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

[My Rock]

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?

 

[Free]

There is nothing to reconcile. The Son has always been the Son and can never cease to be the Son, just as with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hopeful 2]

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?

Substitute the name "Word" for Son, and ask the same question.

 

[My Rock]

The glorified body of Christ will be completely God, but this needs to be understood within the context of how God manifests and reveals Himself. Here's a breakdown of what this means:

1. Jesus as God Manifest in Flesh

Jesus Christ is not a separate person from God but is the full manifestation of the one true God in the flesh. This means that from the moment of the Incarnation, God Himself was embodied in human form. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

So, even during His earthly life, Jesus was fully God and fully human, but in the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). The sonship was temporary, serving the purpose of redemption, but the divine nature within Jesus was always fully God.

2. The Glorified Body of Christ Post-Resurrection

After the resurrection, Jesus' body was glorified. This glorified body is still the physical representation of God but now transcends the limitations of earthly life. In His resurrection state, Jesus retains the glorified body, and He remains the visible and eternal manifestation of God.

Even though the mediatorial role of the Son will end after Jesus delivers the kingdom to God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), His glorified body will not cease to exist. Instead, that body becomes the eternal, glorified representation of God’s nature—fully divine. In this sense, the glorified Christ is completely God, as the redemptive role of the Son concludes.

3. God "All in All" and the Glorified Christ

When 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that "God may be all in all," it indicates that the purpose of the redemptive mission will be fulfilled, and there will no longer be any distinction in terms of redemptive roles (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The glorified Christ, who once functioned as the Son for the sake of salvation, now exists in His full divine glory, with no need for the sonship or mediatorial function. He will still be the glorified manifestation of God, but not as "the Son" in the redemptive sense—He is fully God.

In this state, the glorified body of Christ becomes the visible embodiment of the invisible God for eternity. There is no longer a need for the distinctions between the Father and the Son because the sonship has ended, and the glorified Christ exists as the eternal, visible presence of the one God. Therefore, the glorified body of Christ is not merely a vessel or a separate person, but the complete manifestation of God’s glory.

4. Fullness of God in Eternity

This represents the unification of all things in God. The glorified body of Christ, which continues for eternity, symbolizes how God’s work in creation and redemption is complete. In the glorified Christ, God reveals Himself fully and eternally, and the redeemed will see God as He is, through the glorified Christ.

Thus, the glorified body of Christ will fully and eternally embody the presence of God, with no remaining distinction of roles, but simply God "all in all"—His fullness fully realized and manifested for all eternity.

 

[Free]

The glorified body of Christ will be completely God, but this needs to be understood within the context of how God manifests and reveals Himself. Here's a breakdown of what this means:

1. Jesus as God Manifest in Flesh

Jesus Christ is not a separate person from God but is the full manifestation of the one true God in the flesh. This means that from the moment of the Incarnation, God Himself was embodied in human form. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

So, even during His earthly life, Jesus was fully God and fully human, but in the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). The sonship was temporary, serving the purpose of redemption, but the divine nature within Jesus was always fully God.

Jesus is the Son, the Word, in the flesh, and has always been a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. The fullness dwelt in Jesus because he is of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit and they cannot be divided. He even said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, which also proves the Oneness/Modalist view false.

2. The Glorified Body of Christ Post-Resurrection

After the resurrection, Jesus' body was glorified. This glorified body is still the physical representation of God but now transcends the limitations of earthly life. In His resurrection state, Jesus retains the glorified body, and He remains the visible and eternal manifestation of God.

Even though the mediatorial role of the Son will end after Jesus delivers the kingdom to God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), His glorified body will not cease to exist. Instead, that body becomes the eternal, glorified representation of God’s nature—fully divine. In this sense, the glorified Christ is completely God, as the redemptive role of the Son concludes.

Christ always was and will be fully God.

3. God "All in All" and the Glorified Christ

When 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that "God may be all in all," it indicates that the purpose of the redemptive mission will be fulfilled, and there will no longer be any distinction in terms of redemptive roles (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The glorified Christ, who once functioned as the Son for the sake of salvation, now exists in His full divine glory, with no need for the sonship or mediatorial function. He will still be the glorified manifestation of God, but not as "the Son" in the redemptive sense—He is fully God.

In this state, the glorified body of Christ becomes the visible embodiment of the invisible God for eternity. There is no longer a need for the distinctions between the Father and the Son because the sonship has ended, and the glorified Christ exists as the eternal, visible presence of the one God. Therefore, the glorified body of Christ is not merely a vessel or a separate person, but the complete manifestation of God’s glory.

The Son has always existed as the Son and will continue to always exist as the Son.

4. Fullness of God in Eternity

This represents the unification of all things in God. The glorified body of Christ, which continues for eternity, symbolizes how God’s work in creation and redemption is complete. In the glorified Christ, God reveals Himself fully and eternally, and the redeemed will see God as He is, through the glorified Christ.

Thus, the glorified body of Christ will fully and eternally embody the presence of God, with no remaining distinction of roles, but simply God "all in all"—His fullness fully realized and manifested for all eternity.

Except that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. All three have always existed and always will. The Son will forever be the God-man, Jesus.

 

[My Rock]

Jesus is the Son, the Word, in the flesh, and has always been a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. The fullness dwelt in Jesus because he is of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit and they cannot be divided. He even said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, which also proves the Oneness/Modalist view false.

The assertion that Jesus is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit misinterprets the Oneness understanding of God’s revelation. Oneness believers affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ, in whom "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). This means Jesus is not merely part of the Godhead but the full manifestation of the one true God in the flesh. While distinct roles are present in God's interactions with humanity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), these are not distinct persons in the sense of a separate, co-equal Trinity. Rather, they are distinct manifestations or expressions of the one God, who is Spirit and omnipresent (John 4:24).

Oneness theology does not subscribe to classical modalism, which suggests that God appears successively in different modes (Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit). Instead, we believe God can manifest in different ways simultaneously. For example, at Jesus' baptism, the voice from heaven and the Spirit descending like a dove occur simultaneously with Jesus' presence in the water. These events demonstrate God’s ability to manifest in multiple ways without dividing His essence (Matthew 3:16-17). This supports God’s omnipresence—His ability to fill all space while revealing Himself in a particular, visible form.

God, being Spirit, is invisible and beyond human comprehension, but He chose to veil His glory in Christ (John 1:14). Just as Moses encountered God in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6), where God manifested Himself visibly while remaining omnipresent, the fullness of God is veiled in Jesus Christ so that humanity can relate to and see God. Jesus is the one true God's permanent and ultimate self-revelation, and His glorified body will eternally be the visible representation of the invisible God. When Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), it affirmed the oneness of His divine nature with the Father, not a separate personhood. Therefore, the Oneness view remains theologically sound and aligns with Scripture.

Christ always was and will be fully God.

God the Father in human form. Yes.

The Son has always existed as the Son and will continue to always exist as the Son.

Not According to:

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power. 25 For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is clear that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

God as All in All: The ultimate goal is for God to be "all in all." This means that there will be no more distinctions or separations within the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will be united in a perfect harmony, and God will reign supreme over all creation in the glorified body of Christ for eternity but not as Son but as fully God in visible form.

Except that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. All three have always existed and always will. The Son will forever be the God-man, Jesus.

If you were to deny the Father being the Son you would essentially also deny Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The Sonship, which began at the Incarnation, was a temporary role for the purpose of redemption, but God did not change His essence or nature in the process; He remains the one indivisible God who is Spirit (John 4:24). As for the glorified Christ, after His resurrection, Jesus retains His glorified body, which becomes the eternal, visible representation of God’s nature. When the redemptive role of the Son concludes (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), the distinctions related to redemption—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—will no longer be needed, and God will be "all in all," not as three separate persons but as the one God manifested fully in the glorified Christ. The idea that "the Son will forever be the God-man" overlooks that the Son’s mediatorial role will end, and Christ’s glorified body will become the eternal revelation of God's full nature, not as a distinct "person" in the Godhead but as the everlasting, visible manifestation of the invisible God. Thus, while Jesus will forever be glorified, the fullness of God's presence and essence remains united and indivisible, as Scripture consistently teaches.

 

[Free]

The assertion that Jesus is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit misinterprets the Oneness understanding of God’s revelation.

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

Oneness theology ...

Therefore, the Oneness view remains theologically sound and aligns with Scripture.

It really doesn't, as discussed below.

God the Father in human form. Yes.

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?

Not According to:

1 Corinthians 15:24 ... 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

God as All in All: The ultimate goal is for God to be "all in all." This means that there will be no more distinctions or separations within the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will be united in a perfect harmony, and God will reign supreme over all creation in the glorified body of Christ for eternity but not as Son but as fully God in visible form.

If you were to deny the Father being the Son you would essentially also deny Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

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

The Sonship, which began at the Incarnation, was a temporary role for the purpose of redemption, but God did not change His essence or nature in the process; He remains the one indivisible God who is Spirit (John 4:24).

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.

 

[My Rock]

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?

1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Why would a loving God, who deeply desires to redeem His children back to Himself, send a second, distinct person when He could come to Earth Himself? Why would the Father, who holds the heart of a perfect Father, entrust the ultimate act of love and sacrifice to another when He alone has the power and passion to save? Scripture reminds us that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). In His profound love and infinite wisdom, would it not make sense that the very Creator who formed us with His own hands would come in flesh to redeem us with His own blood? The Incarnation of Jesus is not the story of a distant God delegating redemption to another person distinct from Himself, but of a God so near, so personal, that He wrapped Himself in human flesh and came directly to us. God Himself came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), showing us that our salvation was far too precious to be entrusted to any distinct person but Himself.

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.

When Scripture speaks of both the Father and the Son being involved in creation, it’s important to understand that these references are not describing two separate, distinct divine persons. Instead, they reflect how the one God—who is Spirit—acts and reveals Himself through different roles or manifestations.

The Bible says in Colossians 1:16, "For by Him [the Son] all things were created," and in John 1:3, "All things were made by Him [the Word]." At first glance, this might seem like the Son is somehow distinct from the Father in creation. But we know from Deuteronomy 6:4 that "the Lord our God is one Lord," and that there is only one Creator—God Himself. So how do we reconcile this?

The key is understanding that the "Son" is the name given to God when He took on human form as Jesus Christ. Before Jesus was born, God was already at work creating all things, as Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When the New Testament says that all things were created "by the Son" or "through the Son," it’s not pointing to a second, independent person, but rather showing that God’s eternal Word, His divine plan and power, was involved in creation. This same Word was later made flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

God’s Word, His creative power, was always with Him from the beginning—this is what John 1:1 means when it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word was not a separate person, but God's own self-expression, which He later revealed to us in the man Christ Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 beautifully explains that the Son is "the express image of His person," meaning that Jesus is the visible, tangible revelation of the invisible God—not a separate divine being, but the one God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

So, when we read that "all things were created by Him" (Colossians 1:16), we’re seeing that God, who later revealed Himself in Christ, is the same God who created all things. The Father is the originator, the source of all, and the Son is God’s way of revealing Himself to us. It’s one God working in different roles, not two separate beings. In creation, God was acting in His eternal power, and in redemption, that same God became flesh to save us. This shows us God’s oneness, not division.

In short, Jesus, as the Son, is not a separate person from the Father but the full and final revelation of the one true God. There’s only one God who created all things, and that same God came to us in Jesus Christ to redeem us.

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.

By this statement are we not dividing God Internally. We are supposed to know God is indivisibly (externally and internally) One.

(I respectfully don't want this to become an argument, but rather trying to figure out where the major differences are. Because so many times it seems like Trinitarians and Oneness say the same thing just using different terms)

Plus you didn't comment on this:

If you were to deny the Father being the Son you would essentially also deny Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The Sonship, which began at the Incarnation, was a temporary role for the purpose of redemption, but God did not change His essence or nature in the process; He remains the one indivisible God who is Spirit (John 4:24). As for the glorified Christ, after His resurrection, Jesus retains His glorified body, which becomes the eternal, visible representation of God’s nature. When the redemptive role of the Son concludes (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), the distinctions related to redemption—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—will no longer be needed, and God will be "all in all," not as three separate persons but as the one God manifested fully in the glorified Christ. The idea that "the Son will forever be the God-man" overlooks that the Son’s mediatorial role will end, and Christ’s glorified body will become the eternal revelation of God's full nature, not as a distinct "person" in the Godhead but as the everlasting, visible manifestation of the invisible God. Thus, while Jesus will forever be glorified, the fullness of God's presence and essence remains united and indivisible, as Scripture consistently teaches.

 

[Free]

1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Why would a loving God, who deeply desires to redeem His children back to Himself, send a second, distinct person when He could come to Earth Himself? Why would the Father, who holds the heart of a perfect Father, entrust the ultimate act of love and sacrifice to another when He alone has the power and passion to save? Scripture reminds us that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). In His profound love and infinite wisdom, would it not make sense that the very Creator who formed us with His own hands would come in flesh to redeem us with His own blood? The Incarnation of Jesus is not the story of a distant God delegating redemption to another person distinct from Himself, but of a God so near, so personal, that He wrapped Himself in human flesh and came directly to us. God Himself came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), showing us that our salvation was far too precious to be entrusted to any distinct person but Himself.

That entire paragraph shows a lack of understanding of the Trinity. The Son is just as much God as the Father is; they are of the same substance.

When Scripture speaks of both the Father and the Son being involved in creation, it’s important to understand that these references are not describing two separate, distinct divine persons. Instead, they reflect how the one God—who is Spirit—acts and reveals Himself through different roles or manifestations.

It can only mean that the Father and Son are distinct persons. It cannot mean anything else. It is you who needs to reconcile the clear teachings that both the Father and the Son were involved in the creation of everything that was ever created. That precludes the Father and Son from being the same person.

The Bible says in Colossians 1:16, "For by Him [the Son] all things were created," and in John 1:3, "All things were made by Him [the Word]." At first glance, this might seem like the Son is somehow distinct from the Father in creation. But we know from Deuteronomy 6:4 that "the Lord our God is one Lord," and that there is only one Creator—God Himself. So how do we reconcile this?

There is nothing to reconcile. I've explained this before and it is a continual error in reasoning that anti-Trinitarians make by conflating monotheism with the nature of God. The Shema is a statement of monotheism only and says nothing about whether God is one or three persons, although it does leave the door open to three.

The key is understanding that the "Son" is the name given to God when He took on human form as Jesus Christ.

Yes, God the Son who took on human flesh. Please provide one verse that clearly states the Father came in the flesh.

Before Jesus was born, God was already at work creating all things, as Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When the New Testament says that all things were created "by the Son" or "through the Son," it’s not pointing to a second, independent person, but rather showing that God’s eternal Word, His divine plan and power, was involved in creation. This same Word was later made flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

God’s Word, His creative power, was always with Him from the beginning—this is what John 1:1 means when it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word was not a separate person, but God's own self-expression, which He later revealed to us in the man Christ Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 beautifully explains that the Son is "the express image of His person," meaning that Jesus is the visible, tangible revelation of the invisible God—not a separate divine being, but the one God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

You completely side-stepped the argument from 1 Cor 8:4-6. God's eternal Word, his self-expression, is a person, that is John's whole point. That is only how the Word and the Father could be in intimate interpersonal relationship. That claim makes no sense if the Word isn't actually a person.

So, when we read that "all things were created by Him" (Colossians 1:16), we’re seeing that God, who later revealed Himself in Christ, is the same God who created all things. The Father is the originator, the source of all, and the Son is God’s way of revealing Himself to us. It’s one God working in different roles, not two separate beings. In creation, God was acting in His eternal power, and in redemption, that same God became flesh to save us. This shows us God’s oneness, not division.


In short, Jesus, as the Son, is not a separate person from the Father but the full and final revelation of the one true God. There’s only one God who created all things, and that same God came to us in Jesus Christ to redeem us.

The context of Col 1:16 says otherwise:

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)

At least in their deception, The Watchtower recognizes what is being said and falsely adds "other" to each instance of "all things." Because without falsely saying "all other things," the implication is clear. There is a very clear distinction being made between the Father and the Son in verse 14. And it is by the Son that "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." That is why Paul adds that "he is before all things." That utterly destroys the Oneness view of God and proves the Son has always existed with the Father.

By this statement are we not dividing God Internally. We are supposed to know God is indivisibly (externally and internally) One.

Being three distinct persons also does not divide God internally.

Plus you didn't comment on this:

If you were to deny the Father being the Son you would essentially also deny Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The Sonship, which began at the Incarnation, was a temporary role for the purpose of redemption, but God did not change His essence or nature in the process; He remains the one indivisible God who is Spirit (John 4:24).

I addressed all the above.

You, however, didn't address Heb 1:2, 10-12 and 2:10 nor the argument from love, neither of which the Oneness view of God simply cannot take into account. You made some comments but didn't actually address the arguments.

Too many passages, as given above, show that the Sonship is eternal: there has never been a "time" when the Son did not exist.

 

[Free]

As for the glorified Christ, after His resurrection, Jesus retains His glorified body, which becomes the eternal, visible representation of God’s nature. When the redemptive role of the Son concludes (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), the distinctions related to redemption—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—will no longer be needed, and God will be "all in all," not as three separate persons but as the one God manifested fully in the glorified Christ. The idea that "the Son will forever be the God-man" overlooks that the Son’s mediatorial role will end, and Christ’s glorified body will become the eternal revelation of God's full nature, not as a distinct "person" in the Godhead but as the everlasting, visible manifestation of the invisible God. Thus, while Jesus will forever be glorified, the fullness of God's presence and essence remains united and indivisible, as Scripture consistently teaches.

There is nothing to suggest that Jesus will not forever be the God-man. Your argument is based on begging the question, namely, that the Son is the Father in the flesh, which is nowhere stated in Scripture. That his redemptive role may be concluded is not relevant. Why wouldn't he continually bear the marks of his sacrifice so that those in heaven can continually be reminded of the infinite vastness of God's love, mercy, and grace, ever increasing each person's joy and worship of him? (That he will retain the evidence of his sacrifice for eternity is, of course, just speculation.)

God reveals himself as Father and Son for a reason. We know what father and son relationships are--two distinct persons of the same nature. And we are the analogues to God, having been made in his image. That strongly suggests God revealed himself as Father and Son either because that relationship actually exists, or it is the closest analogue to our understanding. As far as analogies go, they all break down when it comes to God and this one also breaks down because God is of an entirely different nature than us. While our distinctness means we are individual persons because of our nature, God's nature is such that the distinction between persons does not mean they are three completely separate individuals.

We all know that a father cannot be his own son nor a son his own father. As such, there is no reason to think that the Father is his own Son or the Son his own Father, or else God's revelation to us is as Father and Son communicates nothing.

 

[My Rock]

Your argument is based on begging the question, namely, that the Son is the Father in the flesh, which is nowhere stated in Scripture.

1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

If you believe this Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit, which I believe you do. To say this is God but not God the Father, than respectfully you believe in more than One God, whether internally or externally. If not there needs to be a theologically sound argument to the contrary while still maintaining the strict monotheism of Scripture. To believe otherwise, to claim that this manifestation of God is somehow distinct from the Father, would be to confess more than one God, whether internally or externally. Such a view would contradict the essence of biblical monotheism, which proclaims that there is but one God (Isaiah 44:6), who is both the Creator and Redeemer.

 

[Free]

1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

If you believe this Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit, which I believe you do.

While I do believe that passage is inspired, it is up in the air as to whether it is "God was manifest in the flesh" or "He/Who." So, be careful with using it. Regardless, as I have stated, the Son is truly and fully God from before all time, so he is God manifest in the flesh.

To say this is God but not God the Father, than respectfully you believe in more than One God, whether internally or externally. If not there needs to be a theologically sound argument to the contrary while still maintaining the strict monotheism of Scripture. To believe otherwise, to claim that this manifestation of God is somehow distinct from the Father, would be to confess more than one God, whether internally or externally. Such a view would contradict the essence of biblical monotheism, which proclaims that there is but one God (Isaiah 44:6), who is both the Creator and Redeemer.

No. This argument has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. One God, three divine persons each truly and fully God as they are of the one substance/essence. One of the very foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity is monotheism and it vehemently denies tritheism. Is it incomprehensibly difficult? Yes. Is it contradictory? No.

And again, you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God by appealing to Isa 44:6, and in so doing fallaciously begging the question.

 

[My Rock]

While I do believe that passage is inspired, it is up in the air as to whether it is "God was manifest in the flesh" or "He/Who." So, be careful with using it. Regardless, as I have stated, the Son is truly and fully God from before all time, so he is God manifest in the flesh.

(Let me say I do enjoy this discussion with you. So many other trinitarians here in this forum and others so easily get heated and angry not truly showing the fruit of the Spirit and at the same time say they are saved not showing the Love of God, which is the spirit of antichrist)

I do understand the textual criticism behind this verse to which I would say: Do we take the establish (Gentile) Roman Christian influence upon this Scripture or adhere to what Paul (whose original writings are lost to time) into consideration as to what this verse really says.

Based on the information available and considering both the textual criticism and theological context, it is quite plausible that the original writer of 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul (or a close disciple of his), intended to use the word "God" (θεός) instead of "He who" (ὅς). Here’s why that may be the case:

Paul, in his writings, consistently emphasizes the divinity of Jesus Christ. For example, in Colossians 2:9, he writes, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," making it clear that he views Jesus as the full manifestation of God. In Titus 2:13, Paul refers to Christ as "the great God and our Savior." This strong theological belief in the incarnation of God in Christ would naturally lead him to explicitly state "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, as it aligns with his other writings about Christ's divine nature.

Using "God" here would directly reinforce Paul's Christology—that Jesus was not merely a representative or an agent of God but was God Himself manifested in the flesh. For Paul, the mystery of godliness is centered on the idea that God took on human form to accomplish salvation.

Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 45:21 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."

Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."
These passages emphasize that God alone is the Savior, a key point in the Oneness of God. They affirm that Jesus, being the Savior, must be the manifestation of God the Father who saves His people.

The Textus Receptus, which was used for the King James Version (KJV), contains the reading "God" (θεός) in 1 Timothy 3:16, and this was based on later Byzantine manuscripts. While the oldest manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, use "He who" (ὅς), this could have been a result of scribal copying errors or attempts to simplify the language.

One possibility is that early scribes might have encountered abbreviations in the original manuscripts. In ancient Greek manuscripts, nomina sacra (sacred names) were often abbreviated, and "God" (θεός) was sometimes abbreviated as ΘΣ (theta and sigma). This could have been confused with the Greek word for "who" (ὅς), especially if the manuscripts were difficult to read or damaged.

It's possible that the change from "God" to "He who" happened at some point during the manuscript copying process, especially if a scribe thought that "He who" was a more grammatically smooth rendering, given the structure of the Greek sentence. Alternatively, a later scribe might have introduced "God" to make the text more theologically explicit. However, given Paul’s clear emphasis on Jesus' divinity in his other letters, "God" would have been more in line with his theological intent.

While modern textual criticism often favors older manuscripts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), there is still significant weight to the Byzantine manuscript tradition, which is closer to the KJV rendering. The reading "God" persisted for centuries in the majority of Greek manuscripts used by the early church. This suggests that many early Christian communities recognized the importance of making Christ’s divinity explicit in this verse, in line with the apostolic teaching.

​

Considering Paul's theological emphasis on the incarnation of God in Christ, the original writer likely intended to use "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16. The change to "He who" in later manuscripts could have been due to scribal transmission issues or attempts to smooth the language, but the stronger theological case, particularly in Paul's writings, supports the reading "God was manifest in the flesh" as being closer to the original intent.

In this way, Paul would be declaring that the mystery of godliness is that God the Father Himself came in human form to redeem humanity, but still very much Omnipresent—an essential and central claim of the Christian faith.

No. This argument has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. One God, three divine persons each truly and fully God as they are of the one substance/essence. One of the very foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity is monotheism and it vehemently denies tritheism. Is it incomprehensibly difficult? Yes. Is it contradictory? No.

And again, you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God by appealing to Isa 44:6, and in so doing fallaciously begging the question.

While the Trinity is often defended as a mystery that is difficult to understand, my position holds that the biblical teaching about God's nature is clear and not contradictory. The Scriptures never portray God as being divided into three co-equal persons. Instead, the mystery of godliness is that the one God—who is Spirit (John 4:24)—became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). This is not incomprehensible but a profound revelation of God’s love and redemption. 1 Corinthians 14:33 states that God is "not the author of confusion." The idea of three persons can create confusion about the nature of God, whereas the Oneness of God presents a unified and clear understanding of God's nature.

"And again, you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God by appealing to Isa 44:6, and in so doing fallaciously begging the question."​

This statement misunderstands the core of the Oneness argument. The appeal to Isaiah 44:6 and similar passages is not "begging the question" but rather demonstrating that the Scripture itself consistently portrays God as one. The nature of God is central to biblical monotheism, and the Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes that there is no distinction within God’s being. For example, Isaiah 45:5 declares, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." The Oneness perspective simply takes these declarations at face value, affirming that God is one being, one person, without internal division. Jesus’ role in the New Testament is the manifestation of that one God in the flesh, not a second person in a triune Godhead.

 

[Consecrated Life]

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?

Jesus says that the eternal relationship that those who are in Christ Jesus have with Him, through salvation, is comparable to the relationship that He has always had with the Father.
What a great belief we have in that .

John 17:11
Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Free]

(Let me say I do enjoy this discussion with you. So many other trinitarians here in this forum and others so easily get heated and angry not truly showing the fruit of the Spirit and at the same time say they are saved not showing the Love of God, which is the spirit of antichrist)

I do understand the textual criticism behind this verse to which I would say: Do we take the establish (Gentile) Roman Christian influence upon this Scripture or adhere to what Paul (whose original writings are lost to time) into consideration as to what this verse really says.

Based on the information available and considering both the textual criticism and theological context, it is quite plausible that the original writer of 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul (or a close disciple of his), intended to use the word "God" (θεός) instead of "He who" (ὅς). Here’s why that may be the case:

Paul, in his writings, consistently emphasizes the divinity of Jesus Christ. For example, in Colossians 2:9, he writes, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," making it clear that he views Jesus as the full manifestation of God. In Titus 2:13, Paul refers to Christ as "the great God and our Savior." This strong theological belief in the incarnation of God in Christ would naturally lead him to explicitly state "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, as it aligns with his other writings about Christ's divine nature.

Using "God" here would directly reinforce Paul's Christology—that Jesus was not merely a representative or an agent of God but was God Himself manifested in the flesh. For Paul, the mystery of godliness is centered on the idea that God took on human form to accomplish salvation.

Sure, but in no way does that preclude God the Son from being eternally distinct from God the Father. The Son is as truly and fully God as the Father is.

Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 45:21 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."

Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."
These passages emphasize that God alone is the Savior, a key point in the Oneness of God. They affirm that Jesus, being the Savior, must be the manifestation of God the Father who saves His people.

Yes, but that is to, again, fallaciously beg the question. Using those passages as you have first assumes as a premise that only the Father is God, without any basis for doing so, and then concludes that God is only the Father.

The Textus Receptus, which was used for the King James Version (KJV), contains the reading "God" (θεός) in 1 Timothy 3:16, and this was based on later Byzantine manuscripts. While the oldest manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, use "He who" (ὅς), this could have been a result of scribal copying errors or attempts to simplify the language.

One possibility is that early scribes might have encountered abbreviations in the original manuscripts. In ancient Greek manuscripts, nomina sacra (sacred names) were often abbreviated, and "God" (θεός) was sometimes abbreviated as ΘΣ (theta and sigma). This could have been confused with the Greek word for "who" (ὅς), especially if the manuscripts were difficult to read or damaged.

It's possible that the change from "God" to "He who" happened at some point during the manuscript copying process, especially if a scribe thought that "He who" was a more grammatically smooth rendering, given the structure of the Greek sentence. Alternatively, a later scribe might have introduced "God" to make the text more theologically explicit. However, given Paul’s clear emphasis on Jesus' divinity in his other letters, "God" would have been more in line with his theological intent.

While modern textual criticism often favors older manuscripts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), there is still significant weight to the Byzantine manuscript tradition, which is closer to the KJV rendering. The reading "God" persisted for centuries in the majority of Greek manuscripts used by the early church. This suggests that many early Christian communities recognized the importance of making Christ’s divinity explicit in this verse, in line with the apostolic teaching.

Again, none of this proves the Trinity false.

Considering Paul's theological emphasis on the incarnation of God in Christ, the original writer likely intended to use "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16. The change to "He who" in later manuscripts could have been due to scribal transmission issues or attempts to smooth the language, but the stronger theological case, particularly in Paul's writings, supports the reading "God was manifest in the flesh" as being closer to the original intent.

In this way, Paul would be declaring that the mystery of godliness is that God the Father Himself came in human form to redeem humanity, but still very much Omnipresent—an essential and central claim of the Christian faith.

Paul's Christology is only such that the Father and Son, while both truly and fully God, are eternally distinct. His Christology simply cannot be understood otherwise. This is why I believe that no anti-Trinitarian has bothered to respond to my points about 1 Cor 8:6. Well, I think one did, but it was an incredibly insufficient response.

And Paul's point there is John's point in John 1:1-3, 10 and the writer of Hebrews's point in 1:10-12 and 2:10. In both John and Hebrews, it is vitally important to understand who the Son is in relation to the Father, since in those beginning passages they are setting the stage for the rest of what they say, particularly about Christ. Everything they say in those passages informs who Christ is throughout the rest of their writings.

 

[Free]

While the Trinity is often defended as a mystery that is difficult to understand, my position holds that the biblical teaching about God's nature is clear and not contradictory. The Scriptures never portray God as being divided into three co-equal persons. Instead, the mystery of godliness is that the one God—who is Spirit (John 4:24)—became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). This is not incomprehensible but a profound revelation of God’s love and redemption.

The nature of God is clear--that is not precluded by mystery or incomprehensibility--and the Trinity is not contradictory.

First, Scripture consistently teaches that there has always been and will ever be only one God. Second, Scripture teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Third, it teaches that the Father has always been distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son has always been distinct from the Holy Spirit. That is, the Father has always been the Father, the Son has always been the Son, and the Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is, of course, spoken of as such more implicitly, but it's there.

Those are precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity exists in the first place.

1 Corinthians 14:33 states that God is "not the author of confusion." The idea of three persons can create confusion about the nature of God, whereas the Oneness of God presents a unified and clear understanding of God's nature.

But, Oneness creates confusion in its own way. I suspect Oneness came about because of the confusion and inherent, significant problems with Modalism. However, being that it is based on Modalism, it is still a form of Sabellianism and the issues largely remain.

If the Son is the Father in human flesh, then they are one and the same person. But, how can a Father be his own Son or a Son his own Father? Why does the Father pray to himself? Why does Jesus say he is in the Father and the Father is in him if they are both one and the same? Why does Jesus say that both he and the Father will come and make their home in a person who believes if they are both one and the same? How can John, Paul (twice), and the writer of Hebrews clearly state that the Son was the agent of creation if the Son didn't come into existence until (supposedly) the Father came in the flesh to begin the Son's existence?

"And again, you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God by appealing to Isa 44:6, and in so doing fallaciously begging the question."
This statement misunderstands the core of the Oneness argument. The appeal to Isaiah 44:6 and similar passages is not "begging the question" but rather demonstrating that the Scripture itself consistently portrays God as one. The nature of God is central to biblical monotheism, and the Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes that there is no distinction within God’s being. For example, Isaiah 45:5 declares, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me." The Oneness perspective simply takes these declarations at face value, affirming that God is one being, one person, without internal division.

No, it does not misunderstand the core of the Oneness argument; I know well what the Oneness argument is. This whole paragraph is again fallaciously begging the question. You are still conflating monotheism with the nature of God. Nowhere does the Bible directly or clearly state that God is only one person. There is nowhere that "the Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes that there is no distinction within God’s being." Nowhere. In fact, passages such as Gen 1:26-27, leave the door open to diversity within the one God. The OT consistently states that there is only one God while at the same time never closing the door on the possibility of a multiplicity of persons within that one God.

To take the passages you have given and say that they affirm that God is one person, is to first assume that God is only one person and then come to the same conclusion. That is why it is begging the question. But, all those passages are utterly silent on whether God is one, two, three, or a thousand persons. Their only aim is to show that there is only one true God.

Jesus’ role in the New Testament is the manifestation of that one God in the flesh, not a second person in a triune Godhead.

That is the double standard of your position. In regards to the passages you have provided, such as Isa 44:6 and 45:5, you say that "The Oneness perspective simply takes these declarations at face value." Yet, when it comes to clear teachings of Jesus himself, as well as those of Paul and other NT writers, suddenly face value goes out the window. When Jesus says he existed prior to creation with the Father, that means something else. When John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews clearly state that the Son was involved in creation alongside the Father, that means something else.

So far, you have left unaddressed my arguments from 1 Cor 8:6 and the argument to love. Your responses to John 1:1-3, 10 and Col 1:16-17 really don't explain anything, but sidestep the problem by not taking them at face value.

 

[My Rock]

Sure, but in no way does that preclude God the Son from being eternally distinct from God the Father. The Son is as truly and fully God as the Father is.

We both, definitely me included, need to watch using terms not in the bible. So many times, which you and others don't intentionally mean to do, is raise Jesus to the point you forget he was also human. The only "distinction" in God I believe is between His Divinity and His humanity. Let me explain:

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

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

Many verses of Scripture reveal that we can only use the term “Son of God” correctly when it includes the humanity of Jesus. For example, the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4), the Son was begotten (John 3:16), the Son was born (Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 1:35), the Son did not know the hour of the Second Coming (Mark 13:32), the Son could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19), the Son came eating and drinking (Matthew 11:19), the Son suffered (Matthew 17:12), a person can blaspheme against the Son but not the Spirit and be forgiven (Luke 12:10), the Son was crucified (John 3:14; 12:30-34), and the Son died (Matthew 27:40-54; Romans 5:10). The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.

As stated above, “Son” does not refer to the humanity alone but to the one person of Christ, who was simultaneously human and divine. For example, the Son has power to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6), the Son was both in heaven and on earth at the same time (John 3:13), the Son ascended up into heaven (John 6:62), and the Son is coming again in glory to rule and judge (Matthew 25:31).

One note needs to be added to our discussion of the phrase “God the Son.” In John 1:18 the KJV uses the phrase “the only begotten Son,” and the RSV says “the only Son.” However, the NIV says “God the only Son,” and TAB says “the only unique Son, the only begotten God.” These last two versions are based on variant readings in some Greek texts. We do not believe these variant readings are correct. If we could justify the use of the phrase “God the Son” at all, it would be by pointing out, as we have done, that “Son of God” encompasses not only the humanity of Jesus but also the deity as resident in the humanity. However, John 1:18 uses “Son” to refer to the humanity, for it says the Father (the deity of Jesus) is revealed through the Son. This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is revealed by God but that God is revealed in flesh through the humanity of the Son.

This is why I believe that no anti-Trinitarian has bothered to respond to my points about 1 Cor 8:6. Well, I think one did, but it was an incredibly insufficient response.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV) states, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

From a Oneness perspective, this verse affirms the unity of God while reflecting the different roles through which God interacts with His creation. God the Father is emphasized as the source of all things—the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This is consistent with the Oneness belief that God is an invisible Spirit, the Almighty, who exists without division or separation (Isaiah 44:6).

When the passage refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, it highlights the manifestation of the one God in the flesh. Jesus is called Lord because He is the visible, physical expression of God. As John 1:1, 14 states, the Word (which was God) became flesh and dwelt among us. The phrase "by whom are all things" regarding Jesus speaks to His role in redemption—God, manifest in the flesh, who reconciles creation back to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

The Father and the Lord Jesus Christ represent different aspects of God’s relationship with humanity. The Father refers to God in His eternal, invisible nature, while the Lord Jesus Christ refers to God manifested in time as Savior. There is no divine counsel in the Godhead; rather, there is one God who reveals Himself through various roles, and in this case, as Creator and Redeemer. 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes the oneness of God while acknowledging that this one God the Father has made Himself known as both Father and Son for the purpose of creation and salvation.

 

[Free]

We both, definitely me included, need to watch using terms not in the bible. So many times, which you and others don't intentionally mean to do, is raise Jesus to the point you forget he was also human. The only "distinction" in God I believe is between His Divinity and His humanity. Let me explain:

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

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

But, this is again to fallaciously beg the question by assuming that the title "the Son" applies only to the God-man Jesus, and then using that assumption to come to that conclusion. Of course, if you don't like that, we can simply just call him the Word in his pre-incarnate state as the second person of the Trinity.

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)

Paul is saying the Son was the agent of creation. There is no getting around that.

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. (ESV)

Here the writer of Hebrews says it was through the Son that God created.

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)

The writer of Hebrews likewise has the Son as the agent of creation, but more than that, also has the Father applying a passage about Yahweh to the Son as creator.

All of those passages make it impossible for the Sonship to be only in relation to Jesus's humanity, if taken at face value.

Many verses of Scripture reveal that we can only use the term “Son of God” correctly when it includes the humanity of Jesus. For example, the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4), the Son was begotten (John 3:16), the Son was born (Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 1:35), the Son did not know the hour of the Second Coming (Mark 13:32), the Son could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19), the Son came eating and drinking (Matthew 11:19), the Son suffered (Matthew 17:12), a person can blaspheme against the Son but not the Spirit and be forgiven (Luke 12:10), the Son was crucified (John 3:14; 12:30-34), and the Son died (Matthew 27:40-54; Romans 5:10). The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.

As stated above, “Son” does not refer to the humanity alone but to the one person of Christ, who was simultaneously human and divine. For example, the Son has power to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6), the Son was both in heaven and on earth at the same time (John 3:13), the Son ascended up into heaven (John 6:62), and the Son is coming again in glory to rule and judge (Matthew 25:31).

One note needs to be added to our discussion of the phrase “God the Son.” In John 1:18 the KJV uses the phrase “the only begotten Son,” and the RSV says “the only Son.” However, the NIV says “God the only Son,” and TAB says “the only unique Son, the only begotten God.” These last two versions are based on variant readings in some Greek texts. We do not believe these variant readings are correct. If we could justify the use of the phrase “God the Son” at all, it would be by pointing out, as we have done, that “Son of God” encompasses not only the humanity of Jesus but also the deity as resident in the humanity. However, John 1:18 uses “Son” to refer to the humanity, for it says the Father (the deity of Jesus) is revealed through the Son. This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is revealed by God but that God is revealed in flesh through the humanity of the Son.

Of course Oneness doesn't believe the variant readings are correct, otherwise the house of cards would come tumbling down.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Joh 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him known. (LEB)

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (NIV)

"The only begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς)

Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”

Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor Θεὸς. Whether we read the only begotten Son, or God only begotten, the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated - God (Joh_1:1), only begotten (Joh_1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament)

"The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase." (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)

 

[Free]

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV) states, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


From a Oneness perspective, this verse affirms the unity of God while reflecting the different roles through which God interacts with His creation. God the Father is emphasized as the source of all things—the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This is consistent with the Oneness belief that God is an invisible Spirit, the Almighty, who exists without division or separation (Isaiah 44:6).

When the passage refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, it highlights the manifestation of the one God in the flesh. Jesus is called Lord because He is the visible, physical expression of God. As John 1:1, 14 states, the Word (which was God) became flesh and dwelt among us. The phrase "by whom are all things" regarding Jesus speaks to His role in redemption—God, manifest in the flesh, who reconciles creation back to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

But this, too, doesn't actually address my arguments. You're always explaining the Oneness view of things, but leaving unaddressed the arguments against it, but you really need to actually deal with those arguments directly. To keep things a bit simpler regarding 1 Cor 8:6:

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, there is a very important "and": "one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." That is clearly making a distinction between the Father and the Son. They are distinct persons.

Second, 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.

Third, both points are confirmed in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 10-12, which each show a distinction between the Father and the Son, and each has the Son as the actual agent of creation. Again, that is what those passages are clearly saying if we take them at face value.

So, simple, sound logic based on taking things at face value 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 that logic.

The Father and the Lord Jesus Christ represent different aspects of God’s relationship with humanity. The Father refers to God in His eternal, invisible nature, while the Lord Jesus Christ refers to God manifested in time as Savior. There is no divine counsel in the Godhead; rather, there is one God who reveals Himself through various roles, and in this case, as Creator and Redeemer. 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes the oneness of God while acknowledging that this one God the Father has made Himself known as both Father and Son for the purpose of creation and salvation.

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.

 

[My Rock]

I know most of these Scriptures are redundant because as Christians they are foundational. Just shedding light behind their true intent.

To conduct a deep and theologically sound study of the term Godhead from the perspective of the original writers of Scripture,(whose writings I know are lost to time and age) we must consider the cultural, linguistic, and theological background of the Hebrew and early Jewish-Christian context rather than relying on later Gentile Christian developments (of which, unfortunately, are the only surviving documents) that influenced theological frameworks such as the doctrine of the Trinity.

Understanding the Term "Godhead" in the Bible​

The term "Godhead" appears in three New Testament passages, each derived from different Greek words:

Acts 17:29 — "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Greek: theion — divine nature or divinity)

Romans 1:20 — "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Greek: theiotes — divinity or divine nature)

Colossians 2:9 — "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Greek: theotēs — the state of being God, deity)

In all these instances, the Greek words used convey the concept of divinity, deity, or God's divine nature. Importantly, none of these terms imply the later developed idea of distinct persons within the Godhead. Instead, they refer to the essence or nature of God as divine.

Jewish Monotheism and the Concept of God​

The original writers of Scripture—such as Paul, Peter, and other New Testament authors—were devout Jews deeply rooted in the monotheistic tradition of Israel. Their understanding of God was shaped by Hebrew Scripture, particularly by foundational texts like the Shema:

Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

This foundational proclamation of absolute monotheism shaped the theological framework of the apostles and early Jewish-Christians. God was understood to be one, both in essence and being, and they would not have thought of Him in terms of distinct persons within a divine essence. God was a singular, indivisible being who revealed Himself through various manifestations and actions in human history.

New Testament Usage of "Godhead"​

When Paul, for example, uses terms like theotēs in Colossians 2:9, he emphasizes that in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of divinity or deity in a bodily form. This is a clear affirmation of Jesus Christ’s divinity, but it is also important to note that Paul does not use this to describe a division of persons within God. Instead, he affirms that the one God the Father who revealed Himself to Israel has now revealed Himself fully and bodily in Jesus Christ.

This means that Jesus is not a part of God or distinct person within a triune Godhead, but rather, He is the full manifestation of the one God. For Paul and the early Jewish-Christians, this was not a break from the strict monotheism of their Jewish faith, but rather a continuation and fulfillment of God’s plan to reveal Himself more completely to humanity.

The Hebrew and Early Christian Concept of God's Manifestation​

In Jewish thought, God had revealed Himself in various ways—such as through His Word (Logos), His Wisdom (Sophia), and His Spirit (Ruach)—but these were not seen as distinct persons in God. Instead, they were seen as ways in which the one true God interacted with His creation. This idea is reflected in the New Testament, where Jesus is called the Word made flesh (John 1:1,14) and the Wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). (More on this coming later)

For early Jewish-Christians, Jesus was understood to be the embodiment of God’s Word and Wisdom, not as a separate distinct divine person but as the one true God becoming incarnate. Colossians 1:15 describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God, meaning that in Him, the invisible, transcendent God became visible and accessible in human form.

Later Gentile Developments and the Influence of Greek Thought​

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity occurred in the centuries after the apostles, as Gentile Christians (many of whom were influenced by Greek philosophical concepts) sought to explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The terms "persons" and "substance" used in Trinitarian doctrine are heavily influenced by Greek philosophical categories, which are not found in the biblical texts themselves.

For the apostles and early Jewish-Christians, there was no need to explain God in terms of distinct persons. Instead, they affirmed that the one God revealed Himself in different ways, most profoundly through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).

The Oneness of God and the Godhead in Apostolic Teaching​

The earliest Christian believers understood God’s nature within the framework of Oneness theology, which affirms:

• One God who created all things (Isaiah 44:24).
• This one God manifested Himself in human history, especially in the person of Jesus Christ.
• Jesus is the incarnation of this one God, not a separate distinct person from God the Father but the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
• The Holy Spirit is not a distinct person but the Spirit of the one true God dwelling in believers (Romans 8:9-11).

Thus, when the early Christians referred to the Godhead, they were referring to the essence and nature of the one God, not to a tri-personal deity. The idea of distinct persons came later through the development of Greek-influenced Trinitarian doctrine.

The Godhead in the Apostolic Mindset​

From the perspective of the original writers of Scripture, the Godhead refers to the fullness of God’s divine nature, which was manifested in Christ. The apostles, steeped in Jewish monotheism, would have understood the term to mean the totality of God’s nature, without implying any internal division or plurality of persons. They affirmed that Jesus Christ is the one true God revealed in human form, maintaining the strict monotheism of the Old Testament while recognizing the profound mystery of the incarnation.

I believe in Trinity, but not as distinct persons of God. When the Bible affirms God is One you can't make Him plural. The only distinction and mystery in God is between His humanity and His Omnipresent Deity. Found here: 1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (Which I explained in detail earlier in this thread)