Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Free]

I believe in the Trinity, but I also find the language "three disctinctive co-equal persons" confusing and misleading, it often falls into either tritheism (three gods) or modalism (one god shifting between three forms).

It might be confusing and difficult to understand, but three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons within the one being that is God, precludes both tritheism and Modalism. Trinitarianism is three distinct persons, by definition.

God is one who manifests himself as the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth and the Son between heaven and earth - simultaneously. To be clear, this is NOT modalism, since the same God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit SIMULTANEOUSLY, not shifting from one to another.

That is what I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. It is a modern form of Modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism teaches, based on a unitarian (one person) view of God.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It might be confusing and difficult to understand, but three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons within the one being that is God, precludes both tritheism and Modalism. Trinitarianism is three distinct persons, by definition.


That is what I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. It is a modern form of Modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism teaches, based on a unitarian (one person) view of God.

Welcome to the forums!

Thanks, but what's the difference between this and your othordox view other than the fancy theological language? If the three "persons" coexist, why is it still modalism? The bottom line is the Shema prayer in Deut. 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is God, the Lord is ONE." Anything that deviates from that is problematic.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Because that isn't biblical. It's also not the topic of this thread.

It is biblical, and welcome news to those who hate sin.
But...back to the OP.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Because we're not Jesus Hopeful.

We should be exactly like Him.

And Jesus is the ONLY human person that ever lived that did not sin.

Tell that to Enoch and Elijah and John the Baptist.

Adam SPOKE to God and even HE sinned.
I really worry that you're desensitized to sin and do not even know when you're sinning.
But I know you're doing your best and respect that.

Those who have been forgiven for much love much.

Your belief system totally destroys other verses too:
John 20:23 Why would sins have to be forgiven?

Because most don't walk in the Spirit.

Mark 2:8-11 Jesus can forgive the sins of man. A paraplegic man could sin?

The mind is what causes the body to commit sin.
If the body can't do it, the sin was already committed in the mind.
Remember..."If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery already in his heart".

1 Peter 2:24 Jesus bore our sins. After the crucifixion, no man ever sinned again? All sins are forgiven, past, present and future.

Yes, Jesus bore our sins.
But He won't bear the sins of the unrepentant.
Repeated sins shows a lack of repentance from sin.
Your past present and future sins idea is a pipe dream by the unrepentant.

1 John 2:1 John is saying we will sin.

No, he isn't.
He says "if any man sin we have the Advocate".
"We" are those who don't sin anymore.
"We" are those who have turned from sin and gotten washed by the blood of Christ.

The NT exhorts us to present ourselves blameless before God.
Diligent to do good works.
We are to be spotless.

Would we be told to do the impossible ?
No.

And God will know if we made the proper effort to be such.
I believe I'm a child of God, doing my best to please Him, but sure He is so pure and Holy that this cannot be.

I just read this today..."Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
How can that which is reborn of God's seed still be corruptible ?
Apple seeds cannot bring forth plums.
God's seed cannot bring forth the devil's fruit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is what I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. It is a modern form of Modalism that Oneness Pentecostalism teaches, based on a unitarian (one person) view of God.

By the way, I did some research on "Oneness Pentecostalism", according to this source below, Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. Isn't that exactly what I said with a little elaboration? Oneness theology, on the other hand, denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was “manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.” Isn't that exactly what I refuted? That's not a modern form of Modalism, that's the old Modalism. I've figured that you probably don't like the term "manifest", but there's no way to avoid it, as long as Jesus is the manifestation of God in human flesh.

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

Oneness Pentecostal theology denies the Trinity, adds baptism for salvation, and says you maintain your salvation by works.

carm.org

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I believe in the Trinity, but I also find the language "three disctinctive not co-equal persons" confusing and misleading, it often falls into either tritheism (three gods) or modalism (one god shifting between three forms). God is one who manifests himself as the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth and the Son between heaven and earth - simultaneously. To be clear, this is NOT modalism, since the same God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit SIMULTANEOUSLY, not shifting from one to another.

The closest analogy I use is Zoom meeting - you, your image on your local client and your image on your listener's client. Althought this "you" is a dynamic array of pixels on a screen, anybody who knows you will see it as you yourself, anybody who respects you right in front of you will respect you on Zoom as well; even if they don't know what you look like, they can still recognize you with your speech pattern. Nobody with a right mind would argue that this is another flat person living in a screen, or this is some kind of a magic trick causing them to hallucinate.

Hello Carry_Your_Name and welcome, Thanks for your reply, I'm still looking for The Trinity Doctrine to be True or False, but so far it is not to us, a Doctrine that should not be taught according to what I have heard, but to believe as the scriptures have said rightly divided unto God, it is a lot of speculation.

Love, Walter

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hello Carry_Your_Name and welcome, Thanks for your reply, I'm still looking for The Trinity Doctrine to be True or False, but so far it is not to us, a Doctrine that should not be taught according to what I have heard, but to believe as the scriptures have said rightly divided unto God, it is a lot of speculation.

Love, Walter

Hello there. Trinity is not necessarily a doctrine, it's more like a mechanism, through which we in this fallen and broken world can have access to God who is in heaven. My concern is not trinity itself, but our idolatry and weaponization of this doctrine, which means blindly worshiping it as a god, and using it as a weapon to hit anybody with a different opinion.

 

[Runningman]

Paul clearly thinks Jesus preexisted:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Paul clearly does not believe Jesus is God. He went out of his way to single of the Father as God.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Paul didn't say Jesus is God, but referred to Jesus being in the form (G3444 morphé) when means the shape, form, outward appearance. Furhermore, he did not count equality with God as something to be grasped. Furthermore, there is only one God mentioned in the context. Paul once again goes out of his way to single the Father out as the only God getting glory.

Phil 2
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:15 says Jesus was created.

The rest of the context is regarding the church.

And the writer of Hebrews:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
...

Not sure why you left out verse 9, but it doesn't help Trinitarianism. God does not have peers to be set above, whereas the human king of Israel mentioned in Psalm 45 and the Messiah do have peers. Jesus did have peers because he's completely human and not a God-man. Furthermore, it says God has a God which is not what Trinitarianism is. In one swoop this verse not only inflicts a mortal wound on Trinitarian theology but also reveals a translation problem. Since this is quoted from Psalm 45 where it speaks about a human king, the "God" is a god with a little g.


9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

The one at God's right hand isn't God, it's Jesus.

Psalm 110
1The LORD[YHWH] said to my Lord:[Jesus]
“Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies
a footstool for Your feet.”

Notice that all these passages are saying the exact same thing as John 1:1-3:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Refers to the logos of God where Jesus existed in God's thoughts and foreknowledge.

The only logical conclusion is that John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews believed Jesus was the eternal, incarnate Son of God. All the above passages are false otherwise.

They all believed Jesus is a man. They did not apparently believe in the pre-existence of any human aside from in God's foreknowledge. Humans literally pre-existing is not a theology of the Jews nor was is it present in the Bible.

And, of course, it must be added that all the above is perfectly consistent with what Jesus thought of himself:

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

That's not consistent with your thesis and it isn't what Jesus was talking about. He's making a comparison between himself and the manna for the Israelites.

God was not storing manna in heaven for the Israelites since eternity.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

It doesn't follow your premise. There is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in this verse.

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

(The disciples now understand and believe that Jesus "came from God.")

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Joh 17:6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
Joh 17:7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

(All ESV.)

There is only one understanding based on a plain reading of the texts: Jesus truly believed he preexisted with the Father, telling the disciples that he did. So, it should be no surprise then that we see John and other NT writers saying the very same thing.


I have given numerous passages which prove Jesus is God in nature. It makes no sense to ask to "explain the instances where he is not God in nature," since God cannot cease to be God. As God in human flesh, the Son is going to be limited in what he can do as God and can choose to limit his use of his divine nature, but he can never cease to be God.


Knew what? That he would appoint Jeremiah as a prophet.


That's begging the question. Paul has already said in verse 6 that Jesus is God in nature. That Paul mentions God the Father doesn't mean that Jesus isn't God the Son.


Look at the context and ask yourself what does it even mean to "look like God"? And what does it mean to look like God prior to becoming a man? And what does it mean for Jesus to look like God and then empty himself--empty himself of what and how? And what does it mean for him to look like God, empty himself, and then take the appearance of a servant?

If morphe in this passage is only visual appearance, then none of the above really makes a whole lot of sense, although it still supports his preexistence.

Jesus only existed in God's foreknowledge. First clue you aren't looking at it correctly is that Revelation 13:8 directly counters your pre-existence teaching because it says Jesus was slain from the creation of the world. Since we know Jesus was not slain and crucified from the creation of the world then we know he didn't literally pre-exist except for in God's foreknowledge.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

 

[Runningman]

What I gave is from NT Greek scholars. The issue is that Jesus was "in the form of God" and only after "taking the form of a servant," did he empty himself. That is, according to Wuest, regarding verse 7:

'The word "took" is an aorist participle. A rule of Greek grammar says that the action of an aorist participle precedes the action of the leading verb. The leading verb here is "emptied." That means the act of taking preceded the act of emptying. That in turn means that the act of taking upon Himself the form of a servant preceded and was the cause of the emptying.'

Remember, as I quoted from M. R. Vincent previously, the form is the outward expression of the inmost nature, but is not identical to it; the mode of expression "is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression."

Wuest says further about verse 7:

'When expressing Himself as a bondslave come to serve, He necessarily exchanged one form of expression for another. In verse six He was in His pre-incarnate state expressing Himself as Deity. In verse seven He expresses Himself in incarnation as a bondslave. This is the direct opposite of what took place at the Transfiguration. There we have the same word "form" used, but with a prefixed preposition signifying change. We could translate "And the mode of His outward expression was changed before them, and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light" (Matt. 17:2). Our Lord's usual mode of expression while on earth previous to His resurrection was that of a servant. . . . But now, His outward expression as a servant ceased, and He gave outward expression of the glory of His Deity.'

As to what Jesus emptied himself of, Wuest gives the following:

'He did not empty Himself of His deity, since Paul says that the expression of His deity was a fact after His incarnation, that expression implying the possession of the essence of Deity. He set aside the outward expression of His deity when expressing Himself as a bondslave. It was the outward expression of the essence of His deity which our Lord emptied Himself of during the time when He was giving outward expression of Himself as a bondslave. . . . When our Lord set aside the expression of Deity in order that He might express Himself as a bondslave, He was setting aside His legitimate and natural desires and prerogatives as Deity. The basic, natural desire and prerogative of Deity is that of being glorified. But when Deity sets these aside, it sets its desires aside, and setting its desires aside, it sets Self aside. The pronoun "Himself" is in the accusative case. The action of the verb terminates in the thing expressed by that case. The act of emptying terminated in the self life of the Son of God. Our Lord emptied Himself of self. This agrees perfectly with the context which is an example of humility and self-abnegation for the benefit of others.'


It all fits with Jesus being both God and man, and in expressing one or the other of those natures. At no time did he cease being God, even though he took on (added) human nature.

God is not a man:

1. “God is not a man” – Numbers 23:19
2. “For I am God, and not man,” – Hosea 11:9

Jesus is called a man many times:

1. “a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” – John 8:40
2. “a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.” – Acts 2:22
3. “He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed.” – Acts 17:31
4. “the man Christ Jesus,” – 1 Timothy 2:5

God is not a son of man:

1. “God is not a man…or a son of man,” – Numbers 23:19

The Bible calls Jesus “the son of man”:

1. “so the Son of Man will be” – Matthew 12:40
2. “For the Son of Man will come” – Matthew 16:27
3. “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” – Matthew 16:28

“Son of man” is used to refer to people:

1. “the son of man, who is but a worm!” – Job 25:6
2. “the son of man You have raised up for Yourself.” – Psalm 80:17
3. “O LORD, what is man, that You regard him, the son of man that You think of him?” – Psalm 144:3
4. “Son of man,” He said to me, “stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” – Ezekiel 2:1

Jesus denied being God:

1. “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone” – Luke 18:19
2. “Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good.” – Matthew 19:17

Contrary to the accusations of blasphemy against him, Jesus said he is a man:
1. “you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” – John 8:40

God is greater than Jesus:

1. “the Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28
2. “My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all.” – John 10:29

Jesus never instructed anyone to worship him:

1. “When you pray, say: ‘Father, hallowed be Your name.” – Luke 11:2
2. “in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.” – John 16:23
3. “the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” John 4:23

Jesus worshipped the Only True God:

1. “ that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3
2. “He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.” – Luke 6:12
3. “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,” – Matthew 20:28

Jesus prayed to God:

1. “He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed,” – Matthew 26:39
2. “in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,” – Hebrews 5:7

The disciples did not believe Jesus is God:

1. “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know” – Acts 2:22
2. “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, “ – Acts 3:13
3. “God, having raised up His Servant Jesus” – Acts 3:26

The disciples prayed to God:

1. “they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them,” – Acts 4:24
2. “ Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed,” – Acts 4:27
3. “Your holy Servant Jesus.” – Acts 4:30

Jesus is God’s servant:

1. ““Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased!” – Matthew 12:18

Jesus cannot do anything of himself:

1. “the Son can do nothing of Himself,” – John 5:19
2. “I can of Myself do nothing.” – John 5:30

God Gave Jesus the power to forgive sins:

1. “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” – Matthew 9:6
2. “Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.” – Matthew 9:8

 

[Free]

Thanks, but what's the difference between this and your othordox view other than the fancy theological language? If the three "persons" coexist, why is it still modalism?

Your definition--"God is one who manifests himself as the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth and the Son between heaven and earth - simultaneously."--implies that God is one person (unitarian) and didn't become three until after creation. Those three are just manifestations and not actual distinct persons; it gives only the appearance of plurality.

The Trinity is that there was never a time when the three persons did not exist. God is three persons who have always existed distinctly one from the other; they are not mere manifestations, but centers of personhood, for lack of a better way of putting it.

The bottom line is the Shema prayer in Deut. 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is God, the Lord is ONE." Anything that deviates from that is problematic.

Sure, but that is a statement of monotheism only. It doesn't say whether God is unitarian or trinitarian or something else.

By the way, I did some research on "Oneness Pentecostalism", according to this source below, Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. Isn't that exactly what I said with a little elaboration? Oneness theology, on the other hand, denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was “manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.” Isn't that exactly what I refuted? That's not a modern form of Modalism, that's the old Modalism. I've figured that you probably don't like the term "manifest", but there's no way to avoid it, as long as Jesus is the manifestation of God in human flesh.

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

Oneness Pentecostal theology denies the Trinity, adds baptism for salvation, and says you maintain your salvation by works.

carm.org

I disagree with Matt Slick on this. If you look at his article on the the Trinity, he avoids using "manifest" in regards to the distinction of the persons. I'm not sure why he would use it in defining the Trinity in an article on Oneness. That creates too much confusion. It isn't that the word "manifest" is necessarily incorrect; it's that very often it's used for Modalism or Oneness theology and not Trinitarianism. Without further qualification as to it's use in defining Trinitarianism, it's unnecessarily confusing.

Here it is use of Oneness:

"Those who hold to Oneness doctrine believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. But instead of one God who exists eternally in three Persons, they believe in One God (a single Divine Spirit) who manifests Himself in three Persons or, perhaps more accurately, three personalities."

https://www.gotquestions.org/oneness-doctrine.html

And here:

"A.H.Strong; "In the nature of the One God there are three eternal distinctions…and these three are equal. "The doctrine of the Trinity does not on one hand assert that three persons are united as one person, or three beings in one being,or three Gods in one God (tritheism); nor on the other hand that God merely manifests himself in three different ways (modal Trinity of manifestations); but rather that there are three eternal distinctions in the substance of God." (Theology p.144)"

http://www.letusreason.org/Trin7.htm

Even though it is technically fine to use manifest in regards to the Trinity, it's just too close to Modalism, particularly Oneness theology, in my opinion.

 

[Free]

Paul clearly does not believe Jesus is God.

You need to show exactly how it is that Paul "clearly does not believe Jesus is God." I bolded portions of the verse for a reason:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This is the first thing to notice with this verse: if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Father, it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of Jesus. It simply cannot be the case that "all things" came "through" Jesus (as the Son), but he is a created being. If the Son did not exist at some point, then the verse is false (same with John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:10-12).

He went out of his way to single of the Father as God.

The second thing to notice with that verse is that, using the same reasoning above, it follows that Paul went out of his way to single out the Son as Lord. Yet, Paul states elsewhere:

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

That agrees with the OT:

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psa 136:3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever;

And Luke states:

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

So, if Paul is saying in 1 Cor 8:6 that the Father is exclusively God, it necessarily follows that he is saying the Son is exclusively Lord. Yet, other passages clearly attest to the fact that God and the Father are Lord.

As an aside, it is worth noting that the same titles are used of Jesus:

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

(All ESV.)

Once again we see the consistent message throughout the NT.

Paul didn't say Jesus is God, but referred to Jesus being in the form (G3444 morphé) when means the shape, form, outward appearance.

I'm just going to defer back to what I've already given on morphe from Greek scholars.

Furhermore, he did not count equality with God as something to be grasped.

And that means "something to be forcibly retained or held onto." If Paul means that Jesus didn't think he should try and be equal to God, assuming that he is only a man, that really isn't saying anything special at all, since that is the proper view of all humans. Perhaps better put: that was the proper view of all Jews at that time. It would be rather pointless to say, don't you think?

Furthermore, there is only one God mentioned in the context. Paul once again goes out of his way to single the Father out as the only God getting glory.

Phil 2
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

To say there is only one God mentioned is to fallaciously beg the question and disregard the context of what Paul has already stated, namely, that Jesus was "in the form of God."

Colossians 1:15 says Jesus was created.

This is problematic for you since you deny Jesus existed prior to being born.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (ESV)

If Paul means that Jesus was created, then he was the first created thing. It could only mean then that he existed long before he was born as a man.

The rest of the context is regarding the church.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

This is a repeat of John 1:3 and 1 Cor 8:6, and supported by Heb 1:10-12. This is very simple logic: If "all things were created" through the Son, then it cannot be that he is a created thing. That is, if the Son was created, then verses 16 and 17 are false, since not everything would have been created through him (he cannot be created through himself; that is nonsense).

But since those verses are true, and agree with other verses, then Paul cannot be saying in verse 15 that Jesus was created. So is there another way we can legitimately understand the use of "firstborn" and remain faithful to the text? There is.

How then do we understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.

The use of firstborn can mean preeminence without the referent having actually been born. Looking at the significance of Psalms 89:27, it is a messianic Psalm where God says of David, "I will make him the firstborn." Here, firstborn clearly means that God will put him in a position of preeminence, "the highest of the kings of the earth." David is here the prototype of the coming Messiah, the "firstborn," and has nothing to do with David's being born or coming into being. This is almost certainly what Paul had in mind, and we see something similar in Romans:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Here it means the same--that Jesus would be the head of all believers. In relation to the Son then, we can understand that Col. 1:15 is speaking of Jesus's place of preeminence, his sovereignty, and his lordship, over all creation.

A similar idea applies to Rev 3:14. Again, such a verse logically cannot mean that Jesus was the first created thing, as that would ignore much context of Scripture. What it refers to is that Jesus was the beginner or author of creation, the one through whom the Father created (1 Cor 8:6). That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

10-6-23

Revelation Of The Person Of The King

Matthew 16:13-17​

​

​

​

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Read full chapter

 

[Free]

Not sure why you left out verse 9, but it doesn't help Trinitarianism. God does not have peers to be set above, whereas the human king of Israel mentioned in Psalm 45 and the Messiah do have peers. Jesus did have peers because he's completely human and not a God-man. Furthermore, it says God has a God which is not what Trinitarianism is. In one swoop this verse not only inflicts a mortal wound on Trinitarian theology but also reveals a translation problem. Since this is quoted from Psalm 45 where it speaks about a human king, the "God" is a god with a little g.


9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

I skipped verse 9 because there is disagreement as to the translation of Psalm 45:6. The only reason I quoted verse 8 was to show that the Father is speaking of the Son in verses 10-12, stating that it was the Son whom Psalm 102:25-27 is speaking of. That is, the Son is also Yahweh. Again, this is consistent with John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17.

You say that "Jesus did have peers because he's completely human." Yet, you also argue that Col 1:15--He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.--"says Jesus was created." But you can't have it both ways. If Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" means that he was created, then he it also means he was the first thing created, which clearly precludes him from being "completely human."

The one at God's right hand isn't God, it's Jesus.


Psalm 110
1The LORD[YHWH] said to my Lord:[Jesus]
“Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies
a footstool for Your feet.”

It's interesting that you didn't attempt to address Heb 1:10-12, but skipped that to go to verse 13 which I inadvertently copied. Your answer, though, is once again fallaciously begging the question. You are assuming the very thing you're concluding.

Refers to the logos of God where Jesus existed in God's thoughts and foreknowledge.

I realized that I may not being clear enough. Did Jesus, as God in human flesh, only exist in God's foreknowledge? Yes. That God would become man was his plan for salvation since the foundation of the world. However, the Son, the preincarnate Word who became the man Jesus (while never ceasing to be God), has always existed; there never was a time when the Sone did not exist.

Doesn't your interpretation of Col 1:15 completely undermine your argument here?

They all believed Jesus is a man. They did not apparently believe in the pre-existence of any human aside from in God's foreknowledge. Humans literally pre-existing is not a theology of the Jews nor was is it present in the Bible.

I fully agree that no human had any actual preexistence, but you are begging the question by assuming that Jesus is only human. And, again, you also say that "firstborn of all creation" means that Jesus was created, which undermines your position here as well.

That's not consistent with your thesis

How so? It's perfectly consistent with "my thesis," which is biblical theology. Jesus is the preincarnate Word who was with God and was God in nature (John 1:1; Phil 2:6), but who came down and took on human flesh (John 1:14; Phil 2:7-8), and submitted himself to the will of the Father (Phil 2:8) for the salvation of humans and redemption of creation. That is exactly what John 6:35-40 is talking about.

and it isn't what Jesus was talking about. He's making a comparison between himself and the manna for the Israelites.

God was not storing manna in heaven for the Israelites since eternity.

Where does Jesus mention manna in this context?

It doesn't follow your premise. There is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in this verse.

There is everything about the preexistence of Jesus in John 8:58. He is claiming to be the I Am of Exo 3:14; the name of God which denotes absolute self-existence.

Jesus only existed in God's foreknowledge.

Yes, the human side of the Son.

First clue you aren't looking at it correctly is that Revelation 13:8 directly counters your pre-existence teaching because it says Jesus was slain from the creation of the world. Since we know Jesus was not slain and crucified from the creation of the world then we know he didn't literally pre-exist except for in God's foreknowledge.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Again, your understanding of Col 1:15 contradicts your position here. Also, we must be (more) careful to differentitate between the humanity of Jesus and the deity of Jesus when it comes to discussing preexistence.

 

[GodsGrace]

A Christian is a follower of Christ [Jesus] and his teachings. If you abide in Jesus and Jesus' words abide in you, then you are truly his disciple and he is your lord in every sense of the word. You will also believe what Jesus does, such as his teaching about the Father being the only true God in John 17:3. Jesus never directly said he is God. At best, it's your interpretation and opinion.

Two things Runningman,
1. You could be a follower of Buddha, of Krishna (whom I respect BTW), or Jesus.
The problem is that the other 2 never stated they were God. They never did a miracle, they never said they could forgive sin.

So,
You could follow Jesus all you want to - but that does not give you the right to call yourself a CHRISTIAN.
You could be called a follower of Christ, and you'll be saved, and we'll see each other in heaven, but what makes you a Christian is not the mere fact that you follow Jesus.

I believe I'll start a thread on this and tag you in.

I will ask you the same.

Actually, I believe all that I stated that is necessary to be Christian.
So, yes, I can call myself a Christian.

John 1:1 doesn't say what your commentary says.

I don't read commentaries.
Could you please explain to me what John 1:1 means?
Thanks.

Having the divine nature of God doesn't make someone God or anyone partaking of the divine nature would be God.

Ummm. I didn't say such a foolish thing.

I said that if God has a Son, that Son is God.
If YOU have a child, that child is human.
If a tree has a seedling, that will become a tree.

God said this in Genesis.
Genesis 1:24-25
24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Is this not so?

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.


Jesus isn't YHWH, the I AM, God, etc. Jesus is a servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God said He would be remembered by a specific name and in a specific way, but that isn't how Jesus is remembered.

That's what YOU believe - not what Christians believe.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Jesus came to do God's will and to be our servant here on earth and to teach the Apostles that they, also,
must be servants.
John 13:12-15 JESUS WASHES THE FEET OF THE APOSTLES
12So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?
13“You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.
14“If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15“For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.

Do you remember what He was trying to teach them?
Jesus also said that the one sent is not greater than the one sending.
Jesus sent out the 12...but HE was greater than they were.
(just as God in heaven was greater than Jesus while He was on earth).

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

God is the I AM.
Jesus said He was I AM.

This is understood to be the same God.
There is only one I AM.
The great shema of deuteronomy.

It says the "word was God" it doesn't say "the word was Jesus." This refers to the logos of God.

And who is the Word?
Who is the Logos?

The Word was WITH GOD
and The Word WAS GOD.

Now you just have to know WHO the Word is.
Who is the following speaking of?

John 1:14-17
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’”
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

God always outrightly declares Himself to be God. Jesus did not do that.

I explained why.
If you don't accept it, so be it.
But Christians do accept it.

Jesus didn't begin his ministry until into his 30's when he took John's water baptism of repentance and received the Holy Spirit from God. Matt 3:16,17

According to scripture, a man did die for our sins.

Then YOU will die in yours. I posted the scripture.
We're beginning to repeat.

Do you believe God became sin or did Jesus become sin?

Jesus is God. No choosing required.

2 Cor. 5
21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Jesus was giving a prophecy, but he didn't literally raise himself from the dead. John 2:22 says he was raised from the dead, clearly by Someone external (God) to himself. The Bible says repeatedly the Father raised Jesus from the dead.

If God raised Jesus from the dead then ,
God Father
God Son
God Holy Spirit

all raised Jesus from the dead because they ARE ONE.

And, in fact, that's as it is.

22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

I believed I mentioned this.
I stated that the Apostles didn't really understand who Jesus was till after the resurrection.

Jesus never sinned because he obeyed and followed God's laws. God gave these laws to regular people. Keeping God's laws doesn't make someone God.

This is funny actually.

Have YOU kept all of God's laws?
Do you know anyone who has?
No. Because only God can be Holy as God is Holy.
And Jesus is God.

It applies to Christians too:

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

No reply.
Too silly.
No. Really.

I wouldn't go to a Trinitarian church, but thank you.

I wish you would go to a Christian church.

 

[Runningman]

Two things Runningman,
1. You could be a follower of Buddha, of Krishna (whom I respect BTW), or Jesus.
The problem is that the other 2 never stated they were God. They never did a miracle, they never said they could forgive sin.

None of them said they are God.

Jesus could only forgive sins because that authority was given to him. That indicates he isn't God.

Matt 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.
8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

So,
You could follow Jesus all you want to - but that does not give you the right to call yourself a CHRISTIAN.

I am a Christian. What do I believe that Jesus doesn't believe or teach?

You could be called a follower of Christ, and you'll be saved, and we'll see each other in heaven, but what makes you a Christian is not the mere fact that you follow Jesus.

It's the most important thing. Someone who does not follow Jesus is decidedly not a Christian. You seem to be trying to separate being a Christain from the lordship of Jesus as shepherd of the flock.

Matt 16:24
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Matt 19:21
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

I believe I'll start a thread on this and tag you in.

I look forward to the chance to represent the truth.

Actually, I believe all that I stated that is necessary to be Christian.
So, yes, I can call myself a Christian.

Do you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead or that Jesus raised Jesus from the dead?

Romans 10
9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

I don't read commentaries.
Could you please explain to me what John 1:1 means?
Thanks.

I think John 1:1 is pretty clear. It says the Word is God without any mention of Jesus. However, the word "word" in Greek is actually a word called logos and it means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. It goes into a lot more detail in the context, but the idea being conveyed is that Jesus preexisted as God's thoughts and when God spoke Jesus was created.

Ummm. I didn't say such a foolish thing.

Just showing you that having a divine nature isn't useful to proves someone's deity.

I said that if God has a Son, that Son is God.

There is not a verse that says this.

If YOU have a child, that child is human.
If a tree has a seedling, that will become a tree.

And therefore Jesus being a human, you believe the Father is a human being?

That's what YOU believe - not what Christians believe.

What Christians believe and what the Bible says aren't always in harmony.

Jesus came to do God's will and to be our servant here on earth and to teach the Apostles that they, also,
must be servants.
John 13:12-15 JESUS WASHES THE FEET OF THE APOSTLES
12So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?
13“You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.
14“If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15“For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.

Do you remember what He was trying to teach them?
Jesus also said that the one sent is not greater than the one sending.
Jesus sent out the 12...but HE was greater than they were.
(just as God in heaven was greater than Jesus while He was on earth).

The one and only true God is the Father (John 17:3) and God sent Jesus and in your belief Jesus was sent from have as a pre-incarnate being known as the Son. Therefore, if the one who sent the Son is greater than the Son then they are not equals and thus the Son is not God.

God is the I AM.
Jesus said He was I AM.

Bad translation.

This is understood to be the same God.
There is only one I AM.
The great shema of deuteronomy.

If Jesus is the I AM and YHWH is the I AM but YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then Jesus isn't the I AM. It's a bad translation and this gets debated quite a bit due to the contradictions Trinitarian translations create in the scriptures.

And who is the Word?
Who is the Logos?

The Word was WITH GOD
and The Word WAS GOD.

Now you just have to know WHO the Word is.
Who is the following speaking of?

John 1:14-17
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’”
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

The idea being conveyed is God's words produced a human.

Then YOU will die in yours. I posted the scripture.
We're beginning to repeat.

How did an immortal invisible God die for your sins? It creates too many problems to say God became sin and died. Fortunately the Bible doesn't actually say that.

Jesus is God. No choosing required.

No one in the Bible seems to believe that.

This is funny actually.

Have YOU kept all of God's laws?
Do you know anyone who has?
No. Because only God can be Holy as God is Holy.
And Jesus is God.

Keeping God's laws doesn't make someone God. That isn't something the Bible says again. You have said a lot of things that just aren't in scripture. You have a theology, but not a lot of biblical support.

I wish you would go to a Christian church.

I assume you're referring to a Trinitarian church. I visited one a few years ago and made some friends that I miss, but their "church" if you can call it that, was mostly about money and putting on an entertaining concert. One of them used a Bible for a footrest. They also had a false prophet. God worked through me there, but there is no way I would go back unless my friends called me to help with something.

Unitarian churches don't have the problem Trinitarian churches have.

I know we disagree about everything and for the record I won't ever change regarding what the Bible says, but I hope you won't continue being judgmental and telling us we aren't saved and aren't Christians. It's really disappointing to come here and then watch an intellectual discussion be made personal especially when I am the target.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your definition--"God is one who manifests himself as the Father in heaven, the Spirit on earth and the Son between heaven and earth - simultaneously."--implies that God is one person (unitarian) and didn't become three until after creation. Those three are just manifestations and not actual distinct persons; it gives only the appearance of plurality.

The Trinity is that there was never a time when the three persons did not exist. God is three persons who have always existed distinctly one from the other; they are not mere manifestations, but centers of personhood, for lack of a better way of putting it.

Then I'm afraid we'd better agree to disagree. In the beginning God was light (Gen. 1:3), that was a divine light before the sun, moon and stars were created. In the book of Exodus, He was an all-consuming fire before Moses. The teaching of "personhood" is the result of athropomorphism and anthropopathism, fancy Greek words for attributing human form and emotion to non-human entities. Human brains are hardwired to perceive abstract concepts and entities through athropomorphism and anthropopathism, that's why God has to incarnate into a man so we can know him, relate to him and worship him properly. That's a promise and a prophecy given by God himself (Deut. 18:15-22).

I disagree with Matt Slick on this. If you look at his article on the the Trinity, he avoids using "manifest" in regards to the distinction of the persons. I'm not sure why he would use it in defining the Trinity in an article on Oneness. That creates too much confusion. It isn't that the word "manifest" is necessarily incorrect; it's that very often it's used for Modalism or Oneness theology and not Trinitarianism. Without further qualification as to it's use in defining Trinitarianism, it's unnecessarily confusing.

The rhetoric of "three persons" is more confusing than "manifest", it reeks of tritheism. If the three are one, why do you have to separate them into three "distinctive" persons and emphasize on that distinction? I think the only difference between "trinitarian" and "unitarian" is your mentality. Trinitarianism is the product of a reductionist view, it disassembles an object into isolated small parts and analyze these parts one by one; unitarian comes from a holistic view, it takes the object as a whole system, then you perceive each individual part in the context of this system.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Here it is use of Oneness:

"Those who hold to Oneness doctrine believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. But instead of one God who exists eternally in three Persons, they believe in One God (a single Divine Spirit) who manifests Himself in three Persons or, perhaps more accurately, three personalities."

https://www.gotquestions.org/oneness-doctrine.html

And here:

"A.H.Strong; "In the nature of the One God there are three eternal distinctions…and these three are equal. "The doctrine of the Trinity does not on one hand assert that three persons are united as one person, or three beings in one being,or three Gods in one God (tritheism); nor on the other hand that God merely manifests himself in three different ways (modal Trinity of manifestations); but rather that there are three eternal distinctions in the substance of God." (Theology p.144)"

http://www.letusreason.org/Trin7.htm

Even though it is technically fine to use manifest in regards to the Trinity, it's just too close to Modalism, particularly Oneness theology, in my opinion.

That teaching states: "one God reveals Himself in various forms: sometimes as the Father, sometimes as Jesus, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit." That's the very definition of the classic modalism and where it falls apart. God is not "father, son and husband" or "ice, vapor and water", he's SIMULTANEOUSLY all three. A man can be a father to his kids, a son to his parents and a husband to his spouse, but he can't simultaneously be the father, the son and the husband to either his kids, parents or spouse. God, however, can simultaneously be our lord (the Father), our servant (the Son) and our peer (the Spirit).

 

[Runningman]

You need to show exactly how it is that Paul "clearly does not believe Jesus is God." I bolded portions of the verse for a reason:

Too many to list but, in the interest of conciseness, I believe we should try to keep our posts focused more on single points so we don't need to spend a lot of time reading through thousands or words and addressing dozens of different talking points in single comments.

Just to address your opening statement, Paul clearly did not believe Jesus is God in all of his theology because Paul doesn't contradict himself. That's something I believe, but as you will see here are some points.

2 Corinthians 11
31The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is forever worthy of praise, knows that I am not lying.

Eph. 1
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

[Runningman]

You say that "Jesus did have peers because he's completely human." Yet, you also argue that Col 1:15--He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.--"says Jesus was created." But you can't have it both ways. If Jesus being "the firstborn of all creation" means that he was created, then he it also means he was the first thing created, which clearly precludes him from being "completely human."

We don't need to get into the weeds, but if you accept that Jesus was created then he can't be God. If we agree on that I have nothing more to add.

 

[Free]

Then I'm afraid we'd better agree to disagree. In the beginning God was light (Gen. 1:3),

God said, "Let there be light," but where does it say God was light?

that was a divine light before the sun, moon and stars were created. In the book of Exodus,

The verse doesn't say that it was a divine light.

He was an all-consuming fire before Moses.

He appeared as in flames of fire but the bush wasn't consumed. But what point are you trying to make?

The teaching of "personhood" is the result of athropomorphism and anthropopathism, fancy Greek words for attributing human form and emotion to non-human entities. Human brains are hardwired to perceive abstract concepts and entities through athropomorphism and anthropopathism, that's why God has to incarnate into a man so we can know him, relate to him and worship him properly. That's a promise and a prophecy given by God himself (Deut. 18:15-22).

The language of persons and personhood and personalities was never meant to be adequate but just a close approximation to help us understand.

The rhetoric of "three persons" is more confusing than "manifest", it reeks of tritheism.

Not really. Three persons is not at all the same as three Gods. Again, manifest is too often used by unitarians such as Modalists and Oneness.

If the three are one, why do you have to separate them into three "distinctive" persons and emphasize on that distinction?

Because the Bible does. Do we need any other reason?

I think the only difference between "trinitarian" and "unitarian" is your mentality.

The difference is literally whether God is ontologically one person or three persons. He cannot be both.

Trinitarianism is the product of a reductionist view, it disassembles an object into isolated small parts and analyze these parts one by one;

Trinitarianism affirms the diversity that is within the unity.

unitarian comes from a holistic view, it takes the object as a whole system, then you perceive each individual part in the context of this system.

But unitarianism ignores the three eternally distinct persons, from which is necessarily follows that they are merely modes or different manifestations of one person. At best, unitarianism will result in Modalism. There are many other potential results, but, by definition, Trinitarianism isn't one of them.

That teaching states: "one God reveals Himself in various forms: sometimes as the Father, sometimes as Jesus, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit." That's the very definition of the classic modalism and where it falls apart.

Yes, the classic definition. But at heart is a unitarian view of God, which is also the Oneness view of God. They just have a modern form of Modalism which I call Concurrent or Coexistent Modalism. They believe Jesus is God who manifests himself simultaneously as Father, Son, and Spirit; that's the only difference with classical Modalism.

God, however, can simultaneously be our lord (the Father), our servant (the Son) and our peer (the Spirit).

He can precisely because he is three eternally distinct persons.