Does the relationship between the Father and the Son have an end, or is it eternal?

[My Rock]

Oneness seems to be more concerned with "different aspects of God's relationship with humanity" than with the necessary relational aspects within the Godhead. If there is no relationships within the one eternal God, he cannot be love, and that is a huge problem.

In response to the concern about the relational aspect of God within the Oneness view, it's important to clarify that Oneness theology does not deny the relational nature of God but rather emphasizes that God, in His singular essence, manifests Himself in different ways to fulfill His purpose in creation and redemption. The key is that God's love, mercy, and relational nature are not dependent on eternal distinctions within the Godhead but are fully expressed through His interaction with humanity.

God is love, as 1 John 4:8 declares, and this love is made evident not through separate distinct persons but through His direct engagement with creation. God expressed His ultimate love by manifesting Himself in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem us. The incarnation—God becoming flesh—is the highest expression of His relational loving nature, showing His deep connection to humanity. God's love is not diminished by the absence of eternal relationships between "persons" within Himself. Instead, it is magnified by His willingness to personally enter into time Himself, take on human form, and experience life among us as our Savior.

Therefore, the Oneness view upholds the relational and loving nature of God, but it does so within the framework of God's singular identity, manifesting in different ways—Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration—while remaining the one true God who is fully involved in relationship with His creation. This understanding preserves the biblical doctrine of God’s oneness while highlighting His personal engagement and love for humanity.

 

[Free]

In response to the concern about the relational aspect of God within the Oneness view, it's important to clarify that Oneness theology does not deny the relational nature of God but rather emphasizes that God, in His singular essence, manifests Himself in different ways to fulfill His purpose in creation and redemption. The key is that God's love, mercy, and relational nature are not dependent on eternal distinctions within the Godhead but are fully expressed through His interaction with humanity.

I know the Oneness view and it is precisely the problem, which is my point. God needed to create other beings in order to love. Therefore, he cannot be love. For him to be love it necessarily follows that there must be more than one person within God; it’s either that or polytheism.

God is love, as 1 John 4:8 declares, and this love is made evident not through separate distinct persons but through His direct engagement with creation. God expressed His ultimate love by manifesting Himself in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem us. The incarnation—God becoming flesh—is the highest expression of His relational loving nature, showing His deep connection to humanity. God's love is not diminished by the absence of eternal relationships between "persons" within Himself. Instead, it is magnified by His willingness to personally enter into time Himself, take on human form, and experience life among us as our Savior.

This is exactly the problem as I’ve stated it. To be love is to have love as intrinsic to his nature, as holiness and goodness are. But the Oneness view of God (unitarian) means he is reliant on creation to love and so cannot be love. His love is contingent on creation and that is a denial of the very nature of God as given in the Bible.

The incarnation is a demonstration and outworking of the infinite love that existed before all time between the three persons of the Trinity.

Therefore, the Oneness view upholds the relational and loving nature of God,

It denies it completely and makes impossible love as a necessary part of God’s nature.

but it does so within the framework of God's singular identity, manifesting in different ways—Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration—while remaining the one true God who is fully involved in relationship with His creation.

And here is the denial—God’s love being contingent on creation.

This understanding preserves the biblical doctrine of God’s oneness while highlighting His personal engagement and love for humanity.

You’re fallaciously begging the question again in regards to “God’s oneness.”

 

[Free]

With all due respect My Rock, you haven’t actually engaged with any of my arguments. You just keep posting the Oneness position on things and most/all of it seems to be copy and paste. This suggests that you aren’t actually thinking through and considering what I’m saying, and just think your source(s) address what I’ve argued, when they don’t.

 

[My Rock]

I know the Oneness view and it is precisely the problem, which is my point. God needed to create other beings in order to love. Therefore, he cannot be love. For him to be love it necessarily follows that there must be more than one person within God; it’s either that or polytheism.

Don't let your very words betray you, be very cautious before responding. "More than one" is division (bitheism or more) and you say you believe in One God, just be careful.

And here is the denial—God’s love being contingent on creation.

In response to the concern that Oneness theology makes God's love contingent on creation, it’s important to clarify that the Oneness view does not teach that God’s love is dependent on His creation. Rather, it affirms that God is love in His very nature, and His love is eternally present within Himself. The expression of this love toward humanity, especially through the Incarnation, is an outworking of that eternal love, not its origin.

In 1 John 4:8, we see that "God is love" — this means love is intrinsic to God's nature, not something He developed in response to creation. God's relational nature and love are evident in how He interacts with creation, particularly in the Incarnation, when He manifested Himself in the flesh as Jesus Christ to demonstrate His love in the most profound way (John 3:16). This act of self-sacrifice reflects God’s eternal love and purpose, but it does not suggest that God's love only exists because of creation. Rather, God’s love is simply revealed to us through His actions in time.

Oneness theology emphasizes that God is one and does not require eternal internal distinctions to possess or express love. His love is fully realized within His singular being. The Trinitarian argument that love necessitates internal relationships between multiple persons is based on a human concept of relational dynamics, but God’s love transcends human understanding. In Oneness theology, God’s love is fully expressed through His manifestations, not limited by or contingent upon creation, but made known to us through His direct interaction with humanity, especially through Jesus Christ.

Thus, Oneness believers maintain that God's love is eternal, rooted in His very nature, and manifested in creation, without needing multiple persons within the Godhead to express that love. God, in His infinite capacity, can love, relate, and reveal Himself without the need for distinct, co-eternal persons.

 

[My Rock]

With all due respect @My Rock, you haven’t actually engaged with any of my arguments. You just keep posting the Oneness position on things and most/all of it seems to be copy and paste. This suggests that you aren’t actually thinking through and considering what I’m saying, and just think your source(s) address what I’ve argued, when they don’t.

I sincerely appreciate your engagement in this discussion, and I want to assure you that my responses are not simply copy-and-paste from outside sources as you may suspect. The sources I reference come directly from Scripture and are theologically sound in their context. I am very careful to always cite Scripture with my explanations. Plus, I am active on several Christian forums and have encountered similar questions before, which has led me to save many of my study notes and responses in word documents. These notes are in direct response to the same kinds of questions you’re raising, which is why some of my answers may seem familiar or well-prepared. I’m grateful for the chance to engage with you here and am happy to dive deeper into any points you feel need further clarification.

I’ve been thoughtfully considering the points you’ve raised and have tried to respond with respect and depth, presenting the Oneness perspective in a way that is clear and biblically grounded. If it seems like I’ve overlooked certain aspects of your arguments, that’s not my intent, and I’m more than willing to revisit those points I missed and addressing them directly, please point them out.

The purpose of this conversation isn’t just to assert positions but to seek a deeper understanding of God’s nature, from both sides, through meaningful dialogue. I value the opportunity to hear your perspective and to engage in a respectful, theological exchange. I’ll do my best to address your points directly going forward and welcome any further clarifications so that we can both learn and grow from this discussion in a spirit of unity and love. Let’s continue with humility, seeking the truth that ultimately points us back to Jesus Christ and His revelation in Scripture.

 

[My Rock]

begging the question

You keeping using this phrase extremely loosely please show the question we are "begging" for so we can discuss it rationally? Or if you are suggesting that I am assuming what I need to prove—that is, I'm assuming Oneness theology is correct without addressing or proving it within the context of the debate.

Then, I understand the concern about "begging the question," but I assure you that my responses aim to offer explanations rather than assumptions.

In the statements I’ve shared, I’m not assuming Oneness theology to be true without proof; rather, I’m presenting how early Christians, particularly the apostles, understood the concept of God’s oneness. I’m using Scripture to show how they interpreted the divine nature (Godhead) and how they described God’s relational love.

For example, the use of terms like Godhead in the New Testament is supported by careful examination of the original Greek words (θεότης, theiotes, etc.), and I’m trying to shed light on how these terms were likely understood by Jewish-Christians in their cultural and theological context. By referencing Deuteronomy 6:4 and passages like Colossians 2:9, my goal is to show that the early believers upheld the oneness of God while recognizing His manifestations—especially in the person of Jesus Christ.

The statements about God’s love are also grounded in Scripture (1 John 4:8, John 3:16) and aim to show how love is intrinsic to God’s nature, even within the Oneness framework. I’m not assuming this to be true but demonstrating how Oneness theology understands God’s love to be expressed through His manifestations.

If there’s a specific point that still feels like an assumption to you, I’d love to explore it further. My goal is for us to engage with Scripture and theology in a way that brings us closer to understanding the nature of God.

 

[Vinny37]

A central point of contention between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals is the nature of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians assert that the Sonship is an eternal relationship within the Godhead, while Oneness Pentecostals often argue that it is a temporary state that will cease after the final judgment.

To explore this issue, let's consider the scriptural evidence. Does the Bible suggest that the Sonship is a permanent or temporary aspect of Jesus' relationship with God?

1 Corinthians 15:24 states, "Then comes the end, when he will deliver over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every rule and every authority and power." This passage seems to imply that Jesus' role as Son will eventually come to an end.

However, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, we read, "And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all." This verse suggests that even after all things are subjected to the Son, he will still be subject to the Father.

How do we reconcile these two passages? Does the Bible indicate that the Sonship is a temporary state that will eventually cease, or is it an eternal aspect of the Godhead?

IMO Jesus’ sonship (filiality) began when he was conceived by the spirit—there was a time when he was not—and like ours will be everlasting. The unfallen angels are children of God everlastingly, although when contrasted to human beings in the father, are pictured as servants of God’s children (Ps.8 pictures this higherness, as does Hebrews). With Jesus we will all be subjected in freedom directly to our father, remaining everlastingly as his human children.

1 Cor.15:24 merely states that Jesus’ mediatorial role as king over all human monarchs will end—arguably at the parousia: his father is the king of the king over all human monarchs, and our ultimate king. God’s son has always been subjected to he in whose name he operated.

As regards God’s son noncarnate, sonship is eternal; as regards God’s son carnate, sonship is merely everlasting as is ours. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of deity.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

I was giving the biblical, Trinitarian view, not Oneness.


It really doesn't, as discussed below.


Absolutely not. That is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the NT, which makes very clear that that Son never has been the Father. Again, when is a son ever his own father or a father his own son?


No. That is making certain assumptions about what the text is saying which, at this point, have not been justified.


Too bad anti-Trinitarians seem to continually ignore context, which includes the entirety of Scripture. I've made these points before, but if you have, please either copy and paste your responses or link me to them.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
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. (ESV)

First, we should note that Paul dismisses the idea of any other actual god or lord, supporting the monotheism he had just stated in verse 4.

Second, notice that at the end of verse 4, Paul says "there is no God but one." That is, at least in part, from Deut 6:4:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

Third, now look at what Paul writes in verse 6: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." Note that verse 6 is a continuing argument from verse 4. Putting the argument together then, without the aside in verse 5, we see: "we know . . . that there is no God but one yet for us there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." This strongly suggests that Paul was expanding on the Shema, as some theologians, such as N.T. Wright, claim.

Fourth, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And this is confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 10-12.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, although being God in nature is distinct from the Father. Both are mentioned as being involved in creation, albeit in different roles--the Father as originator; the Son as agent. No anti-Trinitarian has yet even attempted to refute the logic of point four.

And we also see the same thing in other passages that Jesus, or the Son, was involved in creation:

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
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.” (ESV)

Notice that the writer of Hebrews states in verse 2 that God (the Father) created through the Son. That is supported in verses 10-12 where the writer essentially states that the Father says that the Son was the creator, by using an OT passage about YHWH creating, but having the Father apply it to the Son, saying he did it.

Again, this is impossible if the Son didn't exist prior to all creation. Those are all the more important when we look at the next chapter:

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (ESV)

That is speaking of God. And, once again, notice the use of "through whom" in speaking of the Son, in 1:2, and then "for whom and by whom" in 2:10, which is speaking of God. That is what Paul says in 1 Cor 8:6.

All of those verses are further supported by John 1:1-3, 10 and Col 1:16-17, and contradict the Oneness/Modalist unitarian view of God.


Then, we have John's statements that "God is love," in 1 John 4:8, 16.

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.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

In verse 1, pros ("with") indicates relational intimacy, after already having spoken of absolute existence with en ("was"). It makes no sense to say that the Son was with the Father for eternity but they are both one and the same person. However, it does make sense when speaking of at least two persons. And this is supported by 1 John saying that "God is love" in 1 John 4:8, 16. That is, to say God is love, is to make a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving.

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
...
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God prior to creation. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words, including the many times Jesus says he is from above and not from earth.

So, what then is love?

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

At its fullest, it is an outward expression and action towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes actual loving action towards others from before creation of all time and space, from “eternity past.” However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God only loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love, and therefore his nature as God, incomplete and deficient.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in an intimate, loving relationship and communion for eternity past, that is, prior to creation. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.

A unitarian view of God just doesn't make sense of the full revelation of God in Scripture.

This is a very good post

 

[Free]

Don't let your very words betray you, be very cautious before responding. "More than one" is division (bitheism or more) and you say you believe in One God, just be careful.

I was very careful which is why I differentiated person from another God, just like as has been done since the doctrine of the Trinity was first formalized. Distinction between persons is not bitheism, it does not constitute another separate divine being.

In response to the concern that Oneness theology makes God's love contingent on creation, it’s important to clarify that the Oneness view does not teach that God’s love is dependent on His creation.

Yes, I know. I know what Oneness teaches, but you seem to be missing the point that the Oneness doctrine of God necessarily makes God dependent on his creation for love even though they don't teach that. That is the logical outcome of the Oneness view of God and is a huge problem for their doctrine of God.

Rather, it affirms that God is love in His very nature, and His love is eternally present within Himself. The expression of this love toward humanity, especially through the Incarnation, is an outworking of that eternal love, not its origin.

Exactly. That is what they teach and that is the problem as it makes null and void any idea that love is intrinsic to God's nature.

In 1 John 4:8, we see that "God is love" — this means love is intrinsic to God's nature, not something He developed in response to creation. God's relational nature and love are evident in how He interacts with creation, particularly in the Incarnation, when He manifested Himself in the flesh as Jesus Christ to demonstrate His love in the most profound way (John 3:16). This act of self-sacrifice reflects God’s eternal love and purpose, but it does not suggest that God's love only exists because of creation. Rather, God’s love is simply revealed to us through His actions in time.

Oneness theology emphasizes that God is one and does not require eternal internal distinctions to possess or express love. His love is fully realized within His singular being. The Trinitarian argument that love necessitates internal relationships between multiple persons is based on a human concept of relational dynamics, but God’s love transcends human understanding. In Oneness theology, God’s love is fully expressed through His manifestations, not limited by or contingent upon creation, but made known to us through His direct interaction with humanity, especially through Jesus Christ.

Thus, Oneness believers maintain that God's love is eternal, rooted in His very nature, and manifested in creation, without needing multiple persons within the Godhead to express that love. God, in His infinite capacity, can love, relate, and reveal Himself without the need for distinct, co-eternal persons.

But, as I have pointed out and you continually fail to leave unaddressed is that love, in its fullest, must necessarily be an action towards another. The explanation you have given reduces love to a mere feeling, but that is utterly insufficient if love is intrinsic to God's nature.

I previously argued what the definition of love is, HERE:

So, what then is love?

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

At its fullest, it is an outward expression and action towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes actual loving action towards others from before creation of all time and space, from “eternity past.” However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God only loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love, and therefore his nature as God, incomplete and deficient.

You state that "God’s love is fully expressed through His manifestations." This is exactly the problem. If "God's love is fully expressed through His manifestations," then it necessarily follows that he had to create in order to fully express love. But, that makes his love contingent on creation and not something that has always existed within himself.

You simply cannot have a God who is love and he is only one person. It's impossible. If he is only one person, then he needs to create in order to love. If he is three persons, then God truly is love, as his love has always been "fully expressed" through reciprocal action from each person to the other two.

 

[Free]

I sincerely appreciate your engagement in this discussion, and I want to assure you that my responses are not simply copy-and-paste from outside sources as you may suspect. The sources I reference come directly from Scripture and are theologically sound in their context. I am very careful to always cite Scripture with my explanations. Plus, I am active on several Christian forums and have encountered similar questions before, which has led me to save many of my study notes and responses in word documents. These notes are in direct response to the same kinds of questions you’re raising, which is why some of my answers may seem familiar or well-prepared. I’m grateful for the chance to engage with you here and am happy to dive deeper into any points you feel need further clarification.

I’ve been thoughtfully considering the points you’ve raised and have tried to respond with respect and depth, presenting the Oneness perspective in a way that is clear and biblically grounded. If it seems like I’ve overlooked certain aspects of your arguments, that’s not my intent, and I’m more than willing to revisit those points I missed and addressing them directly, please point them out.

The purpose of this conversation isn’t just to assert positions but to seek a deeper understanding of God’s nature, from both sides, through meaningful dialogue. I value the opportunity to hear your perspective and to engage in a respectful, theological exchange. I’ll do my best to address your points directly going forward and welcome any further clarifications so that we can both learn and grow from this discussion in a spirit of unity and love. Let’s continue with humility, seeking the truth that ultimately points us back to Jesus Christ and His revelation in Scripture.

Fair enough.

You keeping using this phrase extremely loosely please show the question we are "begging" for so we can discuss it rationally? Or if you are suggesting that I am assuming what I need to prove—that is, I'm assuming Oneness theology is correct without addressing or proving it within the context of the debate.

The latter; the fallacy.

Then, I understand the concern about "begging the question," but I assure you that my responses aim to offer explanations rather than assumptions.

In the statements I’ve shared, I’m not assuming Oneness theology to be true without proof; rather, I’m presenting how early Christians, particularly the apostles, understood the concept of God’s oneness. I’m using Scripture to show how they interpreted the divine nature (Godhead) and how they described God’s relational love.

For example, the use of terms like Godhead in the New Testament is supported by careful examination of the original Greek words (θεότης, theiotes, etc.), and I’m trying to shed light on how these terms were likely understood by Jewish-Christians in their cultural and theological context. By referencing Deuteronomy 6:4 and passages like Colossians 2:9, my goal is to show that the early believers upheld the oneness of God while recognizing His manifestations—especially in the person of Jesus Christ.

The statements about God’s love are also grounded in Scripture (1 John 4:8, John 3:16) and aim to show how love is intrinsic to God’s nature, even within the Oneness framework. I’m not assuming this to be true but demonstrating how Oneness theology understands God’s love to be expressed through His manifestations.

If there’s a specific point that still feels like an assumption to you, I’d love to explore it further. My goal is for us to engage with Scripture and theology in a way that brings us closer to understanding the nature of God.

It was this statement:

"Therefore, the Oneness view upholds the relational and loving nature of God, but it does so within the framework of God's singular identity, manifesting in different ways—Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration—while remaining the one true God who is fully involved in relationship with His creation. This understanding preserves the biblical doctrine of God’s oneness while highlighting His personal engagement and love for humanity."

One has to first assume that the Bible teaches God has a singular identity, that he is only one divine person, in order to conclude that there is a "biblical doctrine of God's oneness" which teaches God is only one divine person. As I've pointed out previously, there is not a single verse that clearly or directly states God is only one person. The Bible teaches a lot on monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity affirms, but everything that is said about God leaves open the door for more than one divine person within that one being that is God.

And, it is this assumption that God is one person which nullifies any possibility of God being love.

 

[My Rock]

I was very careful which is why I differentiated person from another God, just like as has been done since the doctrine of the Trinity was first formalized. Distinction between persons is not bitheism, it does not constitute another separate divine being.

When we speak of distinct "persons," we inherently refer to distinct centers of consciousness, will, and relationship. Even if Trinitarian theology insists that these persons share the same essence or substance, the very act of distinguishing between persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) introduces a division in identity. If the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, we are speaking of three distinct beings in practical terms, regardless of how closely they are linked in substance or essence.

Yes, I know. I know what Oneness teaches, but you seem to be missing the point that the Oneness doctrine of God necessarily makes God dependent on his creation for love even though they don't teach that. That is the logical outcome of the Oneness view of God and is a huge problem for their doctrine of God.


Exactly. That is what they teach and that is the problem as it makes null and void any idea that love is intrinsic to God's nature.


But, as I have pointed out and you continually fail to leave unaddressed is that love, in its fullest, must necessarily be an action towards another. The explanation you have given reduces love to a mere feeling, but that is utterly insufficient if love is intrinsic to God's nature.

I previously argued what the definition of love is, HERE:

So, what then is love?

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

At its fullest, it is an outward expression and action towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes actual loving action towards others from before creation of all time and space, from “eternity past.” However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God only loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love, and therefore his nature as God, incomplete and deficient.

You state that "God’s love is fully expressed through His manifestations." This is exactly the problem. If "God's love is fully expressed through His manifestations," then it necessarily follows that he had to create in order to fully express love. But, that makes his love contingent on creation and not something that has always existed within himself.

You simply cannot have a God who is love and he is only one person. It's impossible. If he is only one person, then he needs to create in order to love. If he is three persons, then God truly is love, as his love has always been "fully expressed" through reciprocal action from each person to the other two.

I emphatically said that love is intrinsic to God’s nature and it means that love is an essential, inherent quality of who God is. It is not something that God acquires or develops over time, nor is it dependent on anything outside of Himself, such as creation or relationships within the Godhead, although He is the Father of ALL creation. Rather, love is a fundamental aspect of God’s very being—God is love, as stated in 1 John 4:8. Where have I said this is not so?

In response to the Trinitarian argument that God’s love requires internal relationships between distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), we can explain that this is not a necessary framework to understand the intrinsic nature of divine love. The argument posits that God must have multiple persons within Himself to experience and express love prior to creation, as love, in their view, requires a relational exchange. However, from a Oneness perspective, this overlooks the fact that God, in His singular, undivided nature, is fully capable of being love within Himself without requiring internal distinctions of persons.

In Oneness theology, God's love is eternal and self-existent because love is not dependent on relational exchanges between persons but is rooted in the very essence of God’s being. God did not need to be three distinct persons to be love; instead, His love was fully present within His oneness, and this love was expressed through His interaction with creation. When God chose to create the world and later manifest Himself in the flesh as Jesus Christ, it was not because He needed creation or other persons within the Godhead to experience love. Rather, His love was the overflow of His self-giving nature, a voluntary expression of His desire to share His goodness with others.

The most powerful demonstration of this intrinsic love is seen in the incarnation—God manifesting Himself in the flesh to redeem humanity. As 1 John 4:9-10 reveals, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us." This shows that God's love existed eternally within Himself and was revealed through His actions in time.

Thus, the Oneness view asserts that God's singular nature is fully sufficient to embody and express love without the necessity of distinct persons. God's love is intrinsic because it is who He is, not something He needs to generate through relationships between persons. His love is eternal, self-sufficient, and fully realized in His actions toward humanity, particularly through His redemptive work in Christ. Therefore, the Trinitarian argument that multiple persons are required to affirm God's love does not align with the biblical portrayal of God’s singular, all-sufficient nature.

 

[My Rock]

As I've pointed out previously, there is not a single verse that clearly or directly states God is only one person.

Neither is there any that says God is three distinct persons. Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In multiple verses of Scripture in Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

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."

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Isaiah 45:5-6, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:21-22, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Isaiah 46:9, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."

Isaiah 47:8, "Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children."

Isaiah 48:12, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
These verses from Isaiah strongly affirm God's absolute oneness and sovereignty, consistently stating that there is no other God, no one like Him, and no one beside Him. This emphasizes the biblical foundation for the belief in the Oneness of God—God is uniquely and indivisibly one, without any internal division or separate persons.

If the original writers of Scripture had naturally assumed or considered the existence of three distinct persons in God, verses like those in Isaiah would likely have been worded to reflect a plurality within the Godhead. Instead of absolute phrases like "none beside me," "I am He," and "there is none else," we might expect wording that clarifies the distinctions between persons, such as “We are God” or “None beside Us.” The language would need to indicate some internal distinction, like "God the Father, Son, and Spirit together," rather than the consistent singularity expressed through "I am the LORD" and "there is none like Me." However, the absence of such distinctions in these verses strongly supports the biblical portrayal of God as a singular, indivisible being. The very use of "distinct person(s)" betrays this completely.

 

[Free]

Neither is there any that says God is three distinct persons.

No, but there are a few that suggest plurality, such as Gen 1:26-27, 11:7, and Isa 6:8. Not to mention Daniel 7:13 where "one like a son of man," the divine human figure who comes before the Ancient of Days, and is the reason Jesus uses the title of himself.

Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness.

Actually, he didn't. There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and ‘echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would obviously mean the Trinity is false.

However, yachid is never used of God. Only ‘echad is used of God and it can refer to, although not necessarily, a compound unity—multiplicity within that one, such as “one nation under God;” that one nation consisting of millions of people. Or, as in Gen 2:24, the two "shall become one flesh." ‘Echad is what "one" in English means and is what is used in Deut 6:4, for instance. It does leave the door open for the Trinity although it neither proves nor disproves it.

In multiple verses of Scripture in Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

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."

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Isaiah 45:5-6, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

Isaiah 45:21-22, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Isaiah 46:9, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."

Isaiah 47:8, "Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children."

Isaiah 48:12, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
These verses from Isaiah strongly affirm God's absolute oneness and sovereignty, consistently stating that there is no other God, no one like Him, and no one beside Him. This emphasizes the biblical foundation for the belief in the Oneness of God—God is uniquely and indivisibly one, without any internal division or separate persons.

Again, to use all of these to say that "the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number," is to fallaciously beg the question by first assuming that God is only one person and then using these verses--which speak of monotheism only--to conclude that God is only one person. God simply nowhere makes it clear "that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead;" not even close. He could have done so, but he didn't.

If the original writers of Scripture had naturally assumed or considered the existence of three distinct persons in God, verses like those in Isaiah would likely have been worded to reflect a plurality within the Godhead. Instead of absolute phrases like "none beside me," "I am He," and "there is none else," we might expect wording that clarifies the distinctions between persons, such as “We are God” or “None beside Us.” The language would need to indicate some internal distinction, like "God the Father, Son, and Spirit together," rather than the consistent singularity expressed through "I am the LORD" and "there is none like Me." However, the absence of such distinctions in these verses strongly supports the biblical portrayal of God as a singular, indivisible being. The very use of "distinct person(s)" betrays this completely.

It's called progressive revelation. Things become much more clear in the NT.

 

[Free]

When we speak of distinct "persons," we inherently refer to distinct centers of consciousness, will, and relationship. Even if Trinitarian theology insists that these persons share the same essence or substance, the very act of distinguishing between persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) introduces a division in identity. If the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, we are speaking of three distinct beings in practical terms, regardless of how closely they are linked in substance or essence.

Never three distinct beings. There is only one being that is God. The doctrine of the Trinity has always used "being" to refer to God and "person" to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to ensure the distinction is maintained. The issue is what is what God has revealed of himself in Scripture:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is truly and fully God, the Son is truly and fully God, the Holy Spirit is truly and fully God.
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit.

That is what any doctrine of God must take into account--it must always maintain monotheism as well as the distinctions between the three divine persons. Complicated and ultimately incomprehensible? Yes. Impossible and contradictory? No. Is it polytheism? That is precluded.

I emphatically said that love is intrinsic to God’s nature and it means that love is an essential, inherent quality of who God is. It is not something that God acquires or develops over time, nor is it dependent on anything outside of Himself, such as creation or relationships within the Godhead, although He is the Father of ALL creation. Rather, love is a fundamental aspect of God’s very being—God is love, as stated in 1 John 4:8. Where have I said this is not so?

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. You can say "love is intrinsic to God's nature," "love is a fundamental aspect of God's very being," and "God is love" all you want, even emphatically, but the very definition of God as only one person precludes that from ever being the case. That is my point. God being only one person makes it impossible that "God is love."

In response to the Trinitarian argument that God’s love requires internal relationships between distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), we can explain that this is not a necessary framework to understand the intrinsic nature of divine love. The argument posits that God must have multiple persons within Himself to experience and express love prior to creation, as love, in their view, requires a relational exchange. However, from a Oneness perspective, this overlooks the fact that God, in His singular, undivided nature, is fully capable of being love within Himself without requiring internal distinctions of persons.

In Oneness theology, God's love is eternal and self-existent because love is not dependent on relational exchanges between persons but is rooted in the very essence of God’s being. God did not need to be three distinct persons to be love; instead, His love was fully present within His oneness, and this love was expressed through His interaction with creation. When God chose to create the world and later manifest Himself in the flesh as Jesus Christ, it was not because He needed creation or other persons within the Godhead to experience love. Rather, His love was the overflow of His self-giving nature, a voluntary expression of His desire to share His goodness with others.

Then you really don't understand what love is. Again, the Oneness position reduces God's love to a mere feeling. However, love is necessarily an action towards another, it requires a subject and an object, and so cannot just simply exist within God if he is one person. In addition to 1 John 4:9-10, which show that love has a subject and an object, we have Jesus saying the same:

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, the greatest possible expression of love, which would be required if God actually is love, is an action from one person to another. This makes it impossible that "His love was fully present within His oneness," where oneness means one person. God expresses his love towards us precisely because it is the overflow of love between three eternal persons.

The most powerful demonstration of this intrinsic love is seen in the incarnation—God manifesting Himself in the flesh to redeem humanity. As 1 John 4:9-10 reveals, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us." This shows that God's love existed eternally within Himself and was revealed through His actions in time.

Thus, the Oneness view asserts that God's singular nature is fully sufficient to embody and express love without the necessity of distinct persons. God's love is intrinsic because it is who He is, not something He needs to generate through relationships between persons. His love is eternal, self-sufficient, and fully realized in His actions toward humanity, particularly through His redemptive work in Christ. Therefore, the Trinitarian argument that multiple persons are required to affirm God's love does not align with the biblical portrayal of God’s singular, all-sufficient nature.

Yes, the Oneness view asserts things, but those things simply cannot bear under scrutiny.

Notice that you state that "His love is eternal, self-sufficient, and fully realized in His actions toward humanity." However, that is the very problem. If his love is "fully realized in His actions toward humanity," then it necessarily follows that his love cannot be eternal and self-sufficient. That is precisely why I have argued that in such a case God's love is contingent on creating humanity and, therefore, God cannot be love.

If love is intrinsic to God's nature, then his love must necessarily be fully realized within himself, otherwise his love is deficient as it is only potentiality not actuality. And, what we see in Scripture is that God's nature being love is an actuality because both the Father and the Son have eternal preexistence (it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit does as well):

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.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

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 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

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. (ESV)

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. (ESV)

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
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.” (ESV)

If all of those verses are true, then it is impossible for the Son to not have existed for eternity past together with the Father, if we take them at face value.

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (ESV)

Not only is it worth noting that the Bible never says that the Father came in the flesh, we see once again that Jesus, the Son of God, is the Word of God, just as with John 1:1.

 

[My Rock]

No, but there are a few that suggest plurality, such as Gen 1:26-27, 11:7, and Isa 6:8. Not to mention Daniel 7:13 where "one like a son of man," the divine human figure who comes before the Ancient of Days, and is the reason Jesus uses the title of himself.

In response to the assertion that certain scriptures suggest a plurality of persons within the Godhead, a careful theological examination of the referenced passages reveals that these verses do not necessarily support the idea of distinct persons in God. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 ("Let us make man in our image") and Genesis 11:7 ("Let us go down and confuse their language") have often been interpreted by Trinitarians as evidence of plurality in God. However, these passages are better understood within the context of God's majesty and divine counsel. The plural language can be explained as a plural of majesty, a common Hebraic literary device where God speaks in a way that emphasizes His grandeur and authority. Jewish tradition, from which these scriptures originate, has never understood these passages to indicate a plurality of persons, but rather as expressions of God’s royal decree or consultation with His heavenly hosts (angels). Importantly, in Genesis 1:27, the very next verse reaffirms monotheism by stating that "God created man in His own image," reverting to singular pronouns.

Regarding Isaiah 6:8, where God says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" the same principle applies. The use of "us" can be seen as God addressing His heavenly court or the spiritual beings present, not implying a multi-personal Godhead. Again, this aligns with ancient Jewish understanding that never interpreted such language as an indication of plurality within God’s essence.

Daniel 7:13, which describes "one like a Son of Man" coming before the "Ancient of Days," is a visionary depiction of Messianic prophecy, where the Son of Man is not a distinct person within God but represents the human manifestation of God’s authority. In Christian theology, this passage is understood as Jesus Christ, the incarnation of the one God, being revealed as the ruler of all nations. Rather than supporting a plurality within God, this passage reinforces the idea of God manifesting Himself in different roles: as the eternal God (the Ancient of Days) and as the incarnate Messiah (Son of Man). This is consistent with the Oneness view that God is one in essence and manifests Himself in different ways, rather than being eternally distinct persons.

Therefore, none of these scriptures explicitly or implicitly teach the existence of distinct persons in God. Instead, they reflect the majesty and multifaceted ways in which the one God interacts with His creation.

Actually, he didn't. There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and ‘echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would obviously mean the Trinity is false.

However, yachid is never used of God. Only ‘echad is used of God and it can refer to, although not necessarily, a compound unity—multiplicity within that one, such as “one nation under God;” that one nation consisting of millions of people. Or, as in Gen 2:24, the two "shall become one flesh." ‘Echad is what "one" in English means and is what is used in Deut 6:4, for instance. It does leave the door open for the Trinity although it neither proves nor disproves it.

Can't argue with that logic, so possibly.

Again, to use all of these to say that "the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number," is to fallaciously beg the question by first assuming that God is only one person and then using these verses--which speak of monotheism only--to conclude that God is only one person. God simply nowhere makes it clear "that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead;" not even close. He could have done so, but he didn't.

You yourself said, and I quote, "can refer to, although not necessarily"

 

[My Rock]

Never three distinct beings. There is only one being that is God. The doctrine of the Trinity has always used "being" to refer to God and "person" to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to ensure the distinction is maintained. The issue is what is what God has revealed of himself in Scripture:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is truly and fully God, the Son is truly and fully God, the Holy Spirit is truly and fully God.
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit.

That is what any doctrine of God must take into account--it must always maintain monotheism as well as the distinctions between the three divine persons. Complicated and ultimately incomprehensible? Yes. Impossible and contradictory? No. Is it polytheism? That is precluded.

How can you or anyone ever say "three divine persons" and not mean plurality.

And, what we see in Scripture is that God's nature being love is an actuality because both the Father and the Son have eternal preexistence (it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit does as well):

If there is an Eternal Son before being born of a virgin than answer me this question. Who is His Eternal mother? Because its been stated before that a Son has to have a father. I would say a Son would also have to have a mother. So again, who is His eternal mother?

 

[Free]

In response to the assertion that certain scriptures suggest a plurality of persons within the Godhead, a careful theological examination of the referenced passages reveals that these verses do not necessarily support the idea of distinct persons in God. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 ("Let us make man in our image") and Genesis 11:7 ("Let us go down and confuse their language") have often been interpreted by Trinitarians as evidence of plurality in God. However, these passages are better understood within the context of God's majesty and divine counsel. The plural language can be explained as a plural of majesty, a common Hebraic literary device where God speaks in a way that emphasizes His grandeur and authority. Jewish tradition, from which these scriptures originate, has never understood these passages to indicate a plurality of persons, but rather as expressions of God’s royal decree or consultation with His heavenly hosts (angels). Importantly, in Genesis 1:27, the very next verse reaffirms monotheism by stating that "God created man in His own image," reverting to singular pronouns.

Yes, plural personal pronouns in God referring to himself and then switching to singular can be an indication of plurality within God. They certainly make it a possibility. What Gen 1:26 cannot mean is that God is speaking to the "divine counsel," otherwise verse 27, and every other verse that states that man is made in God's image, would be false.

Regarding Isaiah 6:8, where God says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" the same principle applies. The use of "us" can be seen as God addressing His heavenly court or the spiritual beings present, not implying a multi-personal Godhead. Again, this aligns with ancient Jewish understanding that never interpreted such language as an indication of plurality within God’s essence.

That not all the Jews interpreted such as a plurality within God doesn't mean that they had the correct interpretation. They did get some things wrong, like those who never saw that the Christ was to suffer, die, and rise again. This, again, leads to progressive revelation, which once revealed can, to a certain extent, provide clarification on things revealed prior.

Daniel 7:13, which describes "one like a Son of Man" coming before the "Ancient of Days," is a visionary depiction of Messianic prophecy, where the Son of Man is not a distinct person within God but represents the human manifestation of God’s authority. In Christian theology, this passage is understood as Jesus Christ, the incarnation of the one God, being revealed as the ruler of all nations. Rather than supporting a plurality within God, this passage reinforces the idea of God manifesting Himself in different roles: as the eternal God (the Ancient of Days) and as the incarnate Messiah (Son of Man). This is consistent with the Oneness view that God is one in essence and manifests Himself in different ways, rather than being eternally distinct persons.

Let's leave this passage alone, because it clearly doesn't support anything to do with Oneness, without begging the question. Other passages are much more clear.

Therefore, none of these scriptures explicitly or implicitly teach the existence of distinct persons in God. Instead, they reflect the majesty and multifaceted ways in which the one God interacts with His creation.

My point is that they make plurality within God a possibility.

Can't argue with that logic, so possibly.

You yourself said, and I quote, "can refer to, although not necessarily"

Yes, but again, not only is there not one verse in the Bible that clearly or directly states God is only one person, the door is left completely open to such a possibility.

How can you or anyone ever say "three divine persons" and not mean plurality.

Because of monotheism, which I have stated is a foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

If there is an Eternal Son before being born of a virgin than answer me this question. Who is His Eternal mother? Because its been stated before that a Son has to have a father. I would say a Son would also have to have a mother. So again, who is His eternal mother?

Show me where the Bible mentions his eternal mother and you'll have your answer.

It's hard not to notice that you ignored the hardest things in my post, those things that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Son must necessarily have existed prior to creation in order to be the agent of creation, co-creating alongside the Father. Why is that? Is it because they are based on sound logic with the premises taken at face value?

 

[My Rock]

Yes, plural personal pronouns in God referring to himself and then switching to singular can be an indication of plurality within God. They certainly make it a possibility. What Gen 1:26 cannot mean is that God is speaking to the "divine counsel," otherwise verse 27, and every other verse that states that man is made in God's image, would be false.

It very well could also mean, which I should have explained in more detail. The "plural of majesty" as a linguistic device in which a single speaker, often a king or sovereign, refers to themselves in the plural form to convey grandeur, authority, or dignity. This construction does not imply a literal plurality of persons but emphasizes the speaker's elevated status. Here are examples of the plural of majesty from the Bible and other contexts that illustrate this idea:

Genesis 1:26 KJV – "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

Here, many also understand "us" as a plural of majesty, where God speaks in a way that reflects His full sovereignty and majesty. This does not imply multiple persons but rather the fullness of God's own being.

Genesis 11:7 KJV – "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

In this passage, God uses the plural "us" again, also understood by many as a plural of majesty. God is expressing His complete authority and decision-making power in the act of confusing the language of Babel. This majestic plural emphasizes God’s sovereign capacity without implying multiple divine beings.

2 Samuel 16:20 KJV – When Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give counsel among you what we shall do."

This is another instance of plural language used by a single ruler. Absalom, though only one person, speaks in the plural as an expression of royal authority, using language that emphasizes his role rather than a literal plurality.

Ezra 4:18 ESV – "The letter that you sent to us has been plainly read before me."

King Artaxerxes is the sole speaker here, but he refers to himself using the plural form "us." This is another example where a singular figure uses plural pronouns as a form of regal address, conveying his sovereignty and authority rather than a plurality of persons.

Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts – In documents from ancient cultures, including Assyrian and Babylonian texts, rulers frequently used the plural form to describe their own actions or decisions. This practice was common in the broader cultural setting of the biblical world and served to elevate the monarch's status rather than suggest multiple persons involved in their rule.

These examples highlight that the plural of majesty is a linguistic expression of sovereignty, authority, or grandeur. In the context of Scripture, the plural of majesty is applied in specific instances where God or a king asserts authority, without any implication of multiple persons within a single divine being. Instead, it emphasizes God’s majesty, completeness, and fullness as Creator and Sovereign.

That not all the Jews interpreted such as a plurality within God doesn't mean that they had the correct interpretation.

Those outside the Bible, yes very possible. But any true Scripturally Inspired interpretation never.

It's hard not to notice that you ignored the hardest things in my post, those things that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Son must necessarily have existed prior to creation in order to be the agent of creation

The idea of Jesus being the "agent of creation" is understood within the framework of not having a pre-existent, physical, or ethereal form and rests on understanding that the "Word" (Greek: Logos) existed eternally with God as His divine purpose, plan, and expression rather than as a separate, pre-incarnate Son. According to this perspective, God's Logos—His Word or intention—was with Him from the beginning as His divine plan. Jesus, the Son, came into existence at the Incarnation when this divine plan, or Logos, was embodied in human flesh. Here’s how this understanding aligns with key Scriptures and early Jewish-Christian thought:

John 1:1, 14 KJV – This verse reveals that God’s Word existed from the very beginning and was divine. But it’s important to note that John does not say, “In the beginning was the Son.” Instead, the "Word" (Logos) is spoken of as God’s active, divine expression. In verse 14, it states, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…." This signifies that the Logos took on human form at a specific moment in history in the person of Jesus Christ, rather than existing as a distinct "Son" prior to creation. In fact in 1 John in heaven, it says 1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (not Son), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

1 Peter 1:20 KJV – "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." This passage explains that Jesus was foreordained or chosen before creation but manifested in time. The Son did not pre-exist in any physical form; rather, the concept and purpose of the Messiah existed as God’s Logos—the divine plan for redemption—which God already had in mind.

Ephesians 1:4 KJV – "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world…” This verse shows that, in God's eternal plan, believers were chosen "in Him" (Christ) before creation, demonstrating that God’s plan for redemption was determined before the world was made. However, this “choosing” does not imply that Jesus existed in a separate form prior to creation but rather that the plan of salvation was conceived and assured within God’s purpose.

Colossians 1:16-17 KJV – "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth…” Here, the term "by Him" can be understood in the sense of agency. The Logos, as God’s expressed purpose and creative power, was the means through which creation came about. Creation was brought into existence “by Him,” meaning through God’s divine Word and purpose, which later took form in Jesus Christ. This does not require the Son’s pre-existence as a separate being but instead points to God’s creative expression and plan being ultimately revealed in Christ.

Hebrews 1:2 KJV – "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This verse is sometimes seen as support for a pre-existent Son. However, within the context of the entire epistle, it can be understood that God’s eternal Logos—His expressed will—became flesh in Jesus, who is now appointed as heir of all. Jesus is the “appointed heir,” and it was through the Word (now personified in the Son) that creation was brought about.

From this perspective, God's Logos was eternally with Him as His divine expression and purpose, functioning as the "agent" of creation. This Word, which was inherently part of God’s identity, took form and was manifest in Jesus Christ when the fullness of time arrived. The Son did not exist as a separate or ethereal being prior to the Incarnation. Instead, the Word, God’s eternal plan and wisdom, was realized fully in Jesus, who became the agent of creation in the sense that God created all things through His Word, now revealed in the flesh. This aligns with an understanding of the Son’s existence being tied to the Incarnation, while the Word (as God’s eternal self-expression) remains uncreated and eternally part of God’s nature.

 

[Free]

It very well could also mean, which I should have explained in more detail. The "plural of majesty" as a linguistic device in which a single speaker, often a king or sovereign, refers to themselves in the plural form to convey grandeur, authority, or dignity. This construction does not imply a literal plurality of persons but emphasizes the speaker's elevated status. Here are examples of the plural of majesty from the Bible and other contexts that illustrate this idea:

Genesis 1:26 KJV – "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

Here, many also understand "us" as a plural of majesty, where God speaks in a way that reflects His full sovereignty and majesty. This does not imply multiple persons but rather the fullness of God's own being.

Genesis 11:7 KJV – "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

In this passage, God uses the plural "us" again, also understood by many as a plural of majesty. God is expressing His complete authority and decision-making power in the act of confusing the language of Babel. This majestic plural emphasizes God’s sovereign capacity without implying multiple divine beings.

2 Samuel 16:20 KJV – When Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give counsel among you what we shall do."

This is another instance of plural language used by a single ruler. Absalom, though only one person, speaks in the plural as an expression of royal authority, using language that emphasizes his role rather than a literal plurality.

Ezra 4:18 ESV – "The letter that you sent to us has been plainly read before me."

King Artaxerxes is the sole speaker here, but he refers to himself using the plural form "us." This is another example where a singular figure uses plural pronouns as a form of regal address, conveying his sovereignty and authority rather than a plurality of persons.

Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts – In documents from ancient cultures, including Assyrian and Babylonian texts, rulers frequently used the plural form to describe their own actions or decisions. This practice was common in the broader cultural setting of the biblical world and served to elevate the monarch's status rather than suggest multiple persons involved in their rule.

These examples highlight that the plural of majesty is a linguistic expression of sovereignty, authority, or grandeur. In the context of Scripture, the plural of majesty is applied in specific instances where God or a king asserts authority, without any implication of multiple persons within a single divine being. Instead, it emphasizes God’s majesty, completeness, and fullness as Creator and Sovereign.

In relation to God they could be, or they could be God speaking of plurality within himself, or it could be both. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

The idea of Jesus being the "agent of creation" is understood within the framework of not having a pre-existent, physical, or ethereal form and rests on understanding that the "Word" (Greek: Logos) existed eternally with God

Yes, agreed.

as His divine purpose, plan, and expression rather than as a separate, pre-incarnate Son. According to this perspective, God's Logos—His Word or intention—was with Him from the beginning as His divine plan. Jesus, the Son, came into existence at the Incarnation when this divine plan, or Logos, was embodied in human flesh. Here’s how this understanding aligns with key Scriptures and early Jewish-Christian thought:

This is to ignore the very Greek grammar John uses, as well as the context of John 1:10 and other passages I've given from elsewhere in John and the rest of the NT.

John 1:1, 14 KJV – This verse reveals that God’s Word existed from the very beginning and was divine. But it’s important to note that John does not say, “In the beginning was the Son.” Instead, the "Word" (Logos) is spoken of as God’s active, divine expression. In verse 14, it states, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…." This signifies that the Logos took on human form at a specific moment in history in the person of Jesus Christ, rather than existing as a distinct "Son" prior to creation.

Again, we have John stating in John 1:1-2 that the Word was in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. That requires "personhood." One cannot have a relationship with something that is merely an expression. Then, in verse 10, John states that "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." Who is that talking about? Clearly the "him" in all three instances is Jesus, or rather the Son. And that makes sense of what he had already stated in verse 1.

In fact in 1 John in heaven, it says 1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (not Son), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

I never refer to this verse as it likely isn't genuine.

1 Peter 1:20 KJV – "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." This passage explains that Jesus was foreordained or chosen before creation but manifested in time. The Son did not pre-exist in any physical form; rather, the concept and purpose of the Messiah existed as God’s Logos—the divine plan for redemption—which God already had in mind.

It's interesting that you leave out verses 10 and 11:

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (ESV)

Peter is saying that the Spirit that the OT prophets prophesied by was "the Spirit of Christ." Regardless, verse 20 is just talking about the coming of the Christ as a lamb for our salvation (v. 19) being known and planned. That does not at all mean that the Son did not preexist.

Ephesians 1:4 KJV – "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world…” This verse shows that, in God's eternal plan, believers were chosen "in Him" (Christ) before creation, demonstrating that God’s plan for redemption was determined before the world was made. However, this “choosing” does not imply that Jesus existed in a separate form prior to creation but rather that the plan of salvation was conceived and assured within God’s purpose.

This supports neither Trinitarianism or Oneness.

Colossians 1:16-17 KJV – "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth…” Here, the term "by Him" can be understood in the sense of agency. The Logos, as God’s expressed purpose and creative power, was the means through which creation came about. Creation was brought into existence “by Him,” meaning through God’s divine Word and purpose, which later took form in Jesus Christ. This does not require the Son’s pre-existence as a separate being but instead points to God’s creative expression and plan being ultimately revealed in Christ.

Now you're changing the clear meaning of the text. "By him" clearly refers to the Son, as plainly stated in verse 13. Logos is just a term that John uses for the preexistent Son, not Paul, to convey more about who the Son really is. And who he really is, is not the Father in human flesh.

Hebrews 1:2 KJV – "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." This verse is sometimes seen as support for a pre-existent Son. However, within the context of the entire epistle, it can be understood that God’s eternal Logos—His expressed will—became flesh in Jesus, who is now appointed as heir of all. Jesus is the “appointed heir,” and it was through the Word (now personified in the Son) that creation was brought about.

Again, it plainly says "by his Son." To say it wasn't actually the Son but only "God's eternal Logos," is to 1) not take "by his Son" at face value and 2) make a distinction between the Logos and the Son that isn't anywhere in the NT. It also leaves out the context of verses 10-12, which you didn't address. It supports the idea that the Son was preexistent because it says that it was by the Son "through whom he also created the world." When the writer says "his Son," he means his Son. This isn't John writing about the Logos.

 

[Free]

From this perspective, God's Logos was eternally with Him as His divine expression and purpose, functioning as the "agent" of creation. This Word, which was inherently part of God’s identity, took form and was manifest in Jesus Christ when the fullness of time arrived. The Son did not exist as a separate or ethereal being prior to the Incarnation. Instead, the Word, God’s eternal plan and wisdom, was realized fully in Jesus, who became the agent of creation in the sense that God created all things through His Word, now revealed in the flesh. This aligns with an understanding of the Son’s existence being tied to the Incarnation, while the Word (as God’s eternal self-expression) remains uncreated and eternally part of God’s nature.

Again, this goes back to your previous statement that Oneness takes things at face value, but as I have pointed out, this is not taking things at face value. You're not taking clear, plain mentions of Jesus and the Son, as actually meaning the actual person they're speaking of.

There are two passages and my arguments regarding them that you didn't address:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
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. (ESV)

Notice that Paul begins by affirming monotheism. Then he states that all things are from the Father and all things are through Jesus, the Son. That requires that the Son must necessarily have always existed.

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.” (ESV)

A passage about Yahweh (Psalm 102:25-27) being applied to the Son by the Father. This is very, very clear and likewise requires that the Son must necessarily have always existed.

Here is the main interpretation issue by Oneness. You claimed Oneness doctrine simply takes things at face value, but the thing is, they take none of it at face value. All the OT and NT verses which speak only of monotheism have a unitarian view of God read into them, which changes them from being about monotheism, to supposedly showing that God is a single person. As I have pointed out, that is the error in reasoning known as begging the question. Then, all the plain and clear teachings of the Son being the agent of creation alongside the Father are changed to mean something more abstract, simply because Oneness must necessarily preclude such an idea.

In all cases, the text is not allowed to speak for itself.