7/22/2022 0 Comments Oneness V. TrinityFirst Opponent Skunk: I'd like to invite Daniel (or anyone else of the same persuasion) to the stand, to testify concerning the doctrine of the Oneness of God. Could we find from the Old Testament and the New Testament definite passages that either affirm or oppose the doctrine that says God is only one Being with no paradoxical interpersonal relationship within Himself? And conversely, could we find from the OT and NT definite passages that either affirm or oppose the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. God is "One yet Three;" God is One yet paradoxically Three distinct Persons)? Daniel: Okay, so I’ll go ahead and bust out the big guns with this one… lol Joel 2:27-29 records the words of Yahweh God: “You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God and there is none else. And my people shall never again be put to shame. And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. Peter applied this passage of Scripture to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost(Acts 2:1-4, 16-18). So the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the one Yahweh God of the Old Testament. Since there’s only one Spirit, obviously the Spirit of Yahweh must be the Holy Spirit. Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5, and Acts 2:33 also makes it clear that Yahweh in Joel 2:27 is actually the Father. And in the same verse, He declares that He is God, and there is none else. If Yahweh is the Father, then the numerous verses throughout scripture where Yahweh declared that He is God alone or by Himself would actually mean the Father is alone and by Himself. Seeing as that means there is no one else that could be called God aside from the Father, this flips the trinity on its head. Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 of course say that the Father is our God. Yes, this is usually an argument used by Untitarians, however this perfectly aligns with Oneness theology, as we believe that Jesus is the Father, Yahweh, the one true God, incarnate, not a separate divine person. There are also several Old and New Testament verses that reveal Jesus is Yahweh God, but we should all believe that, so I won’t go into all of those. Skunk: Allow me to respond to your argument from Joel 2, which I believe to be your only plausible argument for the Oneness position. Yes, God is indeed one. It is the national confession of Israel in Deuteronomy 6:4. “Yahweh is our Elohim, Yahweh is one.” Yes, Joel 2:27 declares that there is no other Elohim than Yahweh. It is affirmed in other places, such as Isaiah 45:5, “I am Yahweh, and there is no other. Apart from Me, there is no Elohim.” In other words, the biblical view of God is monotheism: there is only one true, eternally existing God. But... is Yahweh denying the existence of other elohim (i.e. supernatural beings in the spiritual realm), or... is Yahweh declaring that He is the only supreme One among all elohim, that all the other elohim is nothing in comparison? The reading of the OT reveals that it is the latter that Yahweh states. The Bible uses the word “elohim” when referring to demons (Dt 32:17), gods of the nations (1Ki 11:33), heavenly beings (Ps 82:1). In fact... Isn’t arguing for the existence of other elohim other than Yahweh precisely how Jesus claims that He Himself is Yahweh and more than a man? In John 10, the monotheistic Jewish leaders (who in fact conveniently ignore their own contemporary view of “plurality within the Godhead” from their own Bibles) charge Jesus of blasphemy because He said, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus then quotes Psalm 82 to show that there exists other legitimate supernatural beings called elohim other than Yahweh, in order to say that He is valid in claiming to be a supernatural being, an elohim. Then… He takes one more step, and makes it clear that He is not just any elohim. He is “set apart” by the Father, He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. I believe Jesus cannot make any clearer that He is inseparable from the Father, and yet… not the same as the Father. In other words, He is Yahweh, and yet distinct from Yahweh. This self-declaration of Jesus should have fit perfectly with the Hebrews’ biblical understanding of the Trinitarian paradox surrounding Yahweh. Daniel: I would say your argument would have a leg to stand on if Yahweh wasn’t being specific in the verse by saying He is “the LORD(Yahweh) your God”. That automatically gives Him distinction above other Elohim as the most high Elohim, which you actually pointed out. There’s no disputing that there are other Elohim mentioned in the scriptures, you and I agree on that. But there’s only one most high. And again, He says there is none else. If this is specified as the Father in the New Testament, then the Father is the most high God, and there is none else that could be considered the most high God. The only way Jesus could be the most high would be if He claimed to be the Father as well. If there’s any distinction between Jesus and the Father in that verse, then it’s the distinction between the divine nature of the Father and the humanity found in the Son. Most Oneness Pentecostals would use John 10 as the go to for proving that Jesus is the Father incarnate, so I think you would have to prove how there is a distinction between divine persons in that chapter. I also noticed you had not touched on the fact that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh, or as the New Testament points out, the Spirit of the Father. That alone should flip the trinity on its head. Also, I wasn’t aware that the strict monotheistic Jews in Jesus’ day practiced a trinity. I somehow feel that would have been a foreign concept to them. Skunk: 1. The doctrine of the plurality within Godhead was the commonly accepted doctrine, because it was so clear in their Hebrew Bible, until the second century AD when the religious leaders made it a heresy (or so the story goes), so that they stop losing their congregants to the Christian faith. If you were to talk to a first century Hebrew, he would explain to you how there is mysterious "second" Yahweh from the Scriptures, and how their Messiah claiming to be God yet not the same as the Father does not violate their monotheistic view of Yahweh. 2. Yes, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Yahweh (Isaiah 63:14), the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20), the Spirit of Christ (1Peter 1:11). And this is true. There is no issue for Trinitarians in believing that the Holy Spirit shares the same divine nature with the Father and the Son. And you would think the Holy Spirit disproves the doctrine of the Trinity if those isolated passages are all you read. But then... you would be ignoring (or forced to wrongly interpret) passages that clearly speak of interpersonal dynamic between three distinct Persons: Luke 24:49; Acts 1:1-4; 2:33; these passages which you mentioned. So does John 15:26 among many. This clearly shows that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son, and that the Son is distinct from the Spirit and the Father. I know you are appropriating these passages for the Oneness position, but a normal exegetical reading of these passages (without the presupposition of Oneness) would indicate the interpersonal dynamic between the Three. 3. Jesus is fully Yahweh, and paradoxically fully Man. And in John 10, as I said, He quotes Psalm 82 to claim that He is Yahweh... He argues for the existence of other elohim than Yahweh, one of which is Him. Yet, He says He is unlike any elohim, as the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, and He says that "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father," meaning the Father and the Son are one, yet distinct from one another. NO WHERE in the passage (or anywhere in the Bible) does Jesus claim that He is Father incarnate. As for recognizing the interpersonal dynamic, I believe that all you have to do... is read the texts without the Oneness presupposition. 4. Yes, there is only one Yahweh. The biblical view is monotheism. Yet, the Bible also points to the plurality within Yahweh both in the New Testament, as we have seen, and in the Old Testament. This is an extra correction: Contrary to what you said, Acts 2:33 actually makes it clear that it is Jesus, exalted to the right hand of God, who is Yahweh in Joel 2:27-29. Daniel: I. Do you have any citations for ancient Jews believing a plurality in the Godhead? This is literally the first time I’m hearing about it, and I’m kind of getting “Constantine did it” vibes from what you’ve said… lol. And for all I know, this could have stemmed from a point in time when Israel was being stupid, or some Kabbalah teaching. II. Luke 24:39 is literally just Jesus telling the disciples He’s not a ghost, but alive. He’s not saying that He’s not the Holy Spirit. If you’re going to going to use that to prove Jesus isn’t the Holy Spirit, then to be consistent you would have to say He’s not God, per John 4:24. Likewise, Acts 1:1-4 doesn’t specifically draw a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I would also hate to use Acts 2:33 as a trinitarian proof text, because if you’re using it to show three distinct divine persons, then one of them needed to be exalted, which more or less destroys the notion of them being coequal. This is talking about the man Jesus receiving a glorified body, and the power of God, which is what “sitting at the right hand” is signifying. It’s not Jesus sitting on a giant invisible hand, or Jesus at the right hand of the invisible Father(which is subordinationism, anyway). I would also like to point out that Jesus is receiving the Holy Spirit from the Father and pouring it out on people, meaning that the Holy Spirit is the Father’s Spirit. The same goes for John 15:16. Of note is the fact that Jesus essentially admits to being the comforter in John 14. And I could say the same thing about passages being looked at from a trinitarian presupposition. Presuppositions can’t be avoided in discussions like this. Instead of calling each other out on looking at a verse with presuppositions, let’s just try to prove the other person wrong. If you think that I’m wrong about my point of view, then prove it. think that would make this discussion more conducive. III. I understand what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure that this refutes my argument. How is recognizing that there are other “gods” signifying that there are multiple divine persons in the Godhead? It seems to me that He’s simply dumbfounding them with scripture. We both agree that Jesus is Yahweh, but I’m not seeing a distinction of divine persons. He’s not even saying He’s one of them in that verse. If you are referring to the fact He calls Himself the Son of God, I don’t disagree with the distinction between the divine nature of the Father and the human nature the Son possesses, but that’s the only distinction. Their divine nature is the same. You also literally quote John 10:38, referring to the incarnation, yet you don’t think the Bible refers to Jesus being the Father incarnate. Also, I don’t worry about the interpersonal dynamic, because I understand the dual nature of Christ. IV. Yes, there is one Yahweh. And unless you can point to scripture that describes God as a trinity of persons, then I guess we’ll see if the Old and New Testaments actually point to a plurality😉 Also, correction to your correction: yes, Jesus is the one that pours the Spirit out, but almost every scholar worth his salt will tell you that the “promise of the Father” refers to Joel 2:27. The fact that Jesus is the one pouring the Spirit out only enforces God’s oneness, since it’s the Father that made the promise of pouring His Spirit out, yet Jesus is the one doing it. Skunk: 5) My re-correction of your supposed correction of my initial correction: I am not interested in stacking up the number of scholars who are in favour of our respective positions. That is an invalid argument from authority by virtue of their unquestionable expertise, in lieu of actual substantial evidence from the only authority, the word of God. In other words, I object to the validity of any argument put forth by someone who demands all their words to be the final arbiter in any argument simply because of his title as an "expert," or in this case, "scholar." Let's take another look at Acts 2 and Joel 2. The "promise of the Father," which Jesus clearly indicates as the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:4, is referred to in Joel 2:28,29. And Acts 2:33 clearly indicates that it is Jesus who is Yahweh of Joel 2:27. At the same time, John 15:26 indicates the Holy Spirit is from the Father. Now... Does that mean that Jesus is the Father, and the Father is Jesus, as the Oneness position claims? Or... Does that mean that the Father and the Son are united in one purpose and one will, WHILE being two distinct entities? I believe Acts 2:33, which testifies of Jesus, "having been exalted to the right hand of God..." clearly speaks contrarily to the notion that the Father is the same person as the Son. One person cannot be at the right hand of himself, and Peter clearly does not intend to communicate this logical impossibility to his Hebrew audience (I believe the Trinity, on the other hand, is a valid paradox, because the Bible, both OT and NT, clearly testify of the reality of "One yet Three"). 3) As I said, the very fact that the Scriptures point to the existence of other "elohim" provides a legitimacy to Jesus' claim that He is an "elohim," and a son of "elohim." And after this, Jesus claims to be a unique son of Elohim, the one who shares the divine nature of His Father (John 10:30,36,38). Clearly, Jesus refers to His Father as a separate Person, the One who is not Jesus. Now... you say that you do not see an interpersonal dynamic between the Father and the Son, because you believe that Jesus is fully God and paradoxically fully man? I too believe that Jesus is God and Man, but I believe it is impossible to dissect the person of Jesus into His two natures. Jesus is holy God and sinless Man. Jesus believes, thinks, feels, and acts as God... and Man at the same time, and there is no conflict between His natures... ever (especially in the garden of Gethsemane, which shines forth the Son's perfect love for the Father). Yes, Jesus has two natures, hence He is God incarnate. His two natures do not mean that He is two Persons; it means that He is one Person with two natures (the divine and the human). Now, if in the midst of your effort to assert the Oneness position that you ill-advisedly bifurcate Jesus and make Him into -- for lack of a more apt comparison -- a multi-personality disorder patient who thinks of himself as an embodiment of multiple distinct persons within himself (the human Jesus, the divine Father, and the divine Spirit), I would say that you have left the land of any proper observation of the clear interpersonal dynamic with the Father that Jesus constantly speaks of, and treading on the dangerous ground of arbitrary interpretation (i.e. eisegesis) about the very nature of God. You would perhaps aggressively disagree with this comparison, but there is no other way to understand the implication of the Oneness view which misinterprets the two natures of Jesus as two Persons within Jesus, especially in light of the fact that Jesus prays to the Father. I affirm that the Bible testifies of Jesus as truly God, and paradoxically truly Man at the same time (John 1:14). And I assert that Jesus, despite His two natures (divine and human), is one Person in Himself. Thus, when Jesus refers to the Father or the Spirit, Jesus is not referring to Himself. To show you that the "Son" is not referring to the human nature of Jesus (but in fact to the divine nature of Jesus) and that the "Father" is not referring to the divine nature of Jesus (but in fact to a Person other than Jesus), I give you... John 17:5, which testifies of the eternally shared glory between the Father and the Son before creation, and... also the entire first chapter of Hebrews 1:1-14, which testifies of the Son who co-created the universe with the Father, who shares the same glory with God, who sustains all things by His word, who is called the firstborn (i.e. Preeminent One), who has pre-existed prior to incarnation, whom God then brought into the world, and who sat down at the right hand of God. 2) Please refer to my verses again. You have referred to wrong verses. I mentioned Luke 24:49 (Not Luke 24:39); John 15:26 (Not John 15:16); Acts 1:1-4; 2:33. The Son's exaltation to the right hand of the Father (as testified to by Stephen in Acts 7:55) is the exaltation of the entire person of Jesus to His rightful place, and the Son's return to the place where He was in eternity past: right next to His Father. Yes, the eternal Father-Son relationship implies authority-subordination role distinctions within the Godhead (John 5:19; 5:30; 8:42), but the Bible is also careful to communicate the mystery of their unity and the co-equal status between the Persons of the Godhead: interpersonal love (John 5:20), mutual honour (John 5:23), one shared authority to give life and to judge (John 5:21,27), one shared will and one shared power and one shared glory (John 5:30; 10:30; 17:5). Therefore, the Son, by virtue of His Sonship, is subordinate to the Father, but paradoxically is united with the Father (and the Spirit) in purpose, glory, and power and is no less divine. One obvious illustration to prove that subordination does not mean the Son's nature is less than divine is the earthly relationship between a father and son; the fact children are to submit to their parents (Ephesians 6:1) does not make them less of a human. I object to your invalid corollary that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father (John 15:26) must mean that the Holy Spirit is the same Person as the Father; the Holy Spirit is described as a Person sent from the Father, not the Father Himself. I object to your misinterpretation of John 14:16. John 14:16 indicates Jesus is a Helper, but not the same Helper as the Holy Spirit. Jesus clearly says that the Father "will give you another Helper." I assure you that my accusation against you of interpreting various passages through your "Oneness presupposition" is not to insult you. I whole-heartedly agree that simply accusing the other side of eisegesis does not constitute a valid argument against their position; that is a basic rule of any debate. Yes, both of us claim that the other side is approaching the Bible with an unfair presupposition, and both of us are trying to prove our position and disprove the other side. Please allow me then to prove my charge against your unfair approach to the Scriptures. So far, you have put forth Joel 2:27 (to which I added Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5) in order to claim that the Bible supports the Oneness position. As I already said, no Trinitarian denies that Yahweh is one, that there is only one true and living God who has existed eternally. At the same time... Trinitarians are Trinitarians, because they go on to read more passages about the nature of God which the view that says that God is only one singular Person does not entirely capture, such as the NT passages that we have already looked at. Thus, the Trinitarians believe that they cannot explain away the obvious interpersonal dynamic between three Persons; they accept both the doctrine of monotheism and the doctrine of three distinct Persons of the Godhead, because they recognize that both doctrines are biblical. Simply denying the obvious evidence of the interpersonal dynamic of Three Persons in the NT passages does not automatically prove the Oneness position. In fact, simply refusing to acknowledge the paradox indicated by these passages will rather be a confirmation that the Oneness position is a denial of the biblical text rather than a derivation from it. 1) and 4) I don't know what you mean by "'Constantine did it' vibes," but it sounds like you are ready to mischaracterize my answer even before you hear it, or explain it away by relegating it to "a point in time when Israel was being stupid." The Hebrews recognized in Jesus' times the paradox of "One yet Three" Yahweh from their own Bibles. Thus, it was not jarring for them to hear Jesus speak of God as three distinct Persons (Matthew 28:19). From their own Bibles, Hebrews would read these passages to signify "One yet Two" Yahweh: 1. In order to punish Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, Yahweh rains down brimstone and fire "from Yahweh" out of heaven [Ge 19:24]. In recounting the same event, Yahweh mentions how He overthrew Israel "as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah" [Amos 4:11]. 2. Right before Abraham is about to slay his son Isaac in obedience to God, "the messenger of Yahweh" intervenes from heaven, and says, "... now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me" [Ge 22:11,12]. 3. Jacob recalls a vision he had to his two wives, saying, "The messenger of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob... I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me...'" [Ge 31:11-13]. Several chapters ago, it is Yahweh who appears to Jacob in a vision at Bethel, it is to Yahweh that Jacob makes a vow [Ge 28:13,20-22]. 4. Jacob gives his patriarchal blessing to his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasseh, saying, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the messenger who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads..." [Ge 48:15,16]. Thus, "the messenger" is equal to God. 5. Moses has his very first encounter of his life with the divine. "The messenger of Yahweh" appears to Moses as a self-sustaining fire "from the midst of a bush." Moses comes closer to get a better look. "When Yahweh saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush..." [Ex 3:2,4]. 6. At Mount Horeb, Yahweh speaks to Moses, "Behold, I am going to send a messenger before you to guard you along the way... Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him" [Ex 23:20,21]. And the name of Yahweh is synonymous with all that Yahweh is and His very presence [ref. Dt 12:5,11 where the name signifies Yahweh's presence; Ps 20:1,7 where the name means God's power; 2Sa 6:2 where the ark of the covenant is called by the name, hence the very representation of God's throne; Is 30:27 where the name signifies God's vengeance]. This messenger of Yahweh who has the authority to forgive or punish transgressions [ref. Ps 51:4 in which David acknowledges all sins are against God alone], who is the name of Yahweh, is unmistakably Yahweh Himself. 7. The messenger of Yahweh gathers up the sons of Israel and appears to them at Bochim, and says, "I brought you up out of Egypt... and I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you...' But you have not listened to my voice..." [Jdg 2:1-2]. Again, Yahweh sends to disobedient Israel a prophet who relays a message from Him, saying, "Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, 'It was I who brought you up from Egypt and brought you out from the house of slavery... But you have not listened to My voice.' " [Jdg 6:8-10]. 8. The messenger of Yahweh sits under a tree that belongs to Gideon's family. The messenger appears to Gideon and greets him, "Yahweh is with you, O mighty man of valour." Gideon responds with a strong disagreement and believes that God has forsaken Israel to be destroyed by the hostile Midianites. Then... "Yahweh turned to him and said, 'Surely I will be with you, and you shall smite Midian as one man.'" Then Gideon wants proof that it is Yahweh who speaks with him, so he says, "Please do not depart from here, until I come back to You, and bring out my offering and lay it before You." Yahweh permits him. So doubting and timid Gideon goes ahead, and does his thing to prove to himself that Yahweh is speaking to him. "Then the messenger of Yahweh put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the messenger of Yahweh vanished from his sight." Then Gideon becomes terrified that he has indeed "seen the messenger of Yahweh face to face." And Yahweh assures him that he will not die [Jdg 6:12-22; ref. Ex 33:20 where God warns Moses that whoever sees His face will die (Gideon did not die because God did not really show His face)]. 9. Yahweh shows Zechariah a vision of future Jerusalem, finally safe from all enemies, And "thus says Yahweh of armies, 'After glory He has sent Me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye... Then you will know that Yahweh of armies has sent Me. Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst... I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Yahweh of armies has sent Me to you...'" [Zec 2:8-11]. Daniel: I and IV. So first off, I want to say I’m not trying to mischaracterize your argument. But without going into too much detail, what I mean by “I’m getting Constantine did it vibes” is me trying(and failing) to be funny and say that the Jews believing in a plurality and changing their minds to oppose Christianity sounds like a conspiracy theory… which is why I asked you for citations, so you could show me why it’s not. It didn’t help that you added “or so the story goes” when explaining it… Unfortunately, I forgot to specify what type of citations, and you gave me Old Testament passages. Not that there’s anything wrong with giving me scripture, because after all, scripture is sufficient(2 Timothy 3:16). But I can explain those verses. What I was looking for was historical proof for when the departure of plurality happened, post scripture. Again, that’s my fault for not specifying. If you have any citations regarding when the departure from plurality in the Godhead happened, I would like to look into them. That being said, I can explain the scriptures you have listed, if you want. II. It would appear I did refer to the first two verses incorrectly. My bad😅 Again, understanding the dual nature of Christ plays a part in understanding the distinction between the Father and the Son. I have no problems with either Luke 24:49 or John 15:24. And of course, I’ve already given a response to the ones I got right… lol. As for the exaltation of Christ, the problem is if one divine person is exalting another, the first person would actually have to be greater than… not equal with… the second person in order to exalt him. And if the second person were preexistent and coequal, why would He need to be exalted? If He ever lost His exalted status, how was He still deity? When it comes to the subordination of Christ, the issue is that you are trying to say that the many verses that imply subordination are used to describe distinct divine persons. I have no problem with Christ in His humanity being subordinate to the Father, but once again, when you try to take two people who are supposed to be coequal and use those verses to imply they are distinct persons, you detract from the deity of Christ. You in effect destroy your own doctrine. You can object if you want to the fact that the Father is the Holy Spirit, but there’s honestly too many verses that prove your objection false. I can prove that just by sharing parallel verses in the gospels. Matthew 10:20 says that it’s “the Spirit of the Father” speaks in us, yet in Mark 13:11 and Luke 12:12 it says the Holy Spirit will. What am I expected to believe? That the writer’s of the gospels casually left the other person out? That’s absurd. They are clearly talking about the same divine person. And again, John 15:26 is pointing to the fact that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father, because the Holy Spirit is His Spirit. Also read… Romans 8:11 with Acts 2:24 and Ephesians 1:17-20, 3:16, 1 John 3:23-24, 1 John 4:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-12, 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Matthew 12:18, Isaiah 42:1-8, and 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8. That’s not even counting all the comparisons. There’s so many arguments for this case, but this post is going to be long enough, so we should move on. Though, for the sake of argument, what makes you see a distinction of persons in John 15:26, anyway? And you can also object to the fact that Jesus is the Holy Spirit if you want, but there’s also a few verses here that would prove that objection false as well. Since all of Christendom confesses that Jesus is Lord, and II Corinthians 3:17 plainly identifies the Lord as the Spirit: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Bible also describes the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ,” “the Spirit of his [God’s] Son,” and “the Spirit of Jesus Christ”(Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19). The way that Christ dwells in our hearts is as the Holy Spirit(Romans 8:9-11; Ephesians 3:14-17). Also, “another Helper” simply means a difference in form or relationship. In other words, Christ in Spirit rather then flesh. To point out, there’s a difference between a presupposition and eisegesis. A presupposition is an assumption made beforehand, while eisegesis is an interpretation based on personal bias with no evidence. Reading Matthew 28:19 out of context could be a presupposition for a trinitarian, while trying to use Genesis 1:26 would be eisegesis. However, I don’t think I said you didn’t believe in one God. In fact, I’m actually shocked that you’ve not given me a reason to accuse you of tritheism yet, since most of the trinitarians I debate tend to veer into that lane. Actually, just from reading your replies, I would say you lean more into the Oneness doctrine more then you probably care to hear😅 I mean no insult, naturally. I also used Joel 2:27 to merely point out that there isn’t multiple people in the Godhead. I would say that if you are coming to the conclusion that I said that you reject monotheism, maybe that is a personal conviction? It’s just a thought. Again, I mean no insult. The issue with “acknowledging the paradox” is that I would be acknowledging a paradox… which, in itself, is either a contradiction or an apparent contradiction. Why would I acknowledge something that is potentially contradictory and can’t clearly be explained, when I’ve found a doctrine that brings harmony to scripture? Again, you’re more then welcome to prove this wrong, but it just makes more sense then a paradox. I’m not even sure what theological grounds you have for rejecting the oneness doctrine, at this point. III. Does Jesus refer to other Elohim? Yes. Does Him mentioning He’s the Son of God prove He’s a distinct person from the Father? No, and again, the reason is because of the dual nature of Christ. I agree that they share a divine nature. But the divine nature isn’t separated into persons, and the human nature had to be distinct from the divine nature, which is the only way the Son was distinct from the Father. That being said, through His human nature, He did have a interpersonal dynamic with the Father. I think scripture is clear about that. If I’ve told you otherwise, I misspoke. And Christ did have unity in purpose with the Father. In John 17:21-22, Jesus shows this unity. However, this is through His humanity, as He’s praying, and God does not need to pray. However, there are many passages that go beyond just unity and purpose, and show that Jesus is the Father incarnate. We can’t obtain that kind of oneness because the passages speak of deity. When Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, He was talking about being God, as immediately afterward, the Jews tried to kill Him. Jesus also said “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father”. No matter how United we are with God or anyone else, we can’t say “If you have seen me, you’ve seen my friend/wife/dad.” In His humanity, Jesus is one with the Father in unity and purpose, but in deity, He’s one in identity, God manifested in flesh. And I totally agree. His dual natures doesn’t mean He’s two persons. But when we look at what Christ is doing in scripture, we must decide if it describes His deity, His humanity, or both. Also, when Christ speaks, we need to determine if it’s from His position as a human, as God, or as both. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a theological mess, and possibly detracting from the deity of Christ. I don’t hold that He’s a “psych patient that talks to Himself”… lol. The prayers of Christ only indicate a distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed from His humanity, not His deity. Hebrews 5:7 tells us that Jesus needed to pray only “during the days of His flesh”. In fact, that’s the only thing that makes sense, because if Jesus was talking to the Father out of His deity, then Jesus would be inferior in deity to the Father. Even if you decide not to walk away from the trinitarian doctrine, I hope you at least see how the arguments for the trinity tend to detract from the deity of Christ if actual thought is put into it, and maybe you can find better arguments for the trinitarian doctrine😅 If Jesus is speaking as a second divine person in John 17:5, then He’s not coequal to the Father, and in fact inferior to Him, much like I pointed out. Jesus would be a divine person who was lacking in glory, who needed the Father to give Him glory, and who asked the Father for help. Jesus wouldn’t be omnipotent, but lesser in glory and power than the Father. In short, Jesus would not possess some of the essential characteristics of deity. Contrary to the rest of Scripture, He would not truly be God. If we acknowledge that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh as the Bible teaches(I Timothy 3:16), then we must also affirm that as God He always had divine glory, never lost it, and never needed anyone else to give it to Him. And I’m going to be honest, I’m confused as to how Hebrews 1 translates into a trinitarian proof text. If you don’t mind, could you point out where specifically? I would rather you show me then to assume what you are referring to and misrepresent your point and scrape egg off my face. V. You said that Acts 2:33 points to Jesus being separate from the Father. Again, if this is the case, you have one divine person being exalted when, by definition, God doesn’t need to be exalted. It makes more sense for the humanity of Christ to be exalted while He remained God. In that sense, this does not prove a trinity of persons. And of course, you know my position on the right hand of power. Unless I didn’t actually explain that😂 feel free to correct me then, and I will. I hope I covered all your points. If I didn’t, let me know and I’ll try to give a quicker response to cover them. Also, if the Son is Yahweh in Joel 2:27, doesn’t that make the Spirit being poured out His? Skunk: The distinction between Eisegesis and Presupposition... Well, you are right that there is a distinction between the two (just as there is a distinction between the Father and the Spirit, I might add). Presupposition, in our context, is an unfounded assumption of a person due to his own bias or misinterpretation of a biblical text itself, while eisegesis is the very act of misinterpreting a biblical text by reading it through the lens of the presupposition. I suppose I was synonymously referring to "eisegesis" and "presupposition" as one and the same without denying the distinction between their meanings (as the biblical authors would interchangeably refer to the Son and the Spirit as one and the same, while acknowledging their Persons being distinct from one another, I might add). Simply put, when approaching a text, one must engage in an honest exposition, and understand what the author is trying to communicate. If one approaches a text with a set of presuppositions, then he would be committing eisegesis. Regarding: Joel 2:27... I well understand that you appropriate Joel 2:27 for the "Oneness" position (which I am going to start calling "Oneness-Pentecostalism" for the sake of clarity). But there is nothing in Joel 2:27 (or any other passage that testifies to God's singular supremacy above other elohim) that disproves the doctrine of the Trinity. As I already said, no Trinitarian denies the Oneness of God, that is, monotheistic view of God. But if you insist on claiming that Joel 2:27 disproves the Trinitarian position, then I am going to charge you with an obvious eisegesis. Otherwise... I hope we both acknowledge that Joel 2:27 testifies to the Oneness of God, which we both accept. Passages for the Oneness of God... Yes. Yes... and Yes. (Mt 10:20; Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12) Mt 12:18; (Jn 10:18; Ac 2:24; Ro 8:11; Eph 1:20); Ro 8:9-11; 1Co 2:10-12; (1Co 3:16; 6:19; 2Co 6:16); 2Co 3:17; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:14-17; Php 1:19; 1Th 4:8; 1Jn 3:24; 4:13 are all passages that testify to the Oneness of God. Yes, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of the Father, is the Spirit of God, is the Spirit of Christ, is the Spirit of the Son. May there be no misunderstanding: Trinitarians whole-heartedly affirm the Oneness of God. All these passages which you mention prove that the Holy Spirit is one with the eternal Father and the eternal Son, and that they all share one glory and one nature. On the other hand, these passages which you yourself mention pose a clear threat to Oneness-Pentecostalism. How are you ever going to convince anyone that the "another Helper" in John 14:15 is the Father? As a Oneness-Pentecostal, you cannot even make sense of the fact that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as the Spirit of the Father, since you believe the "Son" refers to the human nature of Jesus and the "Father" refers to the divine nature of Jesus. According to Oneness-Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit cannot be the Spirit of the Son, and at the same time be the Spirit of the Father. Regarding: The claim that the "Father" and the "Son" are the two natures of Christ... You cannot, as a Oneness-Pentecostal, claim to believe in the "inter-personal" dynamic between the Father and the Son when you reject that they are two distinct Persons. The Bible does not allow you to believe that there is only one divine Person, and at the same time make sense of the interpersonal dynamic that clearly transcends the incarnation. Does not the very concept of Father-Son relationship self-evidently demand an intimate, loving relationship between two distinct Persons (Jn 5:20; 14:31; 17:24)? Is not the Son called the Son because He shares the same divine nature as the Father (Jn 1:1, 5:26; 17:5)? Does not Scripture repeatedly say that the Son was sent by the Father into the world, meaning the Son is a Person who has existed prior to being sent (Jn 5:24; 5:36; 8:42)? Allow me make a definite statement, to which we can hopefully agree: The two natures of Jesus are not two distinct Persons within Jesus. The two natures of Jesus refer to the fact that the person of Jesus is both divine and human. Yet, Jesus is one singular Person. Period. Let me be more clear. You have absolutely no interpretive basis to claim that every passage, which shows the interpersonal dynamic between the Father and the Son, rather shows that the two natures of Jesus are in communication with one another. Natures do not talk to one another. Persons do. When Jesus speaks, the God-Man speaks. When Jesus prays to the Father, the God-Man prays to the Father. In John 12:28-30, Jesus clearly means to communicate to the crowd that He is not the Father by praying to the Father and receiving the Father's voice from heaven (not His own voice), the voice which "has not come for My sake, but for your sakes." You say you have found a harmonizing doctrine that negates the need for the Trinitarian paradox of "One yet Three" (which you do not define, but I reckon it is this fallacious doctrine that says the "Father" is the divine nature of Jesus, while the "Son" is the human nature of Jesus). At this point in our discussion, this doctrine is clearly found to not arise from the Scripture, but in fact a nonsensical speculation concocted in order to force the Oneness-Pentecostal presupposition unto the biblical text as an act of eisegesis. Regarding: Distinction of the Persons in John 15:26 (and every other passage which refers to the interpersonal dynamic)... Since I am convinced that the aforementioned doctrine of the two natures is nonsensical, I have no other choice but to acknowledge the paradox of the Trinity. But you have not given any adequate argument for how a Oneness-Pentecostal can adequately make sense of Luke 24:49, John 15:26, Acts 1:1-4, or Acts 2:33. Again, a simple denial is not an explanation that disproves the Trinitarianism. An insistence on the legitimacy of Oneness-Pentecostalism, based on eisegesis of select passages that testify to the Oneness of God, does not equate to a valid argument against Trinitarianism. My mention of the Jewish Trinitarian prevalence in Jesus' times... My reason for referring to the historical interest regarding Jewish view of Yahweh in Jesus' times is to correct the disappointing mischaracterization of the doctrine of the Trinity as the invention of the fourth century, when it has been at least one of the prevalent Jewish views even in the first century. I will not speak about them in detail, because 1) I am just learning about the prevalence of the Trinitarian view also, and 2) if I am to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is the inescapable conclusion drawn from the exposition of the Bible that so many Jews recognized in Jesus' times, then proving from the Bible itself is where my effort should be. But you could do the research yourself (ref. Philo of Alexandria, Memra of the Targum, a book called "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal). You claim that you, as a Oneness-Pentecostal, can explain my nine OT passages that testify of interpersonal dynamic between the distinct Persons prior to incarnation. But... you haven't explained. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"... In John 14:9, Jesus claims to be of the same nature as His Father. This claim is consistent with all His other claims about Himself that He has made throughout His ministry: that He in fact is God. Testifying to the Son's inseparable oneness with the Father yet His being distinct from the Father, Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 says that the Son is the replica of the invisible God, the exact imprint of God's essence, the very radiance inseparable from God's shining glory. On the other hand, a Oneness-Pentecostal would read, "He who has seen the human nature of Me has seen the divine nature of Me." This Oneness-Pentecostal "Son" is contrary to the biblical Son who is eternally pre-existent, who shares the nature of God in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3. Hebrews 1... Instead of asking me to interpret it for you, you should read it for yourself and explain to me who the Son is. The questions to help you track your study is: 1. Through whom has God made the ages? 2. Who is the same representation of God's nature? Who is the radiance of God's glory (in the same way the sunbeam is the radiance of the sun and is synonymous with the sun, yet distinct from the sun)? 3. Who sat down at the right hand of God on high (being distinct from God)? 4. Who is the firstborn, the heir of all things, who is then brought into the world? 5. To whom does Psalm 45:6,7 refer to, according to verse 8,9? 6. To whom does Psalm 102:25-27 refer to, according to verse 10-12? 7. Who sits at God's right hand until God makes whose enemies a footstool for whose feet? Additionally, in Acts 7:55, who is the singular Person who stands up at God's right hand? Addressing the more egregious Pro-Oneness-Pentecostal presuppositions... 1) "God does not need to pray." Yes, I get it; you are a Oneness-Pentecostal. However, you simply do not have any biblical support for this presupposition. When you read that Romans 8:26,27 says that the Holy Spirit intercedes for the believers according to God's will, or that Romans 8:34 says that the risen Jesus intercedes at God's right hand for His people, you would have to explain away the interpersonal dynamic through yet another complex Oneness-Pentecostal machination. 2) "We need to determine whether it is God or man speaking whenever Jesus speaks. Otherwise, we find ourselves in a theological mess and risk denying Christ's deity." Maybe you need to do that in order to fit the round peg of Oneness-Pentecostalism into the square hole of Biblical text... but I don't. I acknowledge and worship the person of Jesus as God-Man, who while having two natures is paradoxically one singular Person. And I dare not demean any one of His words as coming from a mere man. As for you, after you carve up the person of Jesus (which is impossible to do) and finish arbitrarily attributing the words of Jesus to either of His two natures and imagine to yourself His two natures conversing with one another, you will be doing the very thing that you do not want to do: denying the deity of Jesus, all of whose words are the words of God. 3) "If Jesus is speaking as a second divine person in John 17:5, then He’s inferior to the Father. Jesus would be a divine person who was lacking in glory, who needed the Father to give Him glory, and who asked the Father for help. In short, Jesus would not possess some of the essential characteristics of deity. If we acknowledge that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh as the Bible teaches (I Timothy 3:16), then we must also affirm that as God He always had divine glory, never lost it, and never needed anyone else to give it to Him." You are right in saying that God cannot lose or be given His divine glory. When the Son became a Man, the Son never ceased being the pre-existent (Jn 1:1), self-existent (Jn 1:4), co-existent God of glory who was with the Father from eternity past (Jn 1:1). But you are being inconsistent in your understanding of "glory," because the Son also "glorifies" the Father. Even 1 Timothy 3:16 says that God who was revealed in the flesh was "taken up in glory." Clearly, glorification does not mean deification. Also, you are misreading John 17:5 in another way; the Son does not ask the Father to give Him glory; He already had the glory from eternity past (at the same time, the Father has given the glory to the Son according to Jn 17:22; this paradoxical language is consistently seen elsewhere, e.g. Jn 5:22,26,27, as I indicated in my argument for the paradoxical subordination of the eternal Son). The "glory" in John 17 is the same "glory" the Son prays for in Jn 12:28; 13:31,32, is the same "glory" that the Son gives to His people for their unity in Jn 17:22 (see this glory given to His people in Ro 8:9,16,17; 2Co 3:18; Eph 3:16,17; 4:3; Col 1:27; 2Pe 1:3,4). The glory is the fullness of God's beauty (His nature, power, and character), the beauty of "grace and truth" (Jn 1:14; 17:6), and the glorification is the manifestation of this intrinsic glory of God, to which His people then respond with reverence and honour. The Father and the Son, in their selfless love and honour for one another, work toward one shared glory. Note that the Father glorifies the Son by appointing Him as the High Priest who takes away His people's sins, and the Son glorifies the Father by accomplishing the work of High Priesthood for His people. Thus, when the Son prays for His glorification, He is seeking the Father's glorification. Now... does the Son's prayer for His glorification mean that He is not God, as you claim? Not at all! Again, the Father Himself is glorified by the Son, meaning that the Son manifests the Father's intrinsic beauty. We have already seen that the Son has, throughout His ministry on earth, made it clear that He is God. We have also seen that the NT writers testify that the Son is God. What the Son's prayer to the Father then means is that the Son loves the Father and only seeks after His Father's will which is His will also. Now... Does John 17:5 show that the Son lacks the divine glory? Not at all! How can the Son possibly be God if He does not have the divine glory? No where in John 17 (including 17:5) does it say that the Son lacks or has lost His intrinsic divine glory, but in fact, to the contrary (Jn 17:22). The Scripture is clear: the Son has never lost or given up His glory in incarnation (Jn 1:14), and it is supported by the momentary revelation of His hidden glory in Mk 9:2,3. Could we both agree that John 17:5, in no uncertain terms, contradicts Oneness-Pentecostalism? Here, the Son prays to the Father, and asks to be glorified "with the glory which I had with You before the world existed." This must mean that, since the Son already had the glory with the Father prior to creation, the Son existed with the Father prior to creation. Regarding: Subordination and Exaltation of the Son... It is disappointing to see that you have not carefully considered my argumentation for the subordination of the eternal Son, and are just reiterating your speculation about the word "subordination" based on the Oneness-Pentecostal presupposition of God's nature. Remember: you have yet to show any biblical basis for your Oneness-Pentecostal presupposition in the first place. In regard to "exaltation," you are again speculating about its meaning based on the unfounded premise. Philippians 2:6-11 tells us that Jesus, who pre-existed in the divine nature, did not cling onto His equal status with God, but "emptied Himself" of all His divine privileges (hid His glory Mk 9:2,3; was given no honour, no love by men Is 53:3; became poor 2Co 8:9; was forsaken by His Father Is 53:10), and humbled Himself and took on the status of a slave (Mt 20:28). Then He demonstrated perfect obedience by becoming a Man through His incarnation, all the way to becoming the Substitute for sinful men, the recipient of the cup of God's wrath (Ro 8:3; Gal 4:4,5; Col 1:22; Heb 10:10-12). But when Jesus accomplished God's purpose, "God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The Father exalts the person of Jesus and makes Him Lord of all, precisely because Jesus is the worthy pre-existent, co-equal God (who is now God-Man). Note that Jesus who was exalted is the person of God-Man. Now... does the relinquishing of His exalted status mean that Jesus is not God? Not at all! Philippians 2:6-11 clearly tells us that the Son humbled Himself by coming down from His exalted status in order to become a slave. But it does not mean that He ceased being God; we have already seen from the Scripture that Jesus is both God and Man. Now... is the Father greater than the exalted Son in some sense? Yes, in some sense (Jn 10:29; 14:28; 1Co 15:27,28). Paradoxically, Philippians 2:6 tells us that Jesus is co-equal with the Father. I have presented this paradox in my argument for the subordination of the eternal Son. Daniel: Regarding presupposition/eisegesis… I feel like we both understand the difference between presupposition and eisegesis, so we can move past that. Regarding Joel 2:27… I can accept that it speaks of God’s Oneness. Though, the rest of our conversation is stemming from this, so I feel we’ll get to the truth once we work through the other points. As it is, it’s a little early to be calling esegesis. But again, I’m not arguing that you believe in multiple God’s. Just because I’m arguing for the absolute Oneness of God, doesn’t mean I’m accusing you of worshiping multiple God’s. I certainly hope you’re not trying to frame my argument as that. We can come back to this point later. Regarding the passages for the Oneness of God… I’m glad we can agree that those passages speak of His Oneness. I assume you’re referring to John 14:16. I’m probably going to use the same verses to convince others that I used on you, to be honest. I pointed out that the Father is the Spirit. You essentially agreed by saying that “the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, *is the Spirit of the Father*, is the Spirit of God, is the Spirit of Christ, is the Spirit of the Son.” Seems pretty clear that the Holy Spirit isn’t a distinct person of the trinity, and any distinction that is made is a difference of form or relationship to us. And actually, it’s not that hard to make sense of it from a Oneness Pentecostal position. Since God is omnipresent, and the Son’s now glorified human body is no longer bound by the limitations of man, then it’s easy to see how the the Spirit of Christ and the Father is the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure why you’re even disagreeing with me, as it seems like you agreed right before you asked me that… Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Oneness Pentecostal’s believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, and therefore is God. Is Jesus God? Then the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. Is the Father God? Then the Holy Spirit is the Father’s Spirit. All the same one God, just in different manifestations. Regarding The claim that the "Father" and the "Son" are the two natures of Christ... The thing is that they aren’t just natures, it was the eternal Spirit of God and the humanity of the Son. Jesus was fully God, but He was fully man. While the Father inside of Him gave Him power(John 5:19, 30, 6:38), He still had limitations of being a man, such as being born, living a human life, and eventually dying, all things that are normally beneath almighty God, but was accomplished because He manifested Himself in flesh. It’s as Jesus said: “The Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak(Matthew 26:41). And Jesus was a human in every way we are except for sin. So first off, John 5:20, 14:31, and 17:24 isn’t proof of distinct persons(Isn’t strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?). What these verses express is the relationship of the man to the eternal Spirit. The Spirit loved the man and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all humanity, and the man Jesus loved God as all people should love God. The Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest Himself as the Son. He loved His Son from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the beginning of time. On the other hand, I’m curious how does the trinitarian solution avoids polytheism and at the same time avoid saying merely that God loved Himself?(not accusing you of polytheism, just wondering how you’d avoid it, calm down😂) The Sonship… or the role of the Son… began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” The Son came in the fullness of time… not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman… not begotten eternally. The Son was made under the law… not before the law(Hebrews 7:28.). The term begotten refers to the conception of Jesus described in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. The Son of God was begotten when the Spirit of God miraculously caused conception to take place in the womb of Mary. This is evident from the very meaning of the word begotten and also from Luke 1:35, which explains that because the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary, her child would be the Son of God. We should notice the future tense in this verse: the child to be born “shall be called the Son of God.” Regarding the verses you used, I agree that the Son and the Father had the same divine nature, as they are the same one God, not distinct persons. And those verses can’t mean that the Son was a distinct person sent from heaven. This isn’t so because many verses of Scripture teach that God manifested Himself in flesh(II Corinthians 5:19, I Timothy 3:16). He gave of Himself, He did not send someone else(John 3:16). The Son was sent from God as a man, not as God: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman”(Galatians 4:4). The word sent does not imply preexistence of the Son or preexistence of the man. John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God, and we know he did not preexist his conception. Instead, the word “sent” indicates that God sent the Son for a special purpose. God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and put that plan into operation. God gave the Son a special task. God manifested Himself in flesh to achieve a special goal. Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus the apostle of our profession, “apostle” meaning one sent in Greek. The sending of the Son emphasizes the humanity of the Son, and the specific purpose for which the Son was born. Yes, I can agree that there are not two persons in Jesus. I can agree that the two natures make him both God and man. However, Jesus’ acting out of His humanity only makes too much sense. If not, then you run into the problems that I have mentioned before, and more. And actually, Hebrews 5:7-9 tells us specifically that Jesus did things from His flesh… His humanity… such as pray, be submissive, and became perfect. But I really would like to learn how you explain that passage, let alone how a divine person in the co-equal trinity 1) prayed to another person in the trinity, without being subordinate, arianistic, or turning the trinity into pure tritheism(again, not accusing you, remain calm), 2) became perfect, when God is perfect by His nature. Again, it only makes sense if we look at that from the lens of His humanity. Also, Jesus isn’t communicating in John 12:28-30 that He isn’t the Father. Jesus Himself says that it’s a sign for the people, not for Him, as you’ve pointed out. Again, this is the man Jesus communicating with the omnipresent Spirit of God. The voice was a witness to the people from the Spirit of God, revealing God’s approval of the Son. I would like to know where God is explicitly described as a trinity of divine persons in scripture. Regarding: Distinction of the Persons in John 15:26(and every other passage which refers to the interpersonal dynamic)... Just because you think that my explanations don’t make sense(or are choosing not to make sense of them), doesn’t mean they aren’t good explanations. You’ve used “paradox” several times to defend your case😂 And it’s not denial, but none of those verses are explicitly describing God as three distinct divine persons. Luke 24:49 describes Jesus saying He’ll send the promise of the Father. John 15:26 says the same thing, but this time Jesus says the Holy Spirit will proceed from the Father. A better translation of the word “ekporeuomai” is “goes forth”, adding to the fact that the Spirit is from the Father. Acts 1:1-4 says the same as the other two. If you want to focus on any of these verses, let’s focus on Acts 2:33, since that one is “showing your three persons”. In this verse, Peter is telling people Jesus is doing what He had promised in the other verses. He’s been exalted to the right hand of God(meaning He’s come into power, not brought to the invisible omnipresent God’s right hand), the now glorified man Jesus then receives the Holy Spirit *from* the Eternal Spirit of God, the Father, and then pours it out. On the other hand, if you’re trying to use Acts 2:33 as proof of the trinity because it shows God in different ways, then to be consistent you would have to include a fourth person, as it shows Jesus exalted to the right hand of God, then it mentions the Father and Holy Spirit. Also, nothing in that verse explicitly teaches that God is three distinct divine persons. Counting to three doesn’t equate to a valid argument against Oneness Pentecostalism, nor does it validate the trinity. Your mention of the Jewish Trinitarian prevalence in Jesus' times... I understand fully well why you’re making that claim… but the fact of the matter is that, even if you could prove the claim, it’s a doctrine that took hundreds of years to fully develop after the last apostle died, and longer to become the standard in Christianity. That’s a historical fact that we can observe just by looking at the writings of the early church. I guess I’m going to read up on it when I have the chance… thanks for pointing it out, I guess? As is, since both of us know little about the subject, we can move past this to the scripture you provided… by the way, I told you I could explain them if you wanted me to, but I’ll be nice and explain them anyway. You’re welcome🙂 I’m going to save time, and just counter the argument for 8 out of the 9 passages you shared all at once, since essentially it’s the same point. In Hebrews 1:1-2, it says that in the ancient times, God spoke through the prophets, but in these last days, He’s speaking through a Son. This wouldn’t make sense if the writer of Hebrews believed that the Son had been speaking to them all along through the messenger of Yahweh or through some other manifestation. Is the writer of Hebrews in error for writing this? No. It’s only in these last days that the Son speaking to us. In verse 5 of the same chapter, God is saying that Jesus *will* be His Son, quoting Old Testament scripture… future tense. If Jesus was showing up as an angel or another manifestation, then He already had the Son, and that Son would have been speaking to us. In Acts 7:30, Stephen is talking about Moses and the burning bush, and he says that it’s an angel. Isn’t Stephen in error for saying that this wasn’t the Son or the Holy Spirit? They had the revelation of both! And since trinitarianism was so prevalent at that time, he should have just called the angel what he supposedly was! But he didn’t. Exodus 33:20 says that you can’t see Yahweh’s face and live. Why would He say that if all Yahweh had to do was send Himself down as the Son, as an angel. That’s just Yahweh, right? I think not. And the angel of Yahweh in the New Testament apparently is nothing more than an angel and certainly isn’t Jesus Christ(Matthew 1:20, 2:13, 28:2, Acts 8:26). Here’s a quote from Ignatius’ epistle to Polycarp, part 3: “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.“ let’s pretend that Ignatius was a trinitarian… if he was, he’s is basically telling Polycarp that the Son was invisible until He became visible through the incarnation, meaning He wasn’t seen beforehand. Let me be clear: the Son did not pre-exist as a second divine person. He pre-existed as the one true God, who had the incarnation foreordained in His mind as the plan, word, and expression… but the manifestation of the Son did not come into being until the birth of Christ. Do I believe Yahweh manifested Himself through His messenger sometimes and other theophanies? Absolutely. In the Old Testament, Yahweh manifests Himself in many ways. But scripture makes it clear that the messenger of Yahweh was not always Yahweh Himself(II Samuel 24:16, I Chronicles 21:15-30, Zechariah 1:8-19), and it’s clear that the angel was not the Son. And honestly, I would like to know how you would believe that Jesus appeared as the messenger of Yahweh while combating beliefs such as what JW’s believe, which is essentially the same thing. Regardless, in no way does that prove a trinity of divine persons. With that out of the way, let’s focus on the scripture that somewhat challenged me… Genesis 19:24 is an example of restatement. Many passages in the Old Testament phrase one idea in two different ways as a literary device or as a means of emphasis. There is no evidence that after God’s temporary manifestation to Abraham He lingered around and traveled to Sodom to oversee its downfall. The Bible only says the two angels went to Sodom. The NIV shows more clearly that Genesis 19:24 merely repeats the same idea in two ways: “Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah… from the LORD out of the heavens.” It’s of note that both statements describe the LORD as one being in one place doing one thing… in heaven, raining down fire. Amos 4:11 is just a method of emphasis as well. Yahweh is the one identifying Himself as the God who overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. We see this continue in verses 12 and 13. Thinking any these verses prove the trinity also requires one to believe in the trinity, and then use circular reasoning that because one believes in the trinity, this is proof of the trinity. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"... Phillip asks Him if He could show them the Father, and Jesus responds with “Have I been with you so long and you still do not know me, Phillip?” He then goes on to say that if you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father, and then He tells them that the Father dwells in Him(How does one divine person dwell inside of another, out of curiosity?). It doesn’t get any more plain then that. That’s more then just sharing the divine nature, He seems to speak as if He is the Father. 1 John 3:1-5 echos this, by telling us that the Father has revealed Himself and will reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. The Son(the incarnation) is the express image of God the Father. I’m not disagreeing with you there. Where I disagree with is that they are two separate divine persons, of course. It’s interesting that you used Colossians 1:15 to attempt to prove a trinity, as the word that is used for image in this verse is “eikōn” in Greek. The word in this instance is being used in the sense of a perfect visible representation and *manifestation* of the invisible object, that being God the Father. It’s also interesting that you used Hebrews 1:3, since you are trying to imply that the Son is separate from the Father, yet He is the radiance of the Father’s glory, and the exact expression of the Father’s substance. I’m unsure how that proves a trinity, since it seems like Jesus has the glory and substance of the Father, not of Himself as a separate divine person. On top of which in order for the Son to be a replica of the Father, that would mean the Father would have to be the original, and the Son would have to have a beginning at some point to start being a replica of the Father. Also, the “Oneness Pentecostal Jesus”, as you call Him, is only contrary from your point of view. The scriptures make it clear in what fashion He pre-existed(that being as God, with the incarnation in the mind plan, and expression of God), and the scriptures you shared make more sense if applied to how we see the Father through the incarnation… which is why both of those verses are a favorite for Oneness Pentecostals. Very creative to try to refute me using them, though. Hebrews 1… Never asked you to interpret it for me, simply asked you to explain how the trinity is present in this chapter. 1. God made the ages through the Son. 2. That would be the Son, but I’ve already pointed out how flawed the logic is to use that to show distinction. 3. The Son, though obviously He’s not distinct from God, otherwise that could mean He wasn’t God. 4. The Son. 5. The Son, as written by the psalmist. 6. The psalmist is talking about Yahweh, and the writer of Hebrews is attributing it to the Son(which would be correct) 7. The Son. I have no issue saying who’s who in this chapter. Again, I’m not seeing a distinction of divine persons, just a distinction between deity and the incarnation. In fact, I see a few problems for trinitarianism in this chapter… 1)It seems very strange that “the predestined Lord of the universe” could have actually created the human ages as the Father’s agent while being “foreknown”(1 Peter 1:20), “predestined”, and “appointed” by God the Father as the one who is the predestined “heir of all things” and who is “appointed over the works of His(the Father’s) hands(Psalms 8:6, Hebrews 2:7). How is it possible for an alleged pre-incarnate God the Son to have been “appointed the heir of all things” if that God the Son was already a coequal ruler over all things to begin with? An alleged coequal God the Son should not have been “appointed over the works of” the Father’s “hands” if the Son as the Son actually did the creating as the Father’s agent in creation. 2)How could God the Father have said to a coequally distinct God the Son(before the incarnation), “Sit at my right hand,” if the Son was already at the Father’s anthropomorphic right hand to begin with? Addressing the more(supposed) egregious Pro-Oneness-Pentecostal presuppositions... 1)If we are following trinitarianism, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are suppose to be coequal, then the Spirit couldn’t intercede for us. An alleged non-incarnate coequally distinct God the Holy Spirit Person cannot intercede to a higher authority above Himself without being a part of the creation. The only sound answer is that the Holy Spirit of the only true God the Father also became a man through descending upon the virgin as recorded in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20. Therefore the indwelling Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus who “is the Spirit”(2 Cor. 3:17). Romans 8:34 goes on to state that “Christ Jesus is he who died… who was raised… at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” The context of Romans chapter eight opens with “the Spirit of God” being identified as “the Spirit of Christ.” “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD dwells in you. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of His.”(Romans 8:9) Now, if Jesus is in heaven, how can He intercede for us? The same way He was able to pray to begin with: because of His human nature. Yes, He was glorified, but He never lost His humanity. He’s just no longer limited by it. 1 Timothy 2:5 proves that the man Christ Jesus is still the only “mediator between God and men” as “the apostle and high priest of our confession” in heaven(Hebrews 3:1). Since the Holy Spirit is interceding for us, we know that the Holy Spirit is the indwelling Spirit of Christ who is our only mediator between God and men. 2)So asking the Father if it’s His will that the cup(crucifixion) pass Him by is Jesus speaking from deity? What about when the Son admitted He doesn’t know as much as the Father?(Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32) Or what about when the Son admitted to not having any power except what the Father gives Him?(John 5:19, 30, 6:38) Or what about when the Son indicated an inequality between the Son and the Father?(John 8:42, 14:28) That all from speaking from deity? Just a few examples, by the way. I’m not trying to “fit a round peg into a square hole”, I’m showing you how your doctrine is flawed. None of the examples I gave hurt my doctrine, but they kill the trinity if these were to be taken as Jesus speaking from His deity. 3) You keep surprising me with your arguments, and it’s refreshing. I actually agree that this isn’t speaking of divine glory. After all, God will not share His divine glory with another(Isaiah 42:8, 48:11), so Jesus wouldn’t be giving the disciples divine glory. I would say He referred to the glory that He as a man received in fulfilling God’s plan of salvation for the human race, the benefits of which He imparts to those who believe in Him. The disciples had already shared in Christ’s glorious, miraculous ministry. Soon they would also share in the glory of His crucifixion and resurrection by receiving the Holy Spirit(I Peter 1:11-12). They would have “Christ in you, the hope of glory”(Colossians 1:27), an experience that would be “joy unspeakable and full of glory”(I Peter 1:8). Through the gospel, people obtain “the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”(II Thessalonians 2:14). By “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus” we have “eternal glory”(II Timothy 2:10). However, I cannot agree with you that this was the Son admitting pre-existence, because things were often spoken in scripture as if they happened before the world was created. Luke 11:50 says that the blood of the prophets was shed before the foundation of the world. Does that mean the prophets pre-existed? Ephesians 1:4 says that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Does that mean we pre-existed? See also 2 Timothy 1:9, Hebrews 4:3, and Revelation 13:8. Scriptures clearly speak of things that were foreordained by God in His plan. So John 17:5 proves that Jesus had glory in the plan of God, and not a separate divine person that co-exited with God the Father. Again, 1 Peter 19-21 testifies about this. Also, why would Jesus ask for glory before the world rather then before the incarnation? Side note: bold move saying that “God” in John 1:1 is the Father. Most trinitarians wouldn’t admit that. I would agree with you: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God[The Father], *and the Word was God[The Father].*” in fact, the Greek understanding of “Word”(Logos) lines up with that idea that the Son was in the thought, plan, and mind of God. Regarding: Subordination and Exaltation of the Son... The issue is that you aren’t actually making a case to counter Subordination or the fact that Christ was exalted, which you admit had to be of deity. Also, I don’t know why you’re saying I’m not using scripture to point out the problems with the trinity, as it appears that your “eternal God the Son” was subordinate, and needed to be exalted all throughout scripture. I’m making a case against your doctrine, and pointing out the subordination and exaltation of an “eternal God the Son” is contradictory to your own doctrine. You’ve realized this as well, which is why you’ve tried to dress those contradictions up as a “paradox”… Philippians 2:6-11 only refers to the limitations Christ imposed on Himself relative to His human life. In His life and ministry Christ voluntarily surrendered glory, dignity, and divine prerogatives. He was in very nature God, but He was also a man and He lived as a servant. The person who was the union of deity and humanity was equal to God and proceeded from God, but lived humbly and was obedient unto death. Obviously you and I agree He didn’t empty Himself of attributes of deity, otherwise He would be a demigod. On the other hand, if this is speaking of an eternal God the Son, then you have some issues… In verse 8, it says that He BECAME obedient… why would it say He became obedient? He wouldn’t need to become obedient, He would have just done the plan… In verse 9, it says THEREFORE(speaking of the condition of His obedience) God highly exalted Him and BESTOWED on Him a name above every name. So not only was there a reason for Christ to be exalted, but God gave Him the name that’s above every name. If this is a pre-incarnate God the Son, why would He be given a name He should have already had as Yahweh? In verse 10, people should have already been bowing to Him as Yahweh. And in verse 11, we see that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father… what about the Son’s glory? I understand that there is different types of glory, but wouldn’t make sense if after being exalted that He received His own co-equal glory? Skunk: Regarding: Joel 2:27... I did not charge you with eisegesis outright. I said that my charging you with eisegesis is conditional on whether you use Joel 2:27 as pro-Oneness-Pentecostalism and contra-Trinitarianism. We are arguing from two contrasting views of a foundational doctrine about God's nature. I am not at all interested in framing our arguments within any other arena than the proper biblical hermeneutic. All I am interested is: what is the proper interpretation? And according to the proper interpretation of Joel 2:27, the passage neither proves Oneness-Pentecostalism nor disproves Trinitarianism. Regarding the passages for the Oneness of God… "Seems pretty clear that the Holy Spirit isn't a distinct person of the trinity..." I am now charging you with eisegesis; you have just taken the passages that testify of the Oneness of God, and appropriated them for your position. You said that the Son refers to the human nature of Jesus. So according to you, "the Spirit of the Son" cannot be divine. You are confused because your position cannot make sense of the fact that the Holy Spirit, who is God, is also the Spirit of the Son. So now you seem to be trying to depart from your own definition of the Son (almost as if the Son is eternal?) to make sense of these passages. Let's be honest: Oneness-Pentecostalism cannot make sense of the Holy Spirit being both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. Regarding The claim that the "Father" and the "Son" are the two natures of Christ... I read your response here, but there doesn't seem to be any biblical refutation to my argument. So what if those passages speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son omit the Spirit? That is your unfounded speculation in order to commit eisegesis. "The Son came in the fullness of time, not in eternity past... made of a woman... made under the law, not before the law... The term begotten refers to the conception..." Now you're committing flagrant eisegesis left and right, trashing all proper hermeneutic. It is very disappointing to see such a careless handling of the word of God, in order to maintain a false view of the nature of God. This interpretation is an intolerably incoherent mess in desperate support of Oneness-Pentecostalism. "I agree that the Son and the Father had the same divine nature, as they are the same one God, not distinct persons." You are not agreeing with me, since I believe the Father and the Son are distinct Persons. So you know the Greek for "sent." So what? Evidently, knowing Greek does not prevent you from committing eisegesis. Again, because John the Baptist and the Son were both "sent," you conclude that they both had to be human. This is another very disappointing case of eisegesis, especially given the entire testimony of John 1. I already have made an argument for the subordination of the Son. If you want to know my defense of the doctrine, please go back and read them. Unlike the Oneness-Pentecostals, I believe the Scripture teaches that Son is the eternal God. Being "made perfect" in Heb 5:9 speaks of Christ's accomplishing the work of salvation to its completion for His people. It is not saying that Christ is deified, as you seem to suggest. You have committed another brazen eisegesis in John 12:28-30. You have even brought in the doctrine of the omnipresence of God to abuse the text. "I would like to know where God is explicitly described as a trinity of divine persons in scripture." Only proper interpretation of the Bible is how you understand the Triune nature of God. When you mishandle Scripture, you cannot know. Regarding: Distinction of the Persons in John 15:26 (and every other passage which refers to the interpersonal dynamic)... Rightly having no choice but to recognize the biblical, infinite paradox due to proper hermeneutic is diametrically in contrast to arriving at an anti-biblical, incoherent falsehood due to a refusal to engage in diligent, honest study of the Bible. It seems that you are having hard time trying to arrive at Oneness-Pentecostalism in your reading of these passages due to the obvious language of interpersonal dynamic. My mention of the Jewish Trinitarian prevalence in Jesus' times... "Trinity is a doctrine that took hundreds of years to fully develop..." I object to your unfounded speculation, which is historically and biblically refuted. "I’ll be nice and explain them anyway. You’re welcome." Should I have been thankful? "Hebrews 1:1-2..." Heb 1:5 quotes two OT passages to show the expectation from ancient times of the birth of the Messiah, and also testifies to the unique Sonship of the Messiah by virtue of His identity as the Son incarnate. Please go back and read the entire chapter of Hebrews 1. It testifies that the Father brings the pre-eminent, unique Son into the world (meaning the Father is not the Son), that the Son is the eternal, changeless God who co-created and sustains the world with the Father. "In Acts 7:30..." God does not yield truths from His word to those who pose an arbitrary criteria on the Bible by which they willfully shield their minds from arriving at the truth. "Exodus 33:20 says... Why would He say that if..." The text is talking about the unprotected encounter with the full manifestation of the infinitely holy God. "Here's a quote from Ignatius' epistle..." I do not know this epistle, and I do not know Ignatius. But is it possible that you are taking a text which is meant to be rhetorical, and analyzing it through your own unfair criteria, disrespecting the authorial intent? "Let me be clear: the Son did not pre-exist..." I understand that that is your claim, but the Bible refutes your claim. "honestly, I would like to know how you would believe..." I showed you already from the OT passages. If you study them honestly without red herrings (e.g. mentioning the existence of other angels), you will see that Yahweh is "One yet Two." You are mistaken: the cult of JWs refuses to believe the Trinity. "Thinking any these verses prove the trinity also requires one to believe in the Trinity..." I disagree. The people who study the Bible would not say that there is an unsolvable paradox unless there is an unsolvable paradox. Non-Trinitarians, on the other hand, would have to depart from the proper, careful hermeneutic, commit egregious eisegesis, create arbitrary criteria, in order to disregard the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"... "How does one divine person dwell inside of another..." Are you arguing from ignorance? That is not okay. As for John 14:10, I have already stated my position previously. This refutes the idea that the Son is the human nature of Jesus. "He seems to speak as if He is the Father..." Do you honestly not see how the Oneness-Pentecostal view cannot make any coherent sense of itself? You said repeatedly that the Son is the human nature of Jesus. Now, you are saying that the human nature of Jesus is the Father. The author of the first epistle of John says, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father." One cannot deny the Son and have the Father, because the Son shares the same divine nature with the Father. Consequently, all non-Trinitarians are guilty of doing this very thing. "The Son(the incarnation) is the express image of God the Father. I’m not disagreeing with you..." You are not agreeing with me, because I am not a Oneness-Pentecostal. Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 both clearly refute your idea about the Son being the human nature of Jesus. "...to be a replica of the Father, that would mean the Father would have to be the original..." That is your own unfounded speculation about the word "replica" from Col 1:15 in shameless disregard of what Colossians 1 says. The "replica" of the invisible God is the Creator of worlds, both in the heavens and on earth. The Son then is not the human nature of Jesus. "...the 'Oneness Pentecostal Jesus' as you call Him..." I do not recall saying such a thing, since such thing does not exist. You think that all the passages of the Bible shared thus far do not compellingly and necessarily testify of the Three Persons within Godhead. I have nothing else to share with you. Hebrews 1… "How is it possible for an alleged pre-incarnate God the Son to have ben appointed the heir... if that God the Son was already a coequal ruler over all things to begin with?" Someone who wilfully rejects the clear testimony of the word of God against all sound hermeneutic will reject all language of interpersonal dynamic within the Godhead. "How could God the Father have said... 'Sit at My right hand'..." Please study what "being at the right hand" means. Addressing the more egregious Pro-Oneness-Pentecostal presuppositions... 1) If you think your point is intact by virtue of your mischaracterization of Trinitarianism, your flagrant contradiction of the passages that I have shared, your unfounded presupposition regarding intercession of the Spirit, then I have nothing else to say to you. Your point however has been refuted. "...Holy Spirit of the only true God the Father also became a man through descending upon the virgin...the indwelling Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus..." Yes, that is called heresy. "he same way He was able to pray to begin with: because of His human nature." This unbiblical idea of two natures within one Person communicating with one another was thoroughly refuted already. 2) "So asking the Father if it’s His will that the cup(crucifixion) pass Him by is Jesus speaking from deity?" You clearly do not understand what the "cup" really is, and how Jesus' revulsion to the "cup" shines forth brightly His deity. Unlike you, I worship Jesus as God who speaks the words of God. "What about when the Son admitted He doesn’t know as much as the Father?" I already gave an answer. "Or what about when the Son admitted to... Or what about when the Son indicated an inequality... That all from speaking from deity?" I already gave an answer. "None of the examples I gave hurt my doctrine, but they kill the Trinity..." I understand that that is the Oneness-Pentecostal position. However, God does not approve of willful disregard of His clear word, and does not look favourably on anyone who speaks contemptuously of His divine nature. I tremble to imagine myself being found in this woeful position on judgment day. 3) "I actually agree that this isn’t speaking of divine glory." I really wish you would stop agreeing with something that I never said. :) On the contrary, I said the exact opposite. "Jesus wouldn’t be giving the disciples divine glory." Glorification is not deification. We are not in agreement. I should edit my definition of "glory" for clarification: The glory is the fullness of God's beauty (His nature, power, and character), the beauty of "grace and truth" (Jn 1:14; 17:6), and the glorification is the manifestation of this intrinsic glory of God, to which His people then respond with reverence and honour. "Luke 11:50 says..." It does not say "before." You are misrepresenting God's word. Ephesians 1:4 has to be understood in the context of the Bible's testimony about the fact that man is a creation whose existence has a definite beginning. Unlike the Son, the earthly imagers of God are the ones who legitimately existed only in the mind of the Father (Ps 139:16). 2 Timothy 1:9, Hebrews 4:3, and Revelation 13:8 all are used as red herrings for your argument against pre-existence of the Son in John 17:5. "I would agree with you: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God[The Father], *and the Word was God[The Father].” Again, you are mistaken. We are not in agreement. I never used John 1:1 to say that the Word is the Father. Please go back, and understand what my position is. "the Greek understanding of “Word” lines up with that idea that the Son was in the thought, plan, and mind of God." That misinterpretation of the "Word" is not at all how his readers would have understood it. Regarding: Subordination and Exaltation of the Son... "you aren’t actually making a case to counter Subordination or the fact that Christ was exalted..." I was not countering. It seems that there is a pattern of your not making much effort to understand my position. "... as it appears that your “eternal God the Son” was subordinate, and needed to be exalted all throughout scripture... is contradictory to your own doctrine... dress those contradictions up as a paradox'" If you carefully read my point here, you will understand that the subordination and exaltation of the Son are inescapable truths. I do not find them contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yes, the seeming contradictions, though they are all biblical, are called paradox. "why would it say He became obedient?" The reason is because the incarnation is a new experience for the Son. I already showed how the Son "became" obedient. "If this is a pre-incarnate God the Son, why would He be given a name He should have already had as Yahweh?" You are asking questions, the answers to which I already provided previously. Please go back and read. "In verse 10, people should have already been bowing to Him as Yahweh." They were already bowing indeed (Is 45:23). But now they are bowing to the person of Jesus who is Yahweh incarnate, who was made Lord of lords and King of kings by God the Father (Ac 2:36; Rev 19:16). "to the glory of God the Father… what about the Son’s glory?" You're asking for answers which have been given already. "...wouldn’t make sense if after being exalted that He received His own co-equal glory?" This has been discussed already. The reason why the Oneness-Pentecostal position has the wrong view of the nature of God is because of the same reason why a certain Trinitarian may have the wrong view of Genesis 1:26... they fail to grasp the comprehensive testimony of the Scripture. And I argue that, as wrong as they are about Genesis 1:26, the nature of God is an infinitely worse thing to be wrong about, for the Triune nature of God is the foundational doctrine that needs to be believed for salvation: that God sent His Son to bear the sins of His people on the cross, and absorb the wrath of God in their place. Second Opponent Ethan:
"Hear, O Israel" One can conclude that the infallible scripture makes a reference to the (assumed) pluralistic deity within the first few mentions. This assumption is drawn from a presupposed notion within Genesis 1:1- “In the beginning God…” The reason for scholars endorsing this to be a reference to the trinity is because “Elohim'' is believed to be the plural form of the word "eloah." Though this pluralistic nature might be linguistically true, it is not solid evidence for conveying a triune Godhead- since elohim is used in most cases to describe a single deity. One rabbi, Maimonides, claims that elohim was homonymous in Genesis 1:1. This developed into a monolatrist worldview, which was later destroyed by Yaweh in Deuteronomy 6:4, but reinforced during the Nicene council, and later the Council of Constantinople. Perhaps Yaweh understood that the Hebrews, freshly delivered out of the bondage of a polytheistic nation, would bring their predisposed ideologies to view Him with. The crux of “Oneness” (doctrine) is found in God’s declaration of Deuteronomy 6:4, stating: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord (jehova) our God (elohim) is one Lord (jehova)." The same plurality is used to reference Yaweh, but the definition is rendered to monotheism. Though the word is plural, its definition is singular. Yahweh exclaimed that He is not plural, He is not divided, and He is not polytheistic- He is one. The aforementioned material is necessary because it provides the framework or “lens” with which we view God. The foundational understanding of Hebraic faith is rooted within “One Lord”. This lens will aid and guide those to better understand and interpret scripture. One cannot attempt to tackle verses such as- Jesus ascending to the right hand, or a heavenly voice from the Father that says: “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased”, without first understanding the basics. Not to mention in great detail, but the Law of First Mention could very well be applied to Genesis 1:1. This gives ample jurisdiction over (seemingly) contradicting verses, and places the Oneness doctrine in a well-guarded position. “Let us” There is another reference found within Genesis that suggests a triune circle of deities. Genesis 1:26 states: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (King James Bible Online, 2018). The obvious point is underlined, which is another plural reference. In a common theological setting this might hold weight, but against anyone who knows their material, this is an extremely weak argument. The “Let us” stands out… but that’s because it stands out! No, the previous sentence is not meant to be confusing, it’s meant to be emphatic. It is the only reference to “us”, versus “He” (or other singular applications), that we find in creation pertaining to God. Before Genesis 1:26 there are three references to “he”, which can be found in Gen. 1:5, Gen. 1:10, and Gen. 1:16. To solidify the singularity, you can read the verses that proceed Gen. 1:26. “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." The formation, or even the support of a doctrine that is ripped out of Genesis 1:26 is a poor and improper use of hermeneutics. The majority overrides the minority, and an exception is not the rule. The seven-to-one ratio uncovered in Genesis completely obliterates the use of Genesis 1:26 as a Trinitarian proof-text. Dismantling Eternal Sonship There is another domain, in which the Oneness doctrine excels. That is, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, which opposes the (trinitarian) Doctrine of Eternal Sonship. Again, this is (allegedly) supported by the pluralistic “elohim” and the “Let us” found in Genesis 1:26, but these have been rendered useless. Before addressing the fallacies within the Eternal Sonship Doctrine, one must clearly define the Doctrine itself. The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead (Jesus, or “God the Son”) has eternally existed as the Son (Swan, 2021). The Oneness Doctrine contends with this theology by presenting John 1:1-14- “(v.1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The author seems to make a subtle reference to Genesis 1:1 by reiterating the same origin: “In the beginning”. This gives contextual clues as to who and what the author is describing. John proceeds to describe the deity in the beginning as “the Word”. But the interpretation doesn’t end there, the Koine denotes “the Word” as “logos”, which is the thought, concept, or idea. Interchanging these definitions will help to grasp the conflict found within the Doctrine of Eternal Sonship. “In the beginning was the concept, and the concept was with God, and the concept was God.” This immediately raises red flags when “logos” is paralleled with an eternally existing Son, especially when you arrive at John 1:14; “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." This is interchangeable with: “And the concept was made (ginomai, or to become) flesh…" How can one eternally exist as the Son, yet become the Son? John 1:1-14 is a proof-text that argues for a point-in-time concerning the incarnation. God was not always the Son, but He did become one. The concept, thought, and idea of becoming the lamb slain was being conceptualized by God throughout the Old Testament. There was a time of manifestation, if you will. A time of unveiling, and unfolding. This is the concept of becoming flesh. Humanity was being incorporated into the Godhead, this was necessary to carry out the fundamentals of a Kinsman Redeemer. Divinity could not redeem us, but it was necessary for “a child to be born, and a son to be given” (Isa. 9:6). Skunk: Hello, Ethan. Welcome to the discussion. Thank you for sharing your understanding of the Scriptures through your paper. Please allow me then to interact with it. In your first point about "elohim" which serves mainly as an invalid straw-man argument against the Trinitarians (I do not use the plural nature of "elohim" as an argument to prove the Triune nature of God, nor do I know of any Trinitarian friends who do), you make one good statement; you say that one cannot attempt to tackle the NT passages without first understanding the basics of the OT. That is surely a valid statement to make, and it certainly applies to our discussion. And I believe that if we truly understand the OT well, we would not be making wrong assumptions such as the one you make: that Israel held to the Oneness view of God since Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Christians also until the Nicene Creed. I believe the Scriptures show that all believers, even before Deuteronomy 6:4, even up to the second century AD, had a clear pluralistic view of Godhead (yet being monotheistic). You mention "the law of first mention" and apply it to Genesis 1:1 which you believe to be a safe haven for Oneness doctrine. If by this you mean, no matter what subsequent passages in the Bible speak about the interpersonal dynamic within the Godhead, that it should be interpreted with the Oneness presupposition because Genesis 1:1 does not mention the Trinity... then you have discarded any meaningful method of interpretation, and are refusing to face all the passages that give context to understanding the nature of Elohim in Genesis 1:1. I hope we agree on this. Your second straw-man argument concerning Genesis 1:26 again poses no threat to the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not consider the "us" Genesis 1:26 as referring to the triune nature of the Godhead. I believe, being consistent with the rest of the OT, God is speaking with a council of heavenly beings to engage their attention to what He (alone as Creator) is about to form: the mankind. You have correctly defined the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Yes, I believe the second Member of the Triune God has eternally existed as Son, as the Father has always been Father, and the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit. Hebrews 1 tells us that the Son has a unique Father-Son relationship to God (unlike the other elohim/angels), and that the Son has eternally pre-existed with the Father before creation, and that the Son with the Father co-created the universe, and that He is the firstborn (pre-eminent One) who was brought forth into the world. Yes, the Son is Yahweh, and yet... the One who sits (distinctly) at the right hand of God, and who interacts with the Father (Hebrews 1:13). Also, yes, God had to become a man in order to become a merciful High Priest (Hebrews 2:17). And... Your third point claims to have dismantled the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you actually believe you make logical sense... You talk about John 1:1, and the "Word," and the Greek word for "Word," But reading the word "concept" in place of the "word" does what exactly? I am afraid you have not demonstrated that you correctly understand why John uses the word "Word" to refer to Jesus. Ethan: Firstly, I’d like to point out that there are MANY trinitarians who attempt to use the “elohim” reference as a defense for their theology. To say that my rebuttal of elohim was an invalid strawman is absurd. I have personally encountered those who hold this position, but it’s easily refuted. Most have learned their lesson on trying to use the plurality of elohim to push their point, but there might still be a remnant who holds fast to this. Gene Cook, who is a trinitarian scholar, used this in a debate against one of our Oneness theologians. Second, I’ll respond to this segment: “And I believe that if we truly understand the OT well, we would not be making wrong assumptions such as the one you make: that Israel held to the Oneness view of God since Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Christians also until the Nicene Creed. I believe the Scriptures show that all believers, even before Deuteronomy 6:4, even up to the second century AD, had a clear pluralistic view of Godhead (yet being monotheistic).” I can tell you with absolute certainty, Jews do NOT have a pluralistic view of the Godhead. You can ask anyone who is a current member of Orthodox Judaism and they will tell you plainly that they’re STRICTLY monotheistic. I can reference literature that was composed by Rabbis about this very subject. I’ll actually argue the opposite, Christians have been strictly monotheistic up until the second century, Nicene Creed, and Council of Constantinople. It was in the second century that views began to shift toward pluralistically focused beliefs (which were done to accommodate the polytheistic culture). My stance is held within the changes of how baptism was conducted. You cannot give me a single example of someone being baptized in the New Testament under the titles “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. The baptisms were done in Jesus’ name, and if they weren’t, then Paul told them that it was absolutely NECESSARY to be re-baptized (in Jesus’ name). References: Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century. Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389. Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Thirdly, my position on the Law of First Mention was merely a reminder, nothing more. It was to inform readers that they should keep the singularity of God in the back of their mind as they continue to read subsequent passages. It is by no means intended to be a trump card, but it definitely holds merit in how we are to interpret (seemingly) contradicting passages such as Genesis 1:26. Now, you’re saying that Genesis 1:26 is a strawman, which is very untrue. Genesis 1:26 has been used in nearly every scholarly debate I’ve watched. I’m glad that you, personally, don’t correlate this with triune motives, but I can assure you that nearly every trinitarian does. This is commonplace for debates, and again, I’ve run into this myself when discussing doctrine with others. Your response about Hebrews 1 is congruent with Oneness theology. Your statement “Yes, the Son is Yahweh”, would be viewed as heresy to an Orthodox Trinitarian. It’s impossible for you to say the Son is Yaweh unless you are Oneness. As a Trinitarian, your theology states the Son is very distinct from Yaweh, hence the Eternal Sonship. But, by your statements in saying the Son has a unique relationship with the Father, but then saying the Son is Yaweh, is very conflicting and inconsistent with Trinitarian theology. Maybe you mistyped, so perhaps you can rephrase and we’ll discuss it. Lastly, my point about John 1:1 is very concise. The Koine for “word” (used in John) is literally “logos”, which is directly defined as “thought, idea, concept”. My interchanging was a cross-reference into English, which helped to convey a bit of imagery with the Doctrine of Oneness. The dismantling comes from the contradiction within the logistics of Eternal Sonship. Trinitarian theology believes the Son has ALWAYS existed, but John 1:1-14 argues that the Son was strictly “logos”, which was merely a thought in the primality of creation. The Son cannot simultaneously exist, and be a “thought, concept, or idea” at the same time. This evidence from John 1 argues that there was a point-in-time for the Son to be “begotten”, if you will, incarnated and given. Skunk: Thank you for your response. 1. First of all, let's completely set your first two points (from your paper) aside in our discussion. I don't know whom you have encountered or what debates you've watched, but their arguments are of no significance to our discussion. You are not having a discussion with them here. I maintain that their arguments from Genesis 1:26 or from the Hebrew word "Elohim" are invalid arguments for the doctrine of the Trinity. I (and many other Trinitarians) do not put stock in those invalid arguments, and I would say that your points against them serve as mischaracterizations of the true biblical support of the Trinitarian doctrine. They are straw-man arguments because your points neither disprove the doctrine of the Trinity, nor prove the doctrine of Oneness. So... unless you are refusing to engage in our discussion about the actual biblical support for the the Trinity, let us set aside the two points as invalid. 2. I really hope, for the sake of sharing a common ground in the basic interpretative approach to Scripture, that we agree that the law of First Mention is simply not a valid approach to Scripture, and simply a convenient way to load up the very first mention with all of one's particular bias and desired connotations. Case in point: there is nothing in Genesis 1:1 to disprove the Trinity or affirm the Oneness position... and yet here you are, having read nothing but the very first verse in the Bible, and already knowing enough to "remind" readers that the singular "Elohim" disproves the Trinity and affirms the Oneness. I believe what should be self-evident to all interpreters of Scripture is that every passage and word must be interpreted in their proper context, which would then help shed light on understanding other mentions of the same word or topic, whether they came before or after. 3. In Ephesus, Paul finds the remaining disciples of John the Baptist who are not yet believers in Jesus. After they believe in the Lord Jesus, Paul water-immerses them, because they have not yet received the water-immersion of the Christian faith (Acts 19:1-7). In Romans 6:3-5, Paul speaks of the spiritual reality (of which the external ritual of water-immersion/baptism is only a picture) of the believer's immersion into Christ, that is, identification with Him in death and resurrection. Paul does not "re-baptize" them, as you claim. The Lord Jesus is the one who commanded His disciples to make disciples of all the nations and baptize/water-immerse them into "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," long before the second century (Matthew 28:19). In light of this fact, it is absolutely nonsensical to assert that the early Christians started baptizing into "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" to accommodate the polytheistic culture. I completely reject the speculation, which is utterly nonsensical in every aspect, that the early Christians were cowardly compromising their monotheistic belief, by repeating the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19, when they were willing to be tortured and killed for their faith in Christ. 4. You can tell me what with absolute certainty? I don't know why you are mentioning the belief of the Jewish people of our current times, when we were discussing the belief of the Hebrew people prior to Deuteronomy 6:4 and up to the second century AD. Israel's historic belief about Yahweh is not the same as their current belief of today, and studying their historic beliefs will show that they had a paradoxical understanding of the nature of God (and rightfully so) that arises from their own Bible. 5. I object to your mischaracterization of the Trinitarian doctrine, that it is essentially anti-monotheism. Trinitarians believe that there is only one eternal God. At the same time, Trinitarians recognize the biblical paradox of plurality within the one God. Christians were monotheistic Trinitarians up until the second century or the fourth century, and endured in their faith through great persecutions. Case in point: Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, who lived in the first to mid-second century, in the account of his martyrdom written down in approximately late-second to early-third century after a series of oral traditions, is recorded to have said prior to his death: "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have known You, the God of angels and powers and of every living creature and of the whole race of the righteous who live in Your presence, I thank You that You have graciously provided, this day and this hour, to allot me a portion among the number of Your martyrs, in the cup of Your Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of body and soul, in the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Spirit. Among them I will be received in Your sight this day as a choice and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the ever-truthful God, have fore-ordained, have revealed beforehand to me and now have fulfilled. Therefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ Your beloved Son, with whom, to You and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Before his death, Polycarp clearly affirms that Jesus and the Spirit are co-equal in nature with God the Father, and yet the Three are distinct Persons from one another. What this means is that the Council of Nicaea, which takes place in the fourth century, was not responsible for the invention of the Trinitarian doctrine, but rather responsible for the careful articulation of the pre-existent biblical doctrine, in an effort to defend it against a contemporary heresy. 6. Reading your response to my exposition of Hebrews 1, I object again to your mischaracterization of the Trinitarian doctrine. I am also suspecting now that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the very doctrine that you were arguing against all this time. If you do not have a correct understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine, then you cannot obviously engage in a discussion about it in any meaningful way. Unless you are deliberately mischaracterizing the doctrine, allow me then to help you understand what the doctrine means. The Trinitarians believe the Scripture which clearly teaches, what they have theologically termed, the doctrine of "the Trinity." They believe that there is only one eternal God who is Yahweh of Israel. At the same time, they believe the paradox that the Scripture presents: the existence of three distinct Persons within the one singular God Yahweh, co-equal in divine nature and power and glory, all of whom are identified as Yahweh. To be concise, they believe in "One yet Three" Yahweh. They believe the Father, the Son, the Spirit is Yahweh, and yet distinct from one another. This seemingly sounds like an impossibility and mathematically conflicting, hence the paradox. The New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, clearly presents the paradox of the interpersonal relationship between the three Persons within one Yahweh. 7. I object to your misinterpretation of John 1:1-14. No where in this passage does it say that the "Word" became "Son." Rather, John 1:14 says that "the Word became flesh," meaning the pre-existent "Word" of John 1:1 became a man, after which we saw the glory of the unique Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. Trinitarians recognize this, and believe that the Son has eternally pre-existed, and becomes a man (not Son) in His incarnation. 8. I object to your translating the Greek "logos" in John 1:1-14 as "idea, concept, thought" in order to assert the Oneness position, that the Son existed merely as a thought/concept/idea in the mind of the Father prior to incarnation. In order to correctly interpret this passage, it is critical to truly understand why the apostle John uses "logos" and what he intends to communicate about Jesus. The apostle John uses "logos," because he is appealing to the fundamental Jewish understanding of what the Hebrew word "word" signifies in their Bible: embodied, visible Yahweh. Therefore, when John says, "The Word was with God and the Word was God," he expects his Jewish readers to understand that he means to refer to that divine "Word" about whom they already know very well from their Bible, and that he means to refer to their Bible's Trinitarian paradoxical view of Yahweh, with which they already are familiar. And when he refers to Jesus as that pre-existent "Word" who became flesh, his readers understand exactly what he is trying to communicate: that Jesus is Yahweh who was with Yahweh for all eternity past. Genesis 15:1,4,5,7... "The word of Yahweh" comes to Abraham "in a vision," which means whoever the "word" is, he must be in a visible form. The word of Yahweh promises Abram a child, and then "took him outside" to make Abram look at the night sky. So this word of Yahweh is not only visible, but also tangible and who physically brings Abram outside. The word identifies Himself as "Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans." Genesis 32:24-30... Jacob wrestles with a mysterious man until daybreak. And the man gives Jacob his new name "Israel," because he has wrestled with God. Afterwards, Jacob named that place "Face of God," because "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." 1Kings 18:31... It is written that "the word of Yahweh" had once come to Jacob, saying, "Israel shall be your name." Clearly, the word of Yahweh is the same as the man with whom Jacob wrestled. 1Samuel 3:1,7-21... "And word from Yahweh was rare in those days, visions were infrequent." Again, word of Yahweh is linked with visions, meaning that the word is a visible phenomenon, not an auditory one. Samuel "did not yet know Yahweh, not had the word of Yahweh yet been revealed to him... Then Yahweh came and stood and called as at other times, 'Samuel! Samuel!'... All Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of Yahweh. And Yahweh appeared again at Shiloh, because Yahweh revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of Yahweh." The word of Yahweh is identified as Yahweh, who physically appears to Samuel. Jeremiah 1:4-9... The word of Yahweh comes to Jeremiah and speaks to him. Then Yahweh carries on the conversation with Jeremiah, and "stretched out His hand and touched my mouth." This word is embodied in a human form. Ethan: Thank you for your time and for your theological edification. I’m very sorry for the late responses. It’s been very busy, and I want to take time in my responses instead of giving you lazy answers. Let me take some time to address a few of these points. In response to your #1, let me quote a few statements from your side of our discourse: “(I do not use the plural nature of "elohim" as an argument to prove the Triune nature of God, nor do I know of any Trinitarian friends who do)”; and you made this statement in regards to: “In your first point about "elohim" which serves mainly as an invalid straw-man argument against the Trinitarians”. You also stated: “I don't know whom you have encountered or what debates you've watched, but their arguments are of no significance to our discussion.”- this is just not true at all. In my B.D. paper, I was tackling a universal view of Trinitarianism. It might not coincide with your personal doctrinal proof-texts, but that’s not the point of my dismantling. The reiteration was in response to (your statement) “which serves mainly as an invalid straw-man argument against THE Trinitarians”, which again, is not true. It might serve as a straw-man against you, but not against the main body of Trinitarians. So to say that it’s of no significance to the discussion is rather contradicting, seeing that you brought up the main body of Trinitarians. Now as for my second response to your #1- “They are straw-man arguments because your points neither disprove the doctrine of the Trinity, nor prove the doctrine of Oneness. So... unless you are refusing to engage in our discussion about the actual biblical support for the the Trinity, let us set aside the two points as invalid.” They might not disprove YOUR view of the Trinitarian Doctrine, but they most definitely disprove the universal view. That being said, we can set the disproval aside since it doesn’t correlate with your beliefs, but that still doesn’t render your latter assumption to be true either. It wholeheartedly proves the Doctrine of Oneness. In a paraphrasal, the seven references to singularity in the Creation Account points toward 1 deity. If all three of the triune beings are eternal, why aren’t they mentioned at the Creation? Not only that, but why is there no reference to them in Orthodox Judaism? As God’s chosen people, don’t you think they would have been told of an Eternal Son, or that there would have been a definitive mentioning of something remotely similar? On the contrary, Jewish belief leans STRONGLY towards a Oneness perspective. Job 9:8 tells us that He ALONE spreadeth out the heavens. Isaiah 44:24 says “Thus saith the LORD (jehovah, not God), thy redeemer (why is the Father calling Himself their redeemer? It seems like a reference to His future incarnation.), and He that formed thee from the womb (again, the Father is saying that HE forms from the womb, so where are the other two?), and I the LORD that maketh all things (but I thought Jesus, the Son, made all things [John 1:3, Col. 1:16], so this is wildly self-contradicting.); that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth by MYSELF (Again, MANY references to a Oneness nature). #2 Again, my reference was mainly a combatant against the universal view of Trinitarianism. #3 Hopefully this isn’t the stance you’re going to take. Saying that they weren’t rebaptized is blatantly false. Acts 19:3-6 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. I’m not sure if the scripture can be any clearer. Paul asked them plainly: “Unto what then were ye baptized (G907 baptizo, which is immersion- indicating there was an action of previous baptism that took place)?” To which they responded “Unto John’s Baptism (G908 baptisma)” and verse 5 straightly tells us: “When they heard this, they were baptized (G907 baptizo, same word) in the name of the Lord Jesus. If your argument against this is simply “they weren’t rebaptized as you claim”, then I would encourage you to read over the text again. They were most definitely rebaptized. “The Lord Jesus is the one who commanded His disciples to make disciples of all the nations and baptize/water-immerse them into "the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," long before the second century (Matthew 28:19).” Okay, so what’s the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Show me where the disciples went out and baptized in these titles. Actually, tell me why Peter stood up in Acts 2 and told them to be baptized in Jesus’ Name (Acts 2:38)? After that, tell me why there’s no account of Mark, or any of the other disciples correcting him during his sermon, or even afterwards? Why isn’t there a SINGLE biblical account of someone being baptized in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Every single baptism we find in the NT is done in Jesus’ name (with respects to John’s baptism). #4 Yes, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Hebrews had a clear monotheistic view before Deut. 6:4. That being said, this was a time when the law and instructions were being given to find/maintain a relationship with Yaweh. He was clearing up a lot of their false presuppositions that most of them carried over from Egypt, which was extremely polytheistic. That’s why God commanded Moses to tell them to remove the “strange gods” (idolatry) from their lives. He was making sure they understood He was the one and only God they were intended to serve. Deuteronomy 6:4 was a solidifying of this Oneness, so that they knew this to be a commandment. In respects to the Patriarch’s and others' relationship with Yaweh prior to the law- it was quite different. There was no Law, and there was simply no knowledge of who He truly was. The Hebrews didn't even know what His name was in Egypt; Moses received a revelation and brought it to them. Exodus 6:3 is a perfect example of this- 3 “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.” This just goes to show that prior to the giving of the law, they knew very little about who He was. Attempting to establish the Hebraic faith by their knowledge before Lev., Num., and Deut. is improper. Side note- I find it interesting that they wanted to make an image of the god(s) that delivered them from Egypt when they were in the wilderness while Moses was on Sinai. They made ONE golden calf, not multiple. In observation, it seems to me that they understood the singularity of their deliverance. #5 Your entire argument is based around the words of an extra-biblical source. This is extremely subjective and it cannot be viewed as undeniable truth. I can probably pull up a reference that lived around the same timeframe, yet they would seemingly endorse what I believe. Your assumption of my alleged heresy by using the gauge of Polycarp’s words is comedic. He’s not Canon, he’s not mentioned by any of the Apostle’s, and he’s relatively unknown. You can’t put the Bible up to par with other sources and expect them to override scripture. Though I have noticed, in all respects, that most Trinitarians refer to creeds and the words of man when they defend their doctrine. Biblically, their doctrinal verification seems to be lacking, and they make up for it in their various sources. #6 I’m not sure which sect of Trinitarianism you belong to, but most, if not all, believe that Yaweh/Jehovah is strictly God the Father. Then again, you coincidentally don’t proof-text Genesis 1:26 or the plural nature of elohim, which is rather strange. If I might ask, what church/denomination/movement do you identify with? I know there’s Orthodox Trinitarianism, but there’s also variants, so I’m just needing a bit of clarity. There is a vast majority of scriptures that show Yaweh is the Father, let me reference a few- Deut. 32:6, 1 Chr. 29:10, Isa. 63:16, Isa. 64:8, and Mal, 2:10. This is common-belief within Trinitarianism, in which I’m very fluent. I sat at the feet of a man who was a Trinitarian Pastor for 13 years with a congregation of about 1500-1700 (after he received the revelation of Oneness). #7 I never misquoted John 1 by saying “the Word became Son”, that must’ve been an insertion on your side of the debate. I cross-referenced this with a passage in Isaiah that says “a Son is given”. You still have not tried to combat the etymology of “logos”, which literally means thought, idea, or concept. How can the Son be eternal, yet only be a mere thought or concept? It seems to me that the idea of a redemptive Son needed a point-in-time to be brought into fruition. It completely objects to the idea of an eternal son. The only defense you’ve offered is a shaky interpretation of John’s implicit audience. We can’t play fast and loose with our definitions. John’s Gospel is not a synoptic, and it was written to be both evangelical and didactic. John’s aim was not only Jews, and to say that he was writing to accommodate their preconceptions is absurd. MANY would argue that John’s Gospel was to non-Jewish believers. Your assumption that “word” is interpreted as “embodied, visible Yaweh” in the “Hebrew Bible” is ludicrous. The Jews didn’t have a preconception of some visible image of God that was floating in the sky somewhere. They understand that God is a spirit. In which 3 of the Tanakh’s divisions is there an implied definition of “the word”? I’ve never heard of this before, and it appears to be a blank shell to divert the conversation. You’re moving extremely quick with your interpretation of Genesis 15. By your definition, this would mean that every time “the word of the LORD” came to somebody, it would be a visible manifestation of God the Son..? This would imply that the Father has never had a single conversation with humanity, which seems to be lunacy. Not only that, but it clouds the voice of the Lord. So does the Lord speak, or is it a vague misunderstanding and it’s actually just God the Son stepping onto the scene? There is a clear distinction between the voice of the Lord, and the theophanies that appear within the Old Testament. The author of Genesis has no trouble when they’re depicting the three men that visited Abraham prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. On a side-note, I would then argue, what was the voice that spoke from the burning bush in the calling of Moses? Was it actually just a metaphor for God the Son stepping onto the scene? This also wildly contradicts John 1:14, because if the word has not yet become flesh, how can he “take Abraham out to see the night sky”? It just doesn’t make sense, and it’s rather confusing. I think it’s pretty clear that God SPOKE to Abraham, and it’s not meant to be a confusing metaphor of God the Son coming down to visit Abraham. I would then ask you to interpret 1 Kings 13:18, which is paraphrased: “ I also am a prophet as you are; and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” Does this mean an angel was standing by God the Son when he spoke this to the prophet, as if the angel can’t deliver a word from the LORD by himself? Not only that, but why even use the angel as a middle-man? Why didn’t “the Word” just speak to the prophet like He supposedly did with Abraham? This just isn’t a concise theology at all, and it opens up too many avenues of confusion. Genesis 32- Yet again, this wildly contradicts John 1:14. How can Jacob physically wrestle with God the Son if He has not yet become flesh? It makes no sense. Also, you might not have realized that Jacob used the word “elohim” in his reference to seeing “God” face to face. Jacob uses this same word (elohim) when he addresses his people in Gen. 35:2- “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods(elohim) that are among you…” Are we supposed to believe that there are strange forms of God that are running around in the world? Of course not, we know that “elohim” is sometimes used as a blanket statement that refers to a type of higher power. “Elohim” is the same descriptive that is used before Baal sometimes in the Old Testament. So when Jacob said “I have seen God face-to-face”, he was talking about a higher power, which we know to be an angel. He saw something divine, and lived. We also know that Yaweh told Moses “No man can see my face and live”, so your interpretation of Jacob’s encounter would directly contradict scripture. Again, we’re seeing the same quick movement with 1 Samuel. Slow down, and let’s truly interpret this text. “The Word of the Lord” as you put it, never came to Samuel in chapter 1. Yahweh is seen speaking to Samuel, without “God the Son”. Also, linking the word of the Lord and “visions” like they’re inseparable is a reach. There is an obvious distinction between “the word of the Lord” and “open vision” within both the translation, and in the Hebrew text. Contextually, it’s obvious that the people had no direction from the Lord, hence the “no open vision”. This isn’t a reference to a lack of appearances with God the Son. Your passage in Jeremiah is a perfect example that aids in tying this together. Verse 2 opens up with “To whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah..”. This is a clear distinction in the grammatical subject of the text. The “whom” is indicative of a living recipient. Now, verse 3 opens up with “IT came also in the days of Jehoiakim”, which is in regards to “the word”. Why didn’t the author say “He came also in the days of Jehoikam”? Why does the author allude to “it”, rather than a tangible manifestation of “he”? Verse 9 opens up an entirely new world of complications. How are you going to separate this: “And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth”? Let me guess, NOW you can make a clear distinction as to what “the word” is? But, let’s play by your definitions, so the LORD (Yaweh) put His words in Jeremiah’s mouth, which would allude to multiple Eternal Son’s (another uh-oh), and now they’re somehow living in Jeremiah’s….mouth? Or is it the obvious interpretation- the Lord put His words and will in Jeremiah’s mind/spirit, and Jeremiah became a prophet for the people of God. Skunk: 1) You cannot claim that something is the universal view of any group when you haven’t interviewed every single person in the group. I already said that your two points serve no purpose in our discussion. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up as if I hold to those arguments. To have your opponents present fallacious arguments in order to proceed to easily prove them wrong, then to claim that your position is wholeheartedly proven as a result is the textbook definition of a straw-man argument. But if this satisfies you and this is the extent of your search for the truth, why do you need me to argue for an already disproven position? You are mistaken; all three Persons are indeed mentioned to have been present at creation (the Father Heb 1:2; the Son Col 1:16; the Spirit Ge 1:2). I just gave you three references from the biblical writings themselves. You are mistaken; Israel has been foretold of the coming Messiah, the Son of Psalm 2. He has also been referred to in other names (e.g. son of man in Da 7:13, the messenger of Yahweh in various passages since Genesis, the Word in various passages since Genesis). You are mistaken; there is a definitive mentioning of the eternal Son. It's called the New Testament! Your claim “Jewish belief leans strongly toward a Oneness perspective” have yet to be proven if you are referring to the Jews of Jesus' times. The Jews who believed in Jesus were certainly Trinitarians. I believe Job 9:8, Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 also. And yes, I believe that the Son is Yahweh God. I believe that there is only one Yahweh. I do not deny the Oneness of God (i.e. that God is one). 2) The Law of First Mention is an invalid hermeneutic to begin with. You are not arguing anything to anyone with Genesis 1:1. 3) In regard to your response regarding baptism, I don’t know what to tell you except read my argument again. John’s baptism is not the same as the Christian baptism. It is reasonable to suspect that the apostles believed the name of Jesus was important to emphasize in the early days of baptism, because His identity as Lord and Messiah was the critical object of faith and the greatest point of contention for the Jews. Your argument from silence in regard to baptism "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is no argument for the Oneness-Pentecostalism. At any rate, it is not even a true silence, since Jesus Himself gave the declaration in Mt 28:19. The three Persons mentioned in the verse are the three distinct Persons Jesus made mention of repeatedly during His days on earth. 4) Yes, I can also tell you that the Hebrews were monotheistic before Dt 6:4. I can also tell you that they were not Oneness-Pentecostals. Jacob speaks of the messenger of God, and Moses speaks of the same messenger of Yahweh. It is not improper at all to consider the faith of those before the Mosaic covenant. Rather, it is extremely improper and presumptuous to disregard the faith of the forefathers recorded in the Torah, as if their faith was inaccurate. Progressive revelation does not mean that the faith of the forefathers is inaccurate. The golden calf incident in the wilderness is no argument for Oneness-Pentecostalism by any stretch of imagination. Again, I believe in the Oneness of Yahweh. Trinitarians are monotheists. 5) Polycarp is a very well-known, direct disciple of the apostle John. Although his recorded words are not part of the canon of Scripture, his words show the continuity of the Trinitarian doctrine from the apostles' teaching to the Nicene Creed. Polycarp also shows that Trinitarianism is no cowardly compromise. I am not elevating Polycarp on an equal status with Scripture. I am only mentioning Polycarp as a historical interest, as a historical rebuttal to your nonsensical speculation about how Trinitarian is a cowardly compromise in order to accommodate polytheism since the second century. 6) Again, if you are going to have a discourse in pursuit of the truth with any individual, then you should first understand their position rather than tell them what their position is. No Trinitarian fits the mold that you are referring to; on the contrary, all Trinitarians believe that Yahweh is the Father, Son, and Spirit, yet the three Persons are distinct from one another; if they don't, they are not Trinitarians. There is no "sect of Trinitarianism;" you either believe the doctrine of the Trinity, or you don't. Dt 32:6; 1Ch 29:10; Is 63:16; 64:8; Mal 2:10; and also Ex 4:22,23 are all verses that prove the Fatherhood of Yahweh in relation to the nation Israel, but they do not specify any one of the Three. Again, I am not here to defend the erroneous interpretations of other Trinitarians; that goes also for Genesis 1:26 and the word "Elohim." The reason why we are not making much progress in our discourse is because -- instead of defending Oneness-Pentecostalism, or hearing out my position and interacting with me -- you at the very outset started telling me what my arguments are. Obviously, if you'd rather discuss with a straw man instead of with me, I do not even need to be here. 7) I already stated that the origin of John's "logos" is from the Hebrew Bible's "Word," which refers to the embodied Yahweh Himself. John is an Israelite, and he knows his Bible. You have no biblical basis to define John's "logos" as a mere thought/concept/idea; you also have no basis from the Greek philosophy's "logos" to say "logos" is only a thought/concept/idea. It seems to me that you are the one who is playing fast and loose with the definition! The Word is shown to be eternal, and not a mere thought/concept/idea. The coming of the Son into the world certainly took place at a point in time, but the Son pre-existed as John 1:1 says. I have already shown you clear passages that show that the Word of Yahweh is embodied Yahweh who is visible and tangible, and you have disregarded them all. I don't know what else to tell you. I never said the Father never spoke to man. Matthew 17:5 is certainly one instance. It is the messenger of Yahweh who called to Moses from the burning bush, who is also Yahweh Himself (Exodus 3:2,4). It may be unacceptable to you that God did not have a body before John 1:14 yet God manifested Himself as a tangible man many times prior to the incarnation. But it is not to me, because I do not rest on the human philosophy or human wisdom. I rest on the truth of God's word, and I accept and believe all that it testifies to. And because I start with God's word as my foundation, I am led to the corollary that bodily manifestation of Yahweh prior to incarnation is not the same as the actual incarnation of Yahweh in which Yahweh becomes a true Man. Yahweh speaks to man Himself, or He speaks through a created being; this is what the Bible reveals, and you are calling it inconsistent theology (though you said "concise," I'm sure you meant "consistent"). It sounds like you are doubting the truthfulness of the Bible. I don't know why you are asking me to tell you how He chooses to speak, as if I know. It is disappointing to see you completely disregard 1Kings 18:31 when reading Genesis 32:24-30. Also, "Peniel" does not contradict what Yahweh told Moses, since Jacob's "Peniel" is clearly not the "face" of Exodus 33:20 in the same sense; Jacob did not die! Scripture never contradicts itself; that is one of the rules of proper hermeneutic. Slow down? I am giving you the biblical references to the meaning of the "Word" that John understood. I object to your argument from silence in regards to "without 'God the Son'" in 1Samuel. The Trinitarian languages are not always present in the Old Testament, but the clear distinction between the Persons within the Godhead is always present. The only proper interpretation of 1Samuel 3:1 is to link the Word with visions in 1Samuel 3:1. Besides, I have shown you a precedent in Genesis 15:1. Contextually, it has been long since the last time Israel had the revelation of God through the vision of the "Word." You cannot disregard Jeremiah 1:4-9 and all the other passages which clearly testify that the Word is the visible, embodied Yahweh, simply because the "word" which serves as a metonym is called "it." There is no issue in calling the metonym in and of itself as an "it," because it is true that the Hebrew "dabar" is an impersonal "it." The "words" in Jeremiah 1:9 are clearly shown by the context to be literal words, and the verse means that Jeremiah is appointed as a prophet of Yahweh. These "words" are not the same as the "Word" in the passages which clearly show that this "Word" is not a literal word.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|