Can the Trinitarian Doctrine in Its Fullest Form Truly Maintain Monotheism?

[first and last]

For centuries, Christianity has professed belief in one God — yet described that One as existing in three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians call this a mystery beyond full human comprehension, while others argue it’s a contradiction dressed in theology.


But here’s the pressing question: if each “Person” of the Trinity is fully God — co-equal, co-eternal, and individually conscious — can this system honestly sustain a claim of monotheism? Or does it, in practice, multiply the Divine into three separate centers of being while maintaining only a linguistic unity?


Think about it: if the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, yet all are fully and distinctly God — is that truly one God, or three co-existing Deities bound by conceptual unity? Many Oneness believers, Jews, and Muslims alike struggle to see how this maintains the “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deut. 6:4).


This discussion isn’t about attacking faith but about pursuing clarity. Can “One God in Three Persons” logically and biblically harmonize with the uncompromising monotheism of the Old and New Testaments? Or has theological tradition shaped a creed that goes beyond the bounds of biblical revelation?


What do you think — does the Trinitarian framework preserve monotheism, or redefine it?

What I find fascinating is that most Trinitarian explanations rely on philosophical constructs rather than clear biblical statements. The term “Persons” itself isn’t found in Scripture — nor is the phrase “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit.” Yet these terms have become pillars of doctrine.


When I read the Old Testament, I see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being. Then in the New Testament, that same God manifests Himself in flesh as Jesus Christ, dwelling among men. The fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily (Col. 2:9) seems to point to the same one God revealing Himself in a different mode or manifestation, not a separate person.


If each “Person” of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal, how can Jesus truthfully say, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)? And if the Son is distinct from the Father, how can He also claim, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9)? Those statements don’t sound like inter-personal relationships — they sound like the same God revealing Himself in different roles.


So my question is this:
If true monotheism means one divine consciousness, one will, one mind, and one divine Being — can three co-equal Persons, each with their own consciousness and will, still be called one God in any meaningful sense? Or has tradition redefined “one” into a kind of unity foreign to the original biblical revelation?

 

[mattfivefour]

For centuries, Christianity has professed belief in one God — yet described that One as existing in three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians call this a mystery beyond full human comprehension, while others argue it’s a contradiction dressed in theology.

Yes, they do. But only because they think in human terms, defining the unimaginable Creator as one like themselves, bound by the same restrictions.

But here’s the pressing question: if each “Person” of the Trinity is fully God — co-equal, co-eternal, and individually conscious — can this system honestly sustain a claim of monotheism? Or does it, in practice, multiply the Divine into three separate centers of being while maintaining only a linguistic unity?

Not at all. It is far more than a linguistic unity: it is an absolute unity in essence and in purpose. This is why Jesus could say, "When you have seen me you have seen the Father" (John 10:30) and "I and the Father are one." (John 14:9)

Think about it: if the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, yet all are fully and distinctly God — is that truly one God, or three co-existing Deities bound by conceptual unity? Many Oneness believers, Jews, and Muslims alike struggle to see how this maintains the “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deut. 6:4).

This discussion isn’t about attacking faith but about pursuing clarity. Can “One God in Three Persons” logically and biblically harmonize with the uncompromising monotheism of the Old and New Testaments? Or has theological tradition shaped a creed that goes beyond the bounds of biblical revelation?
What do you think — does the Trinitarian framework preserve monotheism, or redefine it?

I have answered the underlying fact of the Trinity above; but that, of course, does not satisfy those who are caught in defining God by human constructs. Believe me, it would be a lot easier intellectually to conceive of one God presenting Himself in three different forms or roles. But Scripture does not allow us this luxury. We have to take God as He presents Himself.

What I find fascinating is that most Trinitarian explanations rely on philosophical constructs rather than clear biblical statements. The term “Persons” itself isn’t found in Scripture — nor is the phrase “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit.” Yet these terms have become pillars of doctrine.

Terms such as Trinity, Type, Antitype, Penal Substitution, Rapture, Theology, Shekinah, etc are, of course, not in the Bible ... but are so heavily implied and their nature so clearly described in Scripture that man had to invent the terms in order to provide a precise, succinct, and meaningful language to describe these complex theological concepts and beliefs.

Just because a specific single word does not appear in holy text is irrelevant if the concept appears. This is something we find in Bible translation all the time. For example, the Hebrew word chesed (חֵסֵד) has no direct translation into English or French or many other of today's languages. It can mean loving kindness, mercy, steadfast love, faithfulness, goodness and other related terms that we attribute to God's character; but if you go into the Hebrew Old Testament you will not find those individual words: you will find chesed ... which encompasses them all. Does that mean that we are engaging in theological importations when we speak of God's mercy or loving kindness or faithfulness, etc? Of course not. The descriptions contained in the original text and the context of those descriptions clearly portray God as being all those things. So, when someone tells me that the Bible has contradictions because one translation of, say, Psalm 136:1 says "God's mercy endures for ever," another says " God's loving kindness endures forever," another "God's faithfulness endures forever," I immediately understand they do not truly grasp God's Word. Those translations are not derived from theological constructs but from the text itself. So, too, with the theological truths enrobed in words such as Trinity and Persons.

When I read the Old Testament, I see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being. Then in the New Testament, that same God manifests Himself in flesh as Jesus Christ, dwelling among men. The fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily (Col. 2:9) seems to point to the same one God revealing Himself in a different mode or manifestation, not a separate person.

Respectfully, if you "see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being" you are misunderstanding Scripture. In the Shema --the statement of the nature of God recited twice a day by observant Jews-- states in English: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one." In Hebrew it reads, "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad." And it is that final word echad that destroys the idea that God is an absolute one. You see, there are two words in Hebrew for "one" -- echad (אחד) and yachid (יָחִיד). Echad actually refers to a composite "one", such as a cluster of grapes-- one cluster, but many grapes form it. Yachid refers to an absolute, indivisible "one", a unique thing incapable of being divided. Since scripture is verbally inspired, God giving the words to the prophets, do you not think it significant that God gave His people the word meaning a composite one rather than the word meaning an absolute one when He have them the statement that would define Him and their unique monotheistic belief?

Now, I could go into the grammatical reasons for a single God consisting of multiple persons, such as Genesis 1:26-- "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness." The literary argument that God, here, is merely using the imperial first person plural when He speaks is weak. And it cannot explain events such as Christ's baptism where it is recorded that "Immediately, having been baptized, Jesus went up from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and alighting upon Him. And behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased.'” (Matthew 3: 16-17) Clearly Jesus is there, the Holy Spirit is there, and the Father is speaking from Heaven. Quite a trick for one God to be manifesting as three people at the very same moment if He is only an absolute one and merely reveals Himself in three different modes from time to time. Here all there are clearly there at the very same time.

The statement in Colossians 2:9 that "in Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily" does not mean that all of God is in Christ but that He possesses the fullness of God ... which is the very definition of the Trinity: that each part is fully God in and of Himself, yet indivisibly united with the others as just one God..

If each “Person” of the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal, how can Jesus truthfully say, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)? And if the Son is distinct from the Father, how can He also claim, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9)? Those statements don’t sound like inter-personal relationships — they sound like the same God revealing Himself in different roles.

I believe I have already answered this. The verses to which you refer simply reveal one God having different persons, each containing the fullness of God ... which is significantly greater than one God manifesting Himself in different ways at different times.

So my question is this:
If true monotheism means one divine consciousness, one will, one mind, and one divine Being — can three co-equal Persons, each with their own consciousness and will, still be called one God in any meaningful sense? Or has tradition redefined “one” into a kind of unity foreign to the original biblical revelation?

True monotheism simply means belief in one God. The terms "one divine consciousness, one will, one mind" that you use then go on to define the nature of this God. But when you add "one divine being" to that definition you are now adding your own theological definition that does not accord with what Scripture says. You have fallen into the trap that you accuse trinitarians of falling into-- you have "shaped a creed that goes beyond the bounds of biblical revelation."

So, to answer your question, no; tradition has not "redefined 'one' into a kind of unity foreign to the original biblical revelation." Scripture, when properly exegeted, leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is one God, yet mysteriously composed of three co-equal, co-existent Persons, indivisibly united, with one will, one mind, and one purpose.

I pray this helps

 

[first and last]

Is it really so hard to believe that the infinite, invisible, omnipresent God — the One who fills heaven and earth yet is confined by neither — loved us so deeply that He chose to become one of us? Without ever ceasing to be everywhere at once, He stepped into His own creation to walk among His people. He didn’t send another; He came Himself — to feel our pain, bear our sorrow, and redeem us with His own blood (which He couldn't do without a body). The Almighty did not diminish His divinity by becoming flesh; He revealed His love in its fullest measure — God with us, and yet still God over all.

I say that with love and respect for all who hold a different view — I’m just sharing what I’ve come to believe from Scripture.


With love in Christ

 

[Andiamo]

Yes, they do. But only because they think in human terms, defining the unimaginable Creator as one like themselves, bound by the same restrictions.

Not at all. It is far more than a linguistic unity: it is an absolute unity in essence and in purpose. This is why Jesus could say, "When you have seen me you have seen the Father" (John 10:30) and "I and the Father are one." (John 14:9)

I have answered the underlying fact of the Trinity above; but that, of course, does not satisfy those who are caught in defining God by human constructs. Believe me, it would be a lot easier intellectually to conceive of one God presenting Himself in three different forms or roles. But Scripture does not allow us this luxury. We have to take God as He presents Himself.

Terms such as Trinity, Type, Antitype, Penal Substitution, Rapture, Theology, Shekinah, etc are, of course, not in the Bible ... but are so heavily implied and their nature so clearly described in Scripture that man had to invent the terms in order to provide a precise, succinct, and meaningful language to describe these complex theological concepts and beliefs.

Just because a specific single word does not appear in holy text is irrelevant if the concept appears. This is something we find in Bible translation all the time. For example, the Hebrew word chesed (חֵסֵד) has no direct translation into English or French or many other of today's languages. It can mean loving kindness, mercy, steadfast love, faithfulness, goodness and other related terms that we attribute to God's character; but if you go into the Hebrew Old Testament you will not find those individual words: you will find chesed ... which encompasses them all. Does that mean that we are engaging in theological importations when we speak of God's mercy or loving kindness or faithfulness, etc? Of course not. The descriptions contained in the original text and the context of those descriptions clearly portray God as being all those things. So, when someone tells me that the Bible has contradictions because one translation of, say, Psalm 136:1 says "God's mercy endures for ever," another says " God's loving kindness endures forever," another "God's faithfulness endures forever," I immediately understand they do not truly grasp God's Word. Those translations are not derived from theological constructs but from the text itself. So, too, with the theological truths enrobed in words such as Trinity and Persons.

Respectfully, if you "see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being" you are misunderstanding Scripture. In the Shema --the statement of the nature of God recited twice a day by observant Jews-- states in English: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one." In Hebrew it reads, "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad." And it is that final word echad that destroys the idea that God is an absolute one. You see, there are two words in Hebrew for "one" -- echad (אחד) and yachid (יָחִיד). Echad actually referred to a composite "one", such as a cluster of grapes-- one cluster, but many grapes form it. Yachid refers to an absolute, indivisible "one", a unique thing incapable of being divided. Since scripture is verbally inspired, God giving the words to the prophets, do you not think it significant that God gave His people the word meaning a composite one rather than the word meaning an absolute one when He gave them the statement that would define Him and their unique monotheistic belief?

Now, I could go into the grammatical reasons for a single God consisting of multiple persons, such as Genesis 1:26-- "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness." The literary argument that God, here, is merely using the imperial first person plural when He speaks is weak. And it cannot explain events such as Christ's baptism where it is recorded that "Immediately, having been baptized, Jesus went up from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and alighting upon Him. And behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3: 16-17) Clearly Jesus is there, the Holy Spirit is there, and the Father is speaking from Heaven. Quite a trick for one God to be manifesting as three people at the very same moment if He is only an absolute one and merely reveals Himself in three different modes from time to time. Here there are clearly three persons there at the very same time.

The statement in Colossians 2:9 that "in Christ dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily" does not mean that all of God is in Christ but that He possesses the fullness of God ... which is the very definition of the Trinity: that each part is fully God in and of Himself, yet indivisibly united with the others as just one God..

I believe I have already answered this. The verses to which you refer simply reveal one God having different persons each containing the fullness of God ... which is significantly greater than one God manifesting Himself in different ways at different times.

True monotheism simply means belief in one God. The terms "one divine consciousness, one will, one mind" that you use then go on to define the nature of this God. But when you add "one divine being" to that definition you are now adding your own theological definition that does not accord with what Scripture says. You have fallen into the trap that you accuse trinitarians of falling into-- you have "shaped a creed that goes beyond the bounds of biblical revelation."

So, to answer your question, no; tradition has not "redefined 'one' into a kind of unity foreign to the original biblical revelation." Scripture, when properly exegeted, leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is one God, yet mysteriously composed of three co-equal, co-existent Persons, indivisibly united, with one will, one mind, and one purpose.

I pray this helps

Wow!!! Thank You, Lord!!!

 

[Andiamo]

Is it really so hard to believe that the infinite, invisible, omnipresent God — the One who fills heaven and earth yet is confined by neither — loved us so deeply that He chose to become one of us? Without ever ceasing to be everywhere at once, He stepped into His own creation to walk among His people. He didn’t send another; He came Himself — to feel our pain, bear our sorrow, and redeem us with His own blood (which He couldn't do without a body). The Almighty did not diminish His divinity by becoming flesh; He revealed His love in its fullest measure — God with us, and yet still God over all.

I say that with love and respect for all who hold a different view — I’m just sharing what I’ve come to believe from Scripture.


With love in Christ

Rather than respond to Mattfivefour’s obviously prayerful, lovingly and painfully well-crafted response to you, you post with another statement of your position here. Why?

I respectfully suggest that you set these internal, intellectual wrestlings aside, brother, once and for all….and determine to walk with the childlike faith that Jesus made the point to use as a distinct and poignant example in clarifying to us what faith actually is.

John 3:16. Acts 13:33. Do you believe and trust that this is Holy-Spirit inspired Word of God, or do you pick this apart in your mind?

Sincerely, Andi

 

[Kaatje]

Is it really so hard to believe that the infinite, invisible, omnipresent God — the One who fills heaven and earth yet is confined by neither — loved us so deeply that He chose to become one of us? Without ever ceasing to be everywhere at once, He stepped into His own creation to walk among His people. He didn’t send another; He came Himself — to feel our pain, bear our sorrow, and redeem us with His own blood (which He couldn't do without a body). The Almighty did not diminish His divinity by becoming flesh; He revealed His love in its fullest measure — God with us, and yet still God over all.

I agree totally with what you write here, but that doesn't contradict anything that @mattfivefour posted.
On the contrary, it enhances it.

Do you believe what he tells you?
If not, I urge you to (re-) read our Rules & Guidelines, before you post again.

 

[mattfivefour]

Is it really so hard to believe that the infinite, invisible, omnipresent God — the One who fills heaven and earth yet is confined by neither — loved us so deeply that He chose to become one of us? Without ever ceasing to be everywhere at once, He stepped into His own creation to walk among His people. He didn’t send another; He came Himself — to feel our pain, bear our sorrow, and redeem us with His own blood (which He couldn't do without a body). The Almighty did not diminish His divinity by becoming flesh; He revealed His love in its fullest measure — God with us, and yet still God over all.

I say that with love and respect for all who hold a different view — I’m just sharing what I’ve come to believe from Scripture.


With love in Christ

I agree 100% with this. But what does this have to do with the thread topic?

If you are arguing that unless God --viewed as you seem to as a non-corporate, single-centered being-- Himself came down to earth to save us by putting on a human body (which would mean that when He was here as Jesus no one was ruling in heaven) then what do you do with Scripture? It says very clearly: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Respectfully, regardless of how much you might wish, it does not say "For God so loved the world that He in His entirety left Heaven and came to earth that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life " My friend, it says He sent His Son. Or do you doubt His Word? And what you do with Jesus while in the flesh over and over praying to the Father, if they are just manifestations of the same being? Was He simply pretending to pray to a God who was no longer in Heaven in order to teach us the importance of praying to Him? No, no, my friend: that does not track ... either with the character of God, nor His Word.

In an attempt to understand God in a way that makes sense to your human mind, you have denied the accuracy and plain sense of God's Word and robbed Him of the magnificence and glory of His unique Being.

With the greatest respect for you as a believer in Jesus Christ, who clearly wishes to honor His glory as God, I point out that, in two messages now, I have painstakingly taken each of your points and shone the truth of Scripture on them. If you wish to continue this thread, you need to do the same. Otherwise, this thread will be locked at this point. Simply restating your belief in different terms without dealing with what I have written will not suffice here.

 

[dwb]

I respectfully suggest that you set these internal, intellectual wrestlings aside, brother, once and for all….and determine to walk with the childlike faith that Jesus made the point to use as a distinct and poignant example in clarifying to us what faith actually is.

I don't question, I just believe!! Without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[Batman]

Yes.....the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One!

 

[first and last]

I agree 100% with this. But what does this have to do with the thread topic?

If you are arguing that unless God --viewed as you seem to as a non-corporate, single-centered being-- Himself came down to earth to save us by putting on a human body (which would mean that when He was here as Jesus no one was ruling in heaven) then what do you do with Scripture? It says very clearly: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Respectfully, regardless of how much you might wish, it does not say "For God so loved the world that He in His entirety left Heaven and came to earth that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life " My friend, it says He sent His Son. Or do you doubt His Word? And what you do with Jesus while in the flesh over and over praying to the Father, if they are just manifestations of the same being? Was He simply pretending to pray to a God who was no longer in Heaven in order to teach us the importance of praying to Him? No, no, my friend: that does not track ... either with the character of God, nor His Word.

In an attempt to understand God in a way that makes sense to your human mind, you have denied the accuracy and plain sense of God's Word and robbed Him of the magnificence and glory of His unique Being.

With the greatest respect for you as a believer in Jesus Christ, who clearly wishes to honor His glory as God, I point out that, in two messages now, I have painstakingly taken each of your points and shone the truth of Scripture on them. If you wish to continue this thread, you need to do the same. Otherwise, this thread will be locked at this point. Simply restating your belief in different terms without dealing with what I have written will not suffice here.

Thank you for engaging with genuine care and respect. I’ll respond with that same spirit, not to argue for the sake of winning a debate, but because how we see the nature of God directly affects how we worship, pray, and understand redemption itself.

1. “If you are arguing that unless God—viewed as you seem to as a non-corporate, single-centered being—Himself came down to earth to save us… then what do you do with Scripture?”

I believe God’s Word is clear that God Himself came down to redeem us — not as a “part” of God or a secondary being. Isaiah 43:11 says plainly, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.” (When Christ came on the scene, according to this Scripture He is The Father in Flesh.) There is no hint of delegation. The same God who said that later robed Himself in flesh (John 1:14) to accomplish that very salvation.

When I speak of God as “single-centered,” I’m not denying His omnipresence or ability to operate simultaneously in heaven and on earth — I’m affirming that there is one divine will, one consciousness, one Spirit, who can manifest anywhere He pleases. The Incarnation doesn’t limit God to one location; it reveals that the eternal Spirit was simultaneously in Christ on earth and ruling from heaven. (John 3:13 – “the Son of man which is in heaven.”)

2. “It says: ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…’ It does not say ‘He in His entirety left Heaven.’”

I fully agree — the text says He gave His Son, but we must also let Scripture define who the Son is. The “Son” was the manifestation of the Father in flesh. Luke 1:35 says that the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God Himself) overshadowed Mary — therefore “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

So the Son was not a second divine person sent from elsewhere, but God manifesting Himself in humanity for a redemptive purpose. The “sending” language throughout Scripture reflects mission and manifestation, not separation of being. God sent His Word, His Spirit, His light — yet these are all Himself in operation, not other persons. (Psalm 107:20; Galatians 4:4)

3. “What do you do with Jesus praying to the Father, if they are just manifestations of the same being?”

This is an important question, and one that deserves careful attention. When Jesus prayed, He was praying as a real man — not as God pretending to be man. The prayers of Christ reveal the authentic communication of His human will yielding to the divine will that indwelt Him. Hebrews 5:7 shows that “in the days of His flesh” He offered up prayers and supplications.

In the Incarnation, divinity and humanity are united, not mixed or confused. Jesus wasn’t an actor on a stage — He was the eternal Spirit of God living within genuine humanity. The distinction is not between divine persons, but between divine nature and human nature. When the man Christ Jesus prays, it’s the perfect example of human submission to the indwelling Spirit of God.

The Father did not leave heaven, nor was heaven empty; the same omnipresent Spirit was both in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor 5:19) and filling the universe. God is not bound by location or physical limitation.

4. “In an attempt to understand God in a way that makes sense to your human mind, you have denied the accuracy and plain sense of God’s Word.”

I understand your concern, but my view doesn’t arise from human logic — it comes from Scripture’s own insistence that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and that this one God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). I am not denying Scripture’s plain sense, I’m simply refusing to read later theological constructs back into the Bible. The word “Trinity” and the concept of “co-eternal persons” appear nowhere in Scripture.

Oneness does not try to make God small or simple; it magnifies His greatness — that the infinite, omnipresent Creator could personally step into creation without ceasing to fill heaven and earth. That is the glory of the Incarnation.

5. “You have robbed Him of the magnificence and glory of His unique Being.”

I would humbly suggest the opposite. To say that the Almighty had to send another person to do what only He could do diminishes His sovereignty and love. But to say He came Himself — that the Creator stooped to the level of His creation to redeem it — magnifies His glory beyond measure.

Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t describe a lesser being: “For unto us a child is born… and his name shall be called… The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father.” The Father revealed Himself through the Son. That’s not robbery of glory — that’s revelation of glory.

6. “I have taken each of your points and shone the truth of Scripture on them… otherwise this thread will be locked.”

I appreciate your diligence in guarding the thread’s integrity. I only ask that we weigh Scripture against Scripture, not assumption against assumption. I have not restated belief without reason; I’ve tried to let the Word speak for itself.

If this discussion closes, that’s alright — truth never fears examination. But I do hope you’ll consider that the Oneness position does not deny the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit — it confesses them all as manifestations of the same eternal God revealed fully in Christ Jesus.

I don’t claim to have all mysteries figured out. But I know that Jesus is not one-third of God — He is the fullness of God revealed (Col. 2:9). That’s why I worship Him with all my heart as both Lord and Christ.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I don't question, I just believe!! Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Yep 100% agree, there are mysteries of God that no human mind can decipher and sometimes just simply requires faith as you say.

 

[Armor of Light]

I don't question, I just believe!! Without faith it is impossible to please God.

​

​

Faith in Action​

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Andiamo]

Jesus is not one-third of God

Frankly all of this hurts my puny brain, and I am thankful to God that I am not required to understand. But I can tell you that you have it wrong as to what so called “trinitarians” believe. We do not believe that Jesus is 1/3 of God. If that was the case then we would also believe that the Father is 1/3 of God, and that would be silly.
I am not about to explain (and I can not, it is beyond human understanding) how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are each 100% God, but they are. That is clear in scripture.
Rather than take those verses on faith that each person is 100% God, you reason that there is no trinity.
OK, to each his own.
You are highly intelligent, and you write well.

 

[mattfivefour]

I don’t claim to have all mysteries figured out. But I know that Jesus is not one-third of God — He is the fullness of God revealed (Col. 2:9). That’s why I worship Him with all my heart as both Lord and Christ.

I agree we should wish Jesus ss Lord and Christ. But we should also worship Him as God. Just as Thomas did.

John 20:38-- "And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Just a sad He is referred to repeatedly in Paul's and Peter's epistles--​

​

Romans 9:5-- "...and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen".​

​

Titus 2:13-- "while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ".​

​

2 Peter 1:1-- "To those who have received a faith equal to ours through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ".​

Plus we have God in heaven referring to the Son as God:

Hebrews 1:8: "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...."​

In this passage the writer of Hebrews quotes the Father addressing the Son as "God".

There is ample evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ if one is willing to look with an open mind.

But let me go back to my first detailed post in which I used scripture to demonstrate the Trinity in contradiction to the statements you made in your initial post. Specifically, I'd like to deal with the statement you made in both of your posts: specifically, that God is an absolute one.

When I read the Old Testament, I see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being.

I understand your concern, but my view doesn’t arise from human logic — it comes from Scripture’s own insistence that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Here was my response:

Respectfully, if you "see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being" you are misunderstanding Scripture. In the Shema --the statement of the nature of God recited twice a day by observant Jews-- states in English: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) In Hebrew it reads, "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad." And it is that final word echad that destroys the idea that God is an absolute one. You see, there are two words in Hebrew for "one" -- echad (אחד) and yachid (יָחִיד). Echad actually refers to a composite "one", such as a cluster of grapes-- one cluster, but many grapes form it. Yachid refers to an absolute, indivisible "one", a unique thing incapable of being divided. Since scripture is verbally inspired, God giving the words to the prophets, do you not think it significant that God gave His people the word meaning a composite one rather than the word meaning an absolute one when He gave them the statement that would define Him and their unique monotheistic belief?

I'd be interested in your response to this fact.

 

[Andiamo]

how we see the nature of God directly affects how we worship, pray, and understand redemption itself.

And that’s the bottom line for your reasoning, (and your posts here) I am pretty sure. We need to relate to God correctly, as you feel that you are. But we don’t need to understand God’s nature to relate to Him correctly. At the moment we believe, putting our faith and trust in God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, we are positionally IN Christ. (And that’s another fact our human minds can never understand.) So because we are IN Christ all of the relating and the relationship is attached to that. Grows and flows from that. And is dependent on that. Not our own understanding of the nature of God. THANK YOU LORD!!!

 

[first and last]

I agree we should wish Jesus ss Lord and Christ. But we should also worship Him as God. Just as Thomas did.

John 20:38-- "And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Just a sad He is referred to repeatedly in Paul's and Peter's epistles--​

​

Romans 9:5-- "...and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen".​

​

Titus 2:13-- "while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ".​

​

2 Peter 1:1-- "To those who have received a faith equal to ours through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ".​

Plus we have God in heaven referring to the Son as God:

Hebrews 1:8: "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...."​

In this passage the writer of Hebrews quotes the Father addressing the Son as "God".

There is ample evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ if one is willing to look with an open mind.

But let me go back to my first detailed post in which I used scripture to demonstrate the Trinity in contradiction to the statements you made in your initial post. Specifically, I'd like to deal with the statement you made in both of your posts: specifically, that God is an absolute one.



Here was my response:

Respectfully, if you "see God presenting Himself as absolutely one — not a composite unity but a singular, indivisible Being" you are misunderstanding Scripture. In the Shema --the statement of the nature of God recited twice a day by observant Jews-- states in English: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) In Hebrew it reads, "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad." And it is that final word echad that destroys the idea that God is an absolute one. You see, there are two words in Hebrew for "one" -- echad (אחד) and yachid (יָחִיד). Echad actually refers to a composite "one", such as a cluster of grapes-- one cluster, but many grapes form it. Yachid refers to an absolute, indivisible "one", a unique thing incapable of being divided. Since scripture is verbally inspired, God giving the words to the prophets, do you not think it significant that God gave His people the word meaning a composite one rather than the word meaning an absolute one when He gave them the statement that would define Him and their unique monotheistic belief?

I'd be interested in your response to this fact.

The Hebrew word Echad apparently can mean both “one in unity” and “one numerically,” for Strong’s defines it as “united, one, first.”

Biblical examples of the word used in the sense of absolute numerical oneness are enlightening. For instance:

• A list of Canaanite kings, each designated by the word echad (Joshua 12:9–24);
• The prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:8);
• Abraham (Ezekiel 33:24);
• A list of gates, each designated by echad (Ezekiel 48:31–34);
• And the angel Michael (Daniel 10:13).

Certainly, in each of these cases, echad means one in numerical value.

In view of the many Old Testament passages that describe, in unequivocal terms, God’s absolute oneness (see Chapter 1, especially the Scripture references in Isaiah), it is evident that echad, as used of God, does mean the absolute numerical oneness of His being.

To the extent that echad does convey a concept of unity, it connotes a unity of God’s multiple attributes, not a cooperative union of distinct persons.

If echad does not mean one in number, then we have no defense against polytheism, because three (or more) separate gods could also be “one” in unity of mind and purpose. However, it is clearly the intent of the Old Testament to deny polytheism, and it does indeed use echad to mean one in numerical value.

Besides if Jesus Christ is not God the Father in Flesh. Than these Scriptures "Isaiah 43:10–11 "Ye are My witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour.” and
Isaiah 45:21–22 “...and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.
Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” are a Lie, because Jesus is claimed as Saviour. But we know Scripture is True.

 

[first and last]

Frankly all of this hurts my puny brain, and I am thankful to God that I am not required to understand.

I can appreciate your honesty there. None of us can fully grasp the depth of God’s nature—He is infinite, and we are not. But I do believe that while we may never comprehend Him completely, He does reveal Himself in ways we can truly know. So I don’t see it as beyond understanding entirely, but rather beyond exhaustive understanding. God invites us to know Him through revelation, not speculation.

But I can tell you that you have it wrong as to what so called “trinitarians” believe. We do not believe that Jesus is 1/3 of God. If that was the case then we would also believe that the Father is 1/3 of God, and that would be silly.

I understand what you’re saying, and I didn’t mean to misrepresent that belief. My concern isn’t that Trinitarians divide God into thirds, but that describing three distinct persons, each being fully God and have their own individual self-awareness, creates a concept of plurality within the Godhead that seems at odds with the consistent biblical emphasis on God’s absolute oneness. The Oneness view simply holds that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), without partition or division of essence or identity.

I am not about to explain (and I can not, it is beyond human understanding) how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are each 100% God, but they are. That is clear in scripture.

I completely understand that position—many sincere believers hold it in faith. My approach is just to seek harmony between what Scripture reveals and what it means by those titles. For instance, I see “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” not as separate divine persons, but as the one God manifesting Himself in different ways for the purpose of redemption—Father in creation, Son in incarnation, and Spirit in regeneration. That keeps God’s oneness intact without reducing His fullness or mystery.

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.

“Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.

Rather than take those verses on faith that each person is 100% God, you reason that there is no trinity.

It’s actually not a lack of faith in those verses, but faith in what they reveal. I take every verse seriously, including those that emphasize the singular pronouns God uses of Himself—“I,” “Me,” “Mine,” never “We” or “Us” when speaking personally. I see Jesus as the visible manifestation of that one invisible Spirit, not as a second divine consciousness beside Him. So it’s not disbelief in Scripture, but a different interpretation of what the same verses teach about God’s identity.

OK, to each his own.

Fair enough. I always appreciate when discussion stays respectful. My goal isn’t to argue but to understand and express faith in the way Scripture reveals God. Even where we differ, we both desire to know Him more deeply, and that’s something we can definitely agree on.

You are highly intelligent, and you write well.

Thank you sincerely—that means a lot. I value thoughtful discussion and people who are willing to engage kindly even when we see things differently. That’s the kind of conversation that actually helps both sides grow.

 

[Andiamo]

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

God the Son:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
….

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

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.”

(John Chap 1)

 

[Andiamo]

I don’t know how you (or anyone!) can read those verses I posted above, and not come to the conclusion that Christ Jesus eternally was—and is—a distinct Person from the Father and yet at the same time eternally was—and is—one with the Father. God, the Son.

Remember, Jesus thanked the Father for revealing things to simple people like me.
That is because I simply read the word, take it at face value and believe it. No hyper-analysis necessary.

And not to be snarky, but the word “oneness” is never used in the Bible to describe God, either. Not once.

 

[mattfivefour]

The Hebrew word Echad apparently can mean both “one in unity” and “one numerically,” for Strong’s defines it as “united, one, first.”

Biblical examples of the word used in the sense of absolute numerical oneness are enlightening. For instance:

• A list of Canaanite kings, each designated by the word echad (Joshua 12:9–24);
• The prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:8);
• Abraham (Ezekiel 33:24);
• A list of gates, each designated by echad (Ezekiel 48:31–34);
• And the angel Michael (Daniel 10:13).

Certainly, in each of these cases, echad means one in numerical value.

In view of the many Old Testament passages that describe, in unequivocal terms, God’s absolute oneness (see Chapter 1, especially the Scripture references in Isaiah), it is evident that echad, as used of God, does mean the absolute numerical oneness of His being.

To the extent that echad does convey a concept of unity, it connotes a unity of God’s multiple attributes, not a cooperative union of distinct persons.

If echad does not mean one in number, then we have no defense against polytheism, because three (or more) separate gods could also be “one” in unity of mind and purpose. However, it is clearly the intent of the Old Testament to deny polytheism, and it does indeed use echad to mean one in numerical value.

Besides if Jesus Christ is not God the Father in Flesh. Than these Scriptures "Isaiah 43:10–11 "Ye are My witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour.” and
Isaiah 45:21–22 “...and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.
Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” are a Lie, because Jesus is claimed as Saviour. But we know Scripture is True.

I understand your arguments. I am quite familiar with Unitarian theology. Yet, as I read Scripture, I see the flaws in their reasoning. I consistently see them resort to the arguments you have presented above, yet find no certainty in them. However, I do find certainty in the Scriptures that tell me there is One God, indivisible, yet composed of three Persons in perfect unity of existence, personality, and purpose. Most Unitarians confuse the Father as alone being God, so that if Jesus is God then He must be the Father; and ditto the Holy Spirit, which means the Father is not really God: for if Jesus is God then the Father cannot be, there being only one God . This is understandable given we are trying to grasp a mystery beyond human comprehension. Thus we can only go by Scripture. There we find a Supreme Being, the Creator of All, presented as a single God, but composed of separate persons rather than modalities. We find a God who speaks of Himself as "we". A God whose very title, God, is plural (elohim). A God who gave the word (echad) that can denote a composite unity when telling His people what He is, rather than an incontrovertible word (yachid) that can only mean an absolute unity. (Respectfully, your argument for the word echad lacks critical substance. Strongs is neither a dictionary nor a lexicon. A few cherry-picked appearances of the word does not effectively argue against its use to represent composite unities in other scriptures. A solid lexical investigation of the use of the biblical word can upend what you have written.)

Further, I find a God who refers to another (the Son) as God, and in a clear, declarative opening scripture of the New Testament reveals to us that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Clearly the mystery of the Trinity is here expressed: the Savior was God, yes! But also was WITH God.

My brother, there are so many proofs in his Word that He is a composite unity --many of which I have offered up previously in addition to this post-- that I cannot in any way accept the Unitarian or Oneness argument that the one mysterious and magnificent God is simply one and merely appears in different forms rather than in the fullness of His godhead as three persons. I know some people view persons or modalities as a mere semantical difference. To me it is not. (And clearly not to you.) It is of paramount importance to the entirety of the dealings of God with man, which culminates in the gospel and all it entails.

In any case, readers who are in doubt as to what to believe should seek God in order to decide for themselves what to believe. The matter is settled for the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christmas in America and around the world (fewer than one and a half percent of Christians around the world are Ineness or Unitarian. And the truth is the Trinity is the official position of this board. So we will end this discussion here. (That all said, I aappreciate the Christlike manner with which you have conducted yourself in this conversation. Therefore, if you wish to continue it with me, I invite you to do so through our private message system.)

Going forward, I invite you to contribute to the many worthy topics available to us by which all of us can share and help one another refine and mature both our individual faith and our individual walks.