Is the Biblical Concept of God Strictly Monotheistic or Does It Allow for a Triune Nature?

[Runningman]

It is essential to understand that the incarnation itself represents the fullness of God's presence in human form. The birth of Jesus was not the mere arrival of a man but the miraculous event where "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14). The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and that the holy child born of her would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). This indicates that Jesus, even from conception, was filled with the Holy Spirit because He was the very embodiment of God. The narrative of Jesus's life must be viewed through the lens of His divine identity as God manifest in the flesh. The idea that Jesus was not born with the Holy Spirit overlooks the profound truth of the incarnation, where the fullness of the Godhead was dwelling bodily from the very beginning of His earthly life (Colossians 2:9). The baptism by John did not impart the Holy Spirit to Jesus but served as a public declaration of His messianic role and the beginning of His ministry.

Jesus beginning His ministry at the age of thirty is symbolically significant in fulfilling the requirements of the Levitical priesthood, where priests began their service at the age of thirty (Numbers 4:3). This symbolizes that Jesus is our Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14), who was not merely empowered at His baptism but had come to fulfill the law and bring in a new covenant. The anointing and empowering at His baptism were not to impart something Jesus lacked but to publicly affirm His identity and mission as the Messiah to those who witnessed it, such as John the Baptist (John 1:31-34). This moment signified the transition from the preparation (John came to prepare the Way) to the active ministry of the Messiah, revealing the Kingdom of God. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, was already endowed with all authority and power as God incarnate. His baptism marked the divine timing for the public commencement of His redemptive work, not the beginning of His divine empowerment.

While it's true that God has worked miracles through other individuals, Jesus’s works were not merely signs of God's power but a direct revelation of His identity. In John 14:10, Jesus emphasizes that the Father dwells in Him, not merely as an external source of power but as an intrinsic reality of His divine nature. This is distinct from the way others were used by God, for Jesus is the very Word made flesh (John 1:14). His works were not just acts of divine power; they were manifestations of God Himself, revealing His nature and purpose to humanity. Therefore, the miracles of Jesus, unlike those performed by others, were a direct expression of His divine identity as God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

This statement must be understood within the broader context of Jesus' mission. The "greater works" that believers would do are not about surpassing the nature of Christ's divinity but rather about the scope and reach of the gospel after Jesus' ascension. Jesus, in His earthly ministry, was limited to a specific time and place, but after His resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth. The "greater works" signify the global impact of the gospel and the expansion of God's kingdom through the collective body of believers, empowered by the same Spirit that was in Christ. This does not diminish Jesus' divinity but highlights the continued work of God through His people, reflecting the unity and inseparability of the Father and the Son in the mission of redemption.

Just going to speak about your premises rather than go after all of the points.

1. I stated earlier, the word "incarnation" does not exist in the Bible. When John 1:14 says " the Word was made flesh" it doesn't not mean the "Word" incarnated. It means that the "Word" caused flesh to come into being. In other words, Jesus didn't exist until God created him.

2. While it's true Jesus' water baptism revealed him as the Messiah, the Bible doesn't say Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from his conception. The Holy Spirit didn't descend upon and rest on Jesus until his water baptism.

3. You seemed to admit, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that Jesus was empowered at his baptism. Therefore, he was not empowered before this. The evidence is there is no record of Jesus doing miracles (in the canonized Bible that is) before the age of 30 years old.

4. You also mentioned Jesus' fulfilling the law and bringing in the New Covenant, but I request your clarification. Are you saying Jesus did this at his water baptism or are you alluding to a different context?

5. Yes, the miracles Jesus did were examples of divine power that came from a different person (the Father) than himself. So Jesus wasn't the source of his miracle power as already shown in a previously reply.

6. I also showed that 1 Tim. 3:16's "God was manifested in the flesh" is rejected by the Trinitarian scholarly community and doesn't find a home in modern Bibles. If you can show otherwise, that would help.

7. Spiritual gifts come from the Father, not Jesus, according to James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

p.s. - not that I have a problem with it, but are you, in part, generating some of these responses using AI? Okay with me, but just proof read it first. AI can pump out responses fast, but the quality and originality is sometimes lacking. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Vinny37]

...

I deny that Dt.6:4 [clearly states, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God”]. Say rather that it was that Yahweh (not the Lord, ie Adonai) our god is one. It was phrased in earlier polytheistic terms—hence should be given a small ‘g’, and probably conveyed in such terms the idea that unlike Canaanite elohim such as multiple baals, Yahweh was the same wherever encountered. Nor is the term for [one] saying one person.

Monotheism can be strict, whether monopersonal or tripersonal, hence trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic: deity is one being, one society of three eternal uncreated persons.

C S Lewis made two interesting points re trinitarianism: 1# it seems beyond the genius or folly of man; 2# only if social law within the universe comes from social reality beyond the universe, does it solve the problem of whether deity is under an independent reality, or arbitrarily makes law. “When we attempt to think of a person and a law, we are compelled to think of this person either as obeying the law or as making it” (The Poison of Subjectivism). Ie deity commands moral law neither because of compulsion nor choice, but through consonance with his own societal nature: he commands us to be ethically as he is.

IMO the OT neither A# sets up, nor B# disallows, trinitarianism. Some strongly uphold either A#, or B#. I see no tension, only extension, between the Shema and the Commission. Mt.28:19 I take to be real insight, part of moving from secondary education (Sinai) to tertiary education (Golgotha). There is one authoritative ‘name’, yet three holding that name, and the Ruach of the OT is posited below the Huion, the son—later Creeds made clear the spirit’s personhood, which even the NWT admits. Although Mt.28:19 links to Jesus as incarnate son, its deeper reference is to the noncarnate son, of whom Jesus is the permanent temporal mode.

 

[My Rock]

yes and it doesn't exist in word or description in Scripture.

Then what is your explanation of:
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."

The textual variants of 1 Timothy 3:16, specifically concerning the phrase "God was manifest in the flesh," do not alter the fundamental theological message of the passage. The key variants are between the words "God" (θεός) and "He" (ὅς). Some ancient manuscripts use "God," while others use "He." However, the overall context of the passage, coupled with the broader scriptural narrative, preserves the truth of the incarnation and the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ.

In the variant where "He" is used, the pronoun still refers back to the subject of the passage, which, contextually, is Christ. This aligns with other scriptures that affirm the divinity of Jesus, such as John 1:14, which declares, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The use of "He" does not diminish the truth that it was indeed God manifesting Himself in the flesh through Christ. Whether the text reads "God" or "He," the implication is clear: Jesus is the physical manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

The phrase "manifest in the flesh" underscores the incarnation, a cornerstone of Christian belief, that God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. The textual variant does not introduce a theological divergence but rather confirms what the entirety of the New Testament reveals about Jesus' identity. Thus, 1 Timothy 3:16, in any of its textual forms, unambiguously supports the doctrine of God manifesting in the flesh, affirming the mystery of godliness and the central truth of the Christian faith.

The Greek theological thought behind the concepts of "incarnation" and "manifest in the flesh" reveals a deep connection between the two. The term "incarnation" comes from the Latin incarnatio, but its Greek equivalent is ἐνσάρκωσις (ensarkōsis), which means "enfleshment" or "becoming flesh." This aligns closely with the Greek word φανερόω (phaneroō), meaning "to make visible" or "to manifest," used in 1 Timothy 3:16, where it says, "God was manifest in the flesh" (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί).

This phrase indicates that the invisible God became visible in human form. The Greek thought emphasizes the physical reality of God taking on human nature, not merely appearing as human but truly becoming flesh. In John 1:14, "The Word was made flesh" (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο), the verb ἐγένετο (egeneto) underscores that the Word truly "became" flesh, emphasizing the reality of the incarnation. Thus, in Greek theology, the incarnation is the event where God was φανερόω (manifested) in the flesh, fully embodying human nature while retaining divine essence. This understanding is crucial for grasping the unity of divine and human in Christ, where manifest in the flesh and incarnation both affirm the same profound mystery of God’s self-revelation in human form.

 

[My Rock]

So is your rejection of Jesus's eternal Word specifically detailing HIs pre-Adam, pre-incarnate heavenly witness of Almighty power setting the stage for His future coming to us based in your belief that Jesus is mistaken ? Delusional ? Or a liar ?

Jesus is neither mistaken, delusional, nor a liar. The focus on Jesus's divinity must be balanced with the reality of His humanity. According to Philippians 2:6-8, Jesus "made himself of no reputation" and took on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. This humbling of the divine nature into human form is crucial to understanding His earthly ministry. When Jesus speaks of His pre-incarnate existence, He is revealing the mystery of God’s plan for salvation, which was hidden but now made manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus before becoming Son, as the Self Expressive Eternal Word made flesh (I never said He wasn't Eternal just not Son yet), was the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and His earthly life must be understood within the context of His full humanity and the redemptive mission He came to fulfill. The scriptures consistently affirm that God alone created the world, with no distinction between Father, Son, or Spirit as separate entities, but rather as a unified expression of God's will and purpose, culminating in the incarnation.

it’s essential to recognize that Jesus’s references to His pre-incarnate glory, such as in John 17:5, do not imply a separate personal existence alongside the Father but rather point to the eternal Word, the divine plan, and purpose of God that was always with Him from the beginning (John 1:1-3). The humanity of Jesus, fully real and complete, was necessary for Him to become the perfect mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus’s divinity was never set aside, but rather, He willingly took on human limitations to fulfill the redemptive mission. The emphasis on His humanity does not diminish His divine nature but highlights the profound mystery of God’s love in fully entering the human condition to bring about salvation. In light of this, any interpretation that overlooks or diminishes His humanity risks misunderstanding the full scope of the incarnation and the unified divine purpose in creation and redemption.

 

[My Rock]

1. I stated earlier, the word "incarnation" does not exist in the Bible. When John 1:14 says " the Word was made flesh" it doesn't not mean the "Word" incarnated. It means that the "Word" caused flesh to come into being. In other words, Jesus didn't exist until God created him.

The assertion that "incarnation" is not a biblical term is technically correct, but the concept it represents is undeniably scriptural. The phrase "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) indeed communicates the idea of incarnation. The Greek word ἐγένετο (egeneto) translated as "was made" signifies a genuine transformation—God’s eternal Word becoming flesh. This does not mean that the Word created Jesus as a separate being; rather, it indicates that the preexistent Word (Logos) took on human nature. The Word, which was with God and was God (John 1:1), did not cease to be divine but entered into humanity. The concept of Jesus as preexistent is also supported in John 8:58, where He declares, "Before Abraham was, I am." This indicates that Jesus, as the Word, existed before creation and was not simply brought into existence at His birth.

2. While it's true Jesus' water baptism revealed him as the Messiah, the Bible doesn't say Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from his conception. The Holy Spirit didn't descend upon and rest on Jesus until his water baptism.

The view that Jesus was not filled with the Holy Spirit from conception overlooks the unique nature of His birth. In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel explicitly states that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary, and the child to be born would be called the Son of God. This indicates that from the moment of conception, Jesus was divinely conceived and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. His baptism by John was not to receive the Holy Spirit for the first time but to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and publicly reveal His identity and mission. The descending of the Spirit like a dove was a visible sign for others, especially John the Baptist, who testified that he saw the Spirit descend and remain on Jesus (John 1:32-34).

3. You seemed to admit, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that Jesus was empowered at his baptism. Therefore, he was not empowered before this. The evidence is there is no record of Jesus doing miracles (in the canonized Bible that is) before the age of 30 years old.

The idea that Jesus was empowered only at His baptism and not before misinterprets the nature of His ministry. While there is no record of miracles before His public ministry, this does not imply He lacked divine power prior to His baptism. In Luke 2:49, Jesus, at the age of twelve, demonstrates His divine awareness by declaring, "Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?" His miracles began at the appointed time in God’s redemptive plan, not because He suddenly received divine power, but because His ministry was to start according to divine timing. His baptism marked the beginning of His public ministry, not the beginning of His empowerment.

4. You also mentioned Jesus' fulfilling the law and bringing in the New Covenant, but I request your clarification. Are you saying Jesus did this at his water baptism or are you alluding to a different context?

When I mentioned Jesus fulfilling the law and bringing in the New Covenant, I was referring to His entire ministry, culminating in His death and resurrection. Jesus’ fulfillment of the law began with His perfect obedience to it throughout His life, including His baptism, which was a symbolic act of identifying with humanity’s need for repentance, though He Himself was sinless. The New Covenant was inaugurated through His sacrifice on the cross (Hebrews 9:15). The baptism served as the initiation of His public ministry, where He began to reveal the nature of this New Covenant through His teachings, miracles, and ultimately His sacrificial death and resurrection.

5. Yes, the miracles Jesus did were examples of divine power that came from a different person (the Father) than himself. So Jesus wasn't the source of his miracle power as already shown in a previously reply.

The notion that Jesus’ miracles were purely acts of divine power from the Father, separate from His own divine nature, fails to recognize the unity of the Father and the Son. In John 14:10, Jesus states, "The Father who dwells in Me does the works." This indicates that the miracles were not done by Jesus independently of the Father, but through the indwelling presence of the Father within Him. However, this does not diminish Jesus’ divinity; rather, it affirms the inseparable relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, had full authority and power, as evidenced by His ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12) and command nature (Mark 4:39), acts that are intrinsically divine.

6. I also showed that 1 Tim. 3:16's "God was manifested in the flesh" is rejected by the Trinitarian scholarly community and doesn't find a home in modern Bibles. If you can show otherwise, that would help.

The argument that 1 Timothy 3:16’s phrase "God was manifest in the flesh" is rejected by some modern translations does not negate its theological truth. While some manuscripts vary in wording, the theological understanding of God being manifest in the flesh is consistent with the overall witness of Scripture. John 1:14 affirms that the Word became flesh, which is synonymous with God being manifest in the flesh. The key point is the incarnation: the eternal God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This remains a foundational truth of Christian faith, regardless of textual variations.

7. Spiritual gifts come from the Father, not Jesus, according to James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

James 1:17 indeed emphasizes that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, but this does not exclude the role of Jesus in bestowing spiritual gifts. In Ephesians 4:7-8, Paul states that grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift, and that He gave gifts to men after His ascension. This indicates that Jesus, in His exalted position, distributes gifts to the Church. This is consistent with the understanding that the fullness of God’s presence—Father, Son, and Spirit—is embodied in Jesus. Thus, Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, is the source of these spiritual gifts, working in harmony with the Father.

 

[Runningman]

Then what is your explanation of:
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."

The textual variants of 1 Timothy 3:16, specifically concerning the phrase "God was manifest in the flesh," do not alter the fundamental theological message of the passage. The key variants are between the words "God" (θεός) and "He" (ὅς). Some ancient manuscripts use "God," while others use "He." However, the overall context of the passage, coupled with the broader scriptural narrative, preserves the truth of the incarnation and the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ.

In the variant where "He" is used, the pronoun still refers back to the subject of the passage, which, contextually, is Christ. This aligns with other scriptures that affirm the divinity of Jesus, such as John 1:14, which declares, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The use of "He" does not diminish the truth that it was indeed God manifesting Himself in the flesh through Christ. Whether the text reads "God" or "He," the implication is clear: Jesus is the physical manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

The phrase "manifest in the flesh" underscores the incarnation, a cornerstone of Christian belief, that God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. The textual variant does not introduce a theological divergence but rather confirms what the entirety of the New Testament reveals about Jesus' identity. Thus, 1 Timothy 3:16, in any of its textual forms, unambiguously supports the doctrine of God manifesting in the flesh, affirming the mystery of godliness and the central truth of the Christian faith.

The Greek theological thought behind the concepts of "incarnation" and "manifest in the flesh" reveals a deep connection between the two. The term "incarnation" comes from the Latin incarnatio, but its Greek equivalent is ἐνσάρκωσις (ensarkōsis), which means "enfleshment" or "becoming flesh." This aligns closely with the Greek word φανερόω (phaneroō), meaning "to make visible" or "to manifest," used in 1 Timothy 3:16, where it says, "God was manifest in the flesh" (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί).

This phrase indicates that the invisible God became visible in human form. The Greek thought emphasizes the physical reality of God taking on human nature, not merely appearing as human but truly becoming flesh. In John 1:14, "The Word was made flesh" (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο), the verb ἐγένετο (egeneto) underscores that the Word truly "became" flesh, emphasizing the reality of the incarnation. Thus, in Greek theology, the incarnation is the event where God was φανερόω (manifested) in the flesh, fully embodying human nature while retaining divine essence. This understanding is crucial for grasping the unity of divine and human in Christ, where manifest in the flesh and incarnation both affirm the same profound mystery of God’s self-revelation in human form.

I take it you are either disagreeing with some of the things I have posted or have not read them. This will now be my third refute of the version of 1 Timothy 3:16 that contains "God was manifest in the flesh..."

I will begin with simply stating the fact that no modern Bible translation, to the best of my knowledge, that has been produced within the past 100-150 years contains "God was manifest in the flesh..." but rather contains something like "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..."

Most scholars attribute the error of "God was manifest in the flesh..." to a scribal error, gracefully calling it accidental, though some believe it could have very well been a deliberate alteration to the manuscript to bolster Trinitarian dogma; these aren't anti-Trinitarians saying these things - no. These are people of reputation, standing, with credentials in theology who have reputations at stake and nothing to gain theologically by rightly confessing that 1 Timothy 3:16 has been altered.

How do they know? Because one of the metrics for determining authenticity is the age of the manuscript. The idea being that if a manuscript is old and they find numerous copies of them all saying "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..." and not "God was manifest in the flesh..." then it stands to reason that the belief circulating in the earliest church, the time in closest proximity to when the first copies were made, then statistical likelihood of it being altered is lower.

That being said, they actually found the earliest and best manuscripts that prove such. Below are some links to the proof where there is nothing being said about God in 1 Timothy 3:16.

For further reading, you can see many Trinitarians using the above proof to debunk the word "God" being in 1 Timothy 3:16: https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/1_Timothy_3:16

I also recommend these commentaries. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-16.htm because a lot of people provide proof that the KJV's version is wrong.

 

[Runningman]

The assertion that "incarnation" is not a biblical term is technically correct, but the concept it represents is undeniably scriptural. The phrase "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) indeed communicates the idea of incarnation. The Greek word ἐγένετο (egeneto) translated as "was made" signifies a genuine transformation—God’s eternal Word becoming flesh. This does not mean that the Word created Jesus as a separate being; rather, it indicates that the preexistent Word (Logos) took on human nature. The Word, which was with God and was God (John 1:1), did not cease to be divine but entered into humanity. The concept of Jesus as preexistent is also supported in John 8:58, where He declares, "Before Abraham was, I am." This indicates that Jesus, as the Word, existed before creation and was not simply brought into existence at His birth.

Due to their being a lack of evidence of Jesus being incarnated and the word incarnated not stated in Scripture, it's an easier position to argue that Jesus was not incarnated. There is no mention of Jesus saying or doing anything in a pre-incarnate state in the Old Testament. There are no verses about what Jesus may have allegedly been doing before the world was. Nothing you have claimed above direct states what you believe, but rather you have produced theological arguments.

Arguing without evidence is what is classically referred to as an appeal to ignorance because it wrongly asserts a claim must be true due to there being no evidence against it. So the burden of proof is still on you to prove if you can. So far no one has been able to find any Scriptural proof of what Jesus may have been doing being his birth.

The view that Jesus was not filled with the Holy Spirit from conception overlooks the unique nature of His birth. In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel explicitly states that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary, and the child to be born would be called the Son of God. This indicates that from the moment of conception, Jesus was divinely conceived and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. His baptism by John was not to receive the Holy Spirit for the first time but to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and publicly reveal His identity and mission. The descending of the Spirit like a dove was a visible sign for others, especially John the Baptist, who testified that he saw the Spirit descend and remain on Jesus (John 1:32-34).

Being uniquely born of a virgin does not require that the one being born have the holy Spirit in the first place. This is once again the appeal to ignorance fallacy and you're creating another theological argument. Due to the absence of Scripture to support your claims, it cannot be objectively true.

The idea that Jesus was empowered only at His baptism and not before misinterprets the nature of His ministry. While there is no record of miracles before His public ministry, this does not imply He lacked divine power prior to His baptism. In Luke 2:49, Jesus, at the age of twelve, demonstrates His divine awareness by declaring, "Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?" His miracles began at the appointed time in God’s redemptive plan, not because He suddenly received divine power, but because His ministry was to start according to divine timing. His baptism marked the beginning of His public ministry, not the beginning of His empowerment.

There is no evidence that Jesus had divine power before his water baptism in the Bible. It is neither directly stated or implied. In fact, the Bible directly says when exactly Jesus was empowered and it was at his water baptism.

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

When I mentioned Jesus fulfilling the law and bringing in the New Covenant, I was referring to His entire ministry, culminating in His death and resurrection. Jesus’ fulfillment of the law began with His perfect obedience to it throughout His life, including His baptism, which was a symbolic act of identifying with humanity’s need for repentance, though He Himself was sinless. The New Covenant was inaugurated through His sacrifice on the cross (Hebrews 9:15). The baptism served as the initiation of His public ministry, where He began to reveal the nature of this New Covenant through His teachings, miracles, and ultimately His sacrificial death and resurrection.

That's close, but actually the New Covenant miracles were from the Father acting through Jesus and the apostles (John 14:10, Acts 2:22, Acts 4:30, Acts 10:38, etc).

Jesus was taught by the Father the teachings he had. In other words, since Jesus needed to be taught, he didn't inherently have the teachings. John 8:28 says, "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

The sacrificial death actually wasn't his plan and he wanted to avoid it, according to Matthew 26:39, which indicates he actually has a different will than God the Father because he isn't God. Acts 2:32 says Jesus was delivered to the cross by God's plan and for foreknowledge of the event.

continued...

 

[Runningman]

The notion that Jesus’ miracles were purely acts of divine power from the Father, separate from His own divine nature, fails to recognize the unity of the Father and the Son. In John 14:10, Jesus states, "The Father who dwells in Me does the works." This indicates that the miracles were not done by Jesus independently of the Father, but through the indwelling presence of the Father within Him. However, this does not diminish Jesus’ divinity; rather, it affirms the inseparable relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, had full authority and power, as evidenced by His ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12) and command nature (Mark 4:39), acts that are intrinsically divine.

In John 5:30, Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

So the miracles Jesus did he couldn't have done without the Father. Jesus being a man, required the divine intervention of his God and Father in order to perform miracles, produce teachings, etc.

The argument that 1 Timothy 3:16’s phrase "God was manifest in the flesh" is rejected by some modern translations does not negate its theological truth. While some manuscripts vary in wording, the theological understanding of God being manifest in the flesh is consistent with the overall witness of Scripture. John 1:14 affirms that the Word became flesh, which is synonymous with God being manifest in the flesh. The key point is the incarnation: the eternal God took on human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This remains a foundational truth of Christian faith, regardless of textual variations.

There is nothing in Scripture that suggests God incarnated as a man. In fact, God denied it being a man. Since God never changes then the possibility of God becoming a man would not only be a contradiction to Scripture, but also setting the stage for idolatry because the worship of any created being, whether human like Jesus or otherwise, as if they were God is textbook idolatry.

Hosea 11
9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

James 1:17 indeed emphasizes that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father, but this does not exclude the role of Jesus in bestowing spiritual gifts. In Ephesians 4:7-8, Paul states that grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift, and that He gave gifts to men after His ascension. This indicates that Jesus, in His exalted position, distributes gifts to the Church. This is consistent with the understanding that the fullness of God’s presence—Father, Son, and Spirit—is embodied in Jesus. Thus, Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, is the source of these spiritual gifts, working in harmony with the Father.

In James 1:17, it directly states that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father with no mention of anyone else being someone the gifts come from. This would, of course, include spiritual gifts as well. This is also compatible with Scripture. In Scripture, it is the Father who works through people to do the miraculous works and not the person themselves. (John 14:10, Acts 2:22, Acts 4:30, Acts 10:38, etc)

So due to the lack of evidences and proof of Jesus inherently having any power or authority, there is no precedent for saying he is God.

 

[Consecrated Life]

it’s essential to recognize that Jesus’s references to His pre-incarnate glory, such as in John 17:5, do not imply a separate personal existence alongside the Father ...

I recognize that the language Jesus uses to characterize His existence juxtaposed to the Father's existence prior to the creation clearly denotes an Almighty being that is both "separate" and "singular" at once.
Note the terms Jesus uses to distinguish the pre-creation separation THOU. ME, I, THEE. THINE OWN SELF of the Godhead
He then ties all together as one by them having the SAME GLORY.
The Glory of God Is HIs alone that He shares with no other , and the Fact that Jesus has the same Glory of God allows for no other explanation other than they are God.
A seemingly impossible explanation that our practical human intelligence can only grasp fragments of.
For me a Creator God that straining little mortals can fully explain would not be God

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[My Rock]

I take it you are either disagreeing with some of the things I have posted or have not read them. This will now be my third refute of the version of 1 Timothy 3:16 that contains "God was manifest in the flesh..."

I will begin with simply stating the fact that no modern Bible translation, to the best of my knowledge, that has been produced within the past 100-150 years contains "God was manifest in the flesh..." but rather contains something like "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..."

Most scholars attribute the error of "God was manifest in the flesh..." to a scribal error, gracefully calling it accidental, though some believe it could have very well been a deliberate alteration to the manuscript to bolster Trinitarian dogma; these aren't anti-Trinitarians saying these things - no. These are people of reputation, standing, with credentials in theology who have reputations at stake and nothing to gain theologically by rightly confessing that 1 Timothy 3:16 has been altered.

How do they know? Because one of the metrics for determining authenticity is the age of the manuscript. The idea being that if a manuscript is old and they find numerous copies of them all saying "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..." and not "God was manifest in the flesh..." then it stands to reason that the belief circulating in the earliest church, the time in closest proximity to when the first copies were made, then statistical likelihood of it being altered is lower.

That being said, they actually found the earliest and best manuscripts that prove such. Below are some links to the proof where there is nothing being said about God in 1 Timothy 3:16.

For further reading, you can see many Trinitarians using the above proof to debunk the word "God" being in 1 Timothy 3:16: https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/1_Timothy_3:16

I also recommend these commentaries. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-16.htm because a lot of people provide proof that the KJV's version is wrong.

Even with the textual variations it still doesn't take from the fact that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

 

[My Rock]

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

This does nothing to help your point. It simply says God is not a lying man or a sinner in need of repentance. But he is a sinless Man.

 

[Runningman]

This does nothing to help your point. It simply says God is not a lying man or a sinner in need of repentance. But he is a sinless Man.

Jesus, being a man, could have hypothetically lied if he wanted to. Whereas God on the other hand cannot lie or even be tempted to sin.

Titus 1​

2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie...​

​

James 1​

13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:​

Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are. The nature of Jesus and God aren't identical despite their many similarities. That's because men aren't God and God isn't a man.

Hebrews 4​

15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

 

[Runningman]

Even with the textual variations it still doesn't take from the fact that Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

Divinity and deity don't necessarily mean the same things. Are you giving possibility to Jesus possibly not being God but rather a different kind of divine being?

 

[My Rock]

Divinity and deity don't necessarily mean the same things. Are you giving possibility to Jesus possibly not being God but rather a different kind of divine being?

What gives you that impression

 

[Runningman]

What gives you that impression

Because you chose the word divinity rather than deity. Yes Jesus is divine, as are others, but not all are deity. Only the Father is deity; He is the only true God.

 

[Free]

We can use the Son of God when referring to Christ but not "God the Son" Because the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time.

The assertion that "incarnation" is not a biblical term is technically correct, but the concept it represents is undeniably scriptural.

Why can we use "incarnation" but not "God the Son"? Your reasoning is inconsistent and made to suit only your position.

 

[Free]

My Rock

You never did respond to these posts, on page 1:

https://christianforums.net/threads...allow-for-a-triune-nature.108095/post-1900055

https://christianforums.net/threads...allow-for-a-triune-nature.108095/post-1900059

 

[My Rock]

Why can we use "incarnation" but not "God the Son"? Your reasoning is inconsistent and made to suit only your position.

The incarnation emphasizes that the same God who is omnipresent and transcendent became visible and accessible in Jesus Christ. It signifies the act of God becoming fully human (God's Human body had a beginning, but is and always will be the Self Expressive Eternal Word (Word made flesh) while remaining fully divine.

“Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. “Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural. The term "God the Son" suggests a duality within the Godhead—two distinct persons or entities (God the Father and God the Son) rather than a singular divine being. Using "God the Son" could imply a division or plurality that contradicts the foundational Oneness belief in the absolute unity of God.

 

[My Rock]

• Co-eternal (ἀΐδιος): This term, or variations of it, refers to something that exists eternally. It is used in a context where multiple entities are understood to exist eternally alongside one another. When applied to the Trinity, it suggests that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each exist eternally. This language inherently implies multiple distinct entities coexisting in eternity.
• Co-equal (ἰσότιμος): This term means "equal in honor" or "equal in value." It presupposes a comparison between multiple distinct entities or persons who share the same status or honor. This term would imply multiple entities or persons being equal in rank, dignity, or essence.

How is any of what is highlighted One God.

 

[My Rock]

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God.

Yes the distinction is between God's Human body which is distinct and localized from His Omnipresent Invisible Spirit. That I agree with.