature.
Now, Colossians–who is in Christ?
Let’s look:
Colossians 1:16–17 says:
“All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
That means the whole universe is sustained by Him–He’s not just a part of it, He holds it together.
Then in Colossians 2:9–10, Paul says:
“In Him the whole fullness of God lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in Him…”
So we are in Him because He fills us, just like He fills everything with life and purpose.
You’re right—Christ isn’t “a separate anything.”
But He does come from the Father. Jesus said in John 16:28,
“I came from the Father and have come into the world.”
And in John 8:42,
“I came from God and now am here. I did not come on My own; He sent Me.”
So yes, everything truly comes from the Father—but not apart from the Son.
The Bible shows us this pattern again and again: all things are from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18).
Different roles, one divine essence.
I appreciate your thought process–it’s clear you’re thinking deeply and trying to fit it all together. I’m glad to keep working through it with you.
My apologies then @Corlove13.
Maybe I should read slower, again, my apologies.
And yes, that makes sense. It starts with receiving the Spirit from God–that’s life.
As that life grows, wisdom begins to operate–that’s learning to walk in the Spirit.
Then, in Christ, that life matures into power–the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead now lives in us.
Romans 8:11 says:
“If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, He will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who lives in you.”
So it’s a movement:
Spirit → Wisdom → Resurrection power—all found in Christ.**
Correct you are–
It may have looked something like this: going down into the water, dying to self, and then coming up into the presence of God–into the life of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Even if we don’t fully know how it worked back then, what matters is this: looking to God for help, not trusting in ourselves. That’s the heart of what baptism points to.
And yes, the will of God is just that—Jesus said,
“Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.” (John 6:40)
It’s not about figuring it all out–it’s about trusting the One who saves.
All good? And thank you for your time in “slogging it out” with the Greek, well done!
Stay strong in Messiah.
Johann.
1 Like
Friends:
Sound exegesis insists we try, best we can, to understand what the original speaker meant to the original hearers, and what the original hearers understood by what they heard. I posit that to a first century Jew, “Son” had a connotation that we do not fully appreciate in 21st century Christianity. (My culture uses the word “son” to indicate progeny, and little else.) As I understand, (and I’m open to correction) “son” connoted “likeness”; not necessarily (or primarily) likeness in appearance, but encompassing likeness in character, thought process, worldview, purpose, being, deportment, etc. Sort of what we mean when we say “He’s a chip off the old block”, or “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. The expectation of the son was that he would represent the views of his Father; the son was seen as a reliable extension of the father. The son spoke for the father, and the son’s words often carried the same weight as if his father was speaking it directly. So, I suggest it carries the meaning of “that from which I proceed implies that which I represent”. It is in this light that Jesus refers to himself, and is referred to as both Son of man, and Son of God. “Son” here carries the strong idea of “representative”, as in “if you have seen me, you have seen The Father” (Jn. 14:9).
I strongly agree with @SincereSeeker when he reminds us of what the elite of the day were hearing by Jesus wearing his sticky nametag “son of man” around the temple grounds.
The local-leadership’s in-depth familiarity with that specific phrase from Daniel’s vision must have evoked enraging reactions; their blood would boil as they ingested the double-entendre of his personal appellation. But one could bring no hammer against it, there was no cause for caustic accusation against someone innocuously calling themselves a “son of man”. Jesus’s linguistic acumen would make Churchill seem like a school boy with a bad stutter.
Even so, “The Truth” only spoke the truth, only displayed the truth, and only wielded the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the unassailable truth. We do not forget that The Truth was the very creator who fashioned man in HIS image; He is the original, we are the replicants. “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” “Behold what manner of Love the Father has bestowed on us, that WE should be called the sons of God”. Behold what manner of Love the Father has demonstrated to us, that He should valiantly wear the humiliating title of extreme condescension, “son of man”.
May our thanksgiving overflow through our tears of gratitude.
KP
2 Likes
Got to give this a “like”
Johann.
@SincereSeeker, I was going to respond to this thread, but I discovered that you have already expressed my words well. Thank you for your excellent post that took the words out of my fingertips! 
1 Like