Which is right, the original Judeo-Christian authors or philosophical thought Centuries after the original writings were lost?

[Hopeful 2]

You have every right to disagree, but our right to disagree doesn't change Truth. My nephew says "God is fake" that doesn't make it true, Truth is Truth no matter what!

WHO put on flesh ?
The Word, who was with God and was God put on flesh.
If the Word was merely that which had been spoken, it would not be "God".

 

[My Rock]

WHO put on flesh ?
The Word, who was with God and was God put on flesh.
If the Word was merely that which had been spoken, it would not be "God".

In John 1:1, the Word (Logos) is presented as both “with God” and “was God,” emphasizing God’s self-expression and His divine will and purpose. From a Oneness perspective, the Word is not a distinct person but the very mind, plan, and self-expression of God Himself. This Word was not a “who” until it was embodied, or put on flesh, as John 1:14 describes: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing (The Word - Self Expressive and Eternal) which shall be (Not always was) born (This is when The Word became a "Who") of thee shall be called the Son of God."

When we look at this term, “Word,” it’s essential to consider it as the articulation of God’s own being, inseparable from Him. This Word is God’s own power and wisdom expressed, coming forth directly from Him. It’s the same concept we see in Genesis 1:3, where God speaks creation into existence. That Word is His command and will in action—not a separate individual, but God Himself in the act of creating.

When John says the Word “was God,” it means that this Word has always been intrinsic to God, like one’s mind or thoughts. In the incarnation, this Word became flesh as Jesus Christ, the “only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). Here, the Word took on personal identity and became a “who” as Jesus. But before the incarnation, there was no separate “who” apart from God Himself.

This understanding aligns with how the Bible consistently presents God as singular and indivisible. When the Word “became flesh,” it was God’s own self-manifestation as a human being—not a distinct person but the one God making Himself known in a way humanity could see, touch, and follow. Thus, Jesus is fully God manifest in flesh (Colossians 2:9), revealing God’s love and plan directly to humanity.

 

[Hopeful 2]

In John 1:1, the Word (Logos) is presented as both “with God” and “was God,” emphasizing God’s self-expression and His divine will and purpose. From a Oneness perspective, the Word is not a distinct person

I do not agree.
The Word was both with God and at the same time, was God.

but the very mind, plan, and self-expression of God Himself. This Word was not a “who” until it was embodied, or put on flesh, as John 1:14 describes: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing (The Word - Self Expressive and Eternal) which shall be (Not always was) born (This is when The Word became a "Who") of thee shall be called the Son of God."

When we look at this term, “Word,” it’s essential to consider it as the articulation of God’s own being, inseparable from Him. This Word is God’s own power and wisdom expressed, coming forth directly from Him. It’s the same concept we see in Genesis 1:3, where God speaks creation into existence. That Word is His command and will in action—not a separate individual, but God Himself in the act of creating.

When John says the Word “was God,” it means that this Word has always been intrinsic to God, like one’s mind or thoughts. In the incarnation, this Word became flesh as Jesus Christ, the “only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). Here, the Word took on personal identity and became a “who” as Jesus. But before the incarnation, there was no separate “who” apart from God Himself.

This understanding aligns with how the Bible consistently presents God as singular and indivisible. When the Word “became flesh,” it was God’s own self-manifestation as a human being—not a distinct person but the one God making Himself known in a way humanity could see, touch, and follow. Thus, Jesus is fully God manifest in flesh (Colossians 2:9), revealing God’s love and plan directly to humanity.

 

[My Rock]

I do not agree.
The Word was both with God and at the same time, was God.

That is exactly what I said when quoting John 1:1, why do you disagree? What else do you think John 1:1 says? Well it was God's Word, which was within Him and belonged to Him. It wasn't someone else's Word was it?

 

[Hopeful 2]

That is exactly what I said when quoting John 1:1, why do you disagree? What else do you think John 1:1 says? Well it was God's Word, which was within Him and belonged to Him. It wasn't someone else's Word was it?

You are still missing what I am saying.
The Word, for lack of any other way to describe Him, was a being.
He was with God and was God.
God and the Word were the "our" of..."And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."
The Word was not that which was spoken by God.

 

[My Rock]

You are still missing what I am saying.
The Word, for lack of any other way to describe Him, was a being.
He was with God and was God.
God and the Word were the "our" of..."And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."
The Word was not that which was spoken by God.

I must not being saying it right let me try again:

"The Word" (Logos) in John 1:1: In this context, "the Word" refers to the eternal, preexistent expression of God's own divine mind, plan, and purpose. "The Word" is not merely a spoken utterance but an intrinsic part of God's very nature, encompassing His wisdom, reason, and the fullness of His will. It is God’s eternal self-revelation, present with Him from the beginning. When John says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” he is affirming that the Word is fully divine and inseparable from God Himself. This Word became tangible through the incarnation, as John later states, “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), when God revealed Himself directly to humanity through Jesus Christ.

The Spoken Word in Action: In contrast, the spoken word is God’s power in action, carrying out His will and purposes within creation. This spoken word is what we see in Genesis 1, where “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Here, God’s spoken word is the expression of His command; it brings into existence what He has decreed. This spoken word is an outworking of “the Word” in action—it is how God brings forth His will into the tangible, physical realm.

Thus, “the Word” refers to God’s self-existent mind and nature, while the spoken word refers to God’s direct commands as they bring about His purposes within creation. "The Word" became flesh in Jesus Christ, embodying the fullness of God's nature, while the spoken word remains an instrument by which God interacts with and shapes creation.

In Genesis 1:26, when God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," it is crucial to read this as God's intentional self-reflection, not a conversation between separate beings. The very next verse, Genesis 1:27, switches to the singular: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” This shift to singular pronouns clearly underscores the oneness of God in action. Similarly, in Genesis 2, the narrative consistently uses singular terms for God, affirming that creation was an act of a single, unified God—not multiple beings or persons.

Isaiah 44:24, "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself."
Isaiah 45:12, "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
Isaiah 46:9, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." In this respect if Jesus wasn't the expression of God the Father, when he was worshipped they would have been worshipping an Idol.

Isaiah 48:11-12. "For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
Revelation 22:13, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Here we either have Two God's, which we know isn't true, saying the same thing or Jesus is God the Father in bodily form. They both can't be First and Last.

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."

None of these verses show a plurality in God in making or forming creation, man or otherwise.

tota Scriptura asserts that every part of Scripture has value and authority, supporting a holistic approach to understanding God's Word. It underscores that interpretation should take into account the entire biblical canon as a cohesive, divinely inspired whole. (Not your one single verse)

 

[Free]

I fully agree with the concept of progressive revelation, with Christ, His teachings, and the inspiration of His Spirit upon the original writers being the ultimate and complete revelation. Given that Jesus is considered one of the persons in the Trinity, if the Trinity were true, He Himself would have explicitly revealed this concept. We would not have needed to wait for later, non-scriptural philosophical formulations to articulate it. Colossians 2:8 warns us, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Likewise, 1 Corinthians 3:19 states, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness.”

Why should Jesus have explicitly revealed the Trinity if it were true? Remember, the Jews, including Jesus's own disciples, were expecting Jesus fight the Romans and reign as Messiah. Not one of them expected him to die and be raised again, despite him explicitly telling them he would, for the forgiveness of sins and bringing about a spiritual kingdom through which he would begin his reign. So, how could we expect him to explicitly state anything about the Trinity and have anyone believe him?

Instead, he implied it, albeit with some explicit statements. He made it clear that he had existed eternally with the Father, claimed to come from heaven, prayed to the Father, and claimed to be God and equal to the Father. Of course, that reveals the error in your reasoning. You say that "Given that Jesus is considered one of the persons in the Trinity, if the Trinity were true, He Himself would have explicitly revealed this concept," yet, your own position isn't explicitly stated by Jesus either.

 

[Free]

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This command to baptize in a singular "name" is significant, as it points to the understanding that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separate names or persons but rather distinct Titles or expressions of the one true God. This singular name encompasses Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as revealed through and in Jesus.

And, yet, they are clearly and consistently shown as distinct persons throughout Scripture. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in Gen 1:2 and then in various places in the OT. So, according to your position, was made manifest prior to the Son. One the Son arrives, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are never conflated and never said to be one person; they are always kept distinct. The best explanation is that it is because they are distinct and always have been. Hence, the best explanation of Matt 28:19 is that it points to the distinct persons of the Trinity.

The disciples, who were present when Jesus gave this command, carried out baptism exclusively in the name of Jesus in the book of Acts. For example, in Acts 8:16 and Acts 10:48, believers were baptized explicitly in the name of Jesus. The apostles understood Jesus to be the fulfillment of the singular name Jesus referred to in Matthew 28:19.

This aligns with Jesus’ declaration in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name,” showing that the name of the Father is expressed in Him. Additionally, Jesus told His followers that the Holy Spirit would come “in [His] name” (John 14:26). The singular name of God, fully revealed in the New Testament, encapsulates Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, and that name is Jesus. Thus, baptizing in Jesus’ name fulfills the command of Matthew 28:19 by recognizing and calling upon the full identity of God revealed in Christ.

But, Jesus is the name of the Son, so how can that become the name of God?

In response to the assertion that "the Old Testament only shows God as singular and indivisible" is question-begging:


The Old Testament (OT) explicitly emphasizes the indivisible, absolute oneness of God in ways that point directly to a singular divine identity rather than a composite or multi-personal being. The central verse of Deut. 6:4, recited daily by devout Jews and affirmed by Jesus Himself (Mark 12:29), provides a clear statement of absolute monotheism that does not imply any internal division within God. The OT consistently refers to God in singular terms, with pronouns like “I,” “Me,” "Alone," "By Myself," None Beside Me," and “He,” underscoring that God reveals Himself as a single, unified being, not as a multi-personal entity.

In addition, passages in the Prophets further reinforce this point. Isaiah 43:10–11 asserts, “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.” Jesus Christ can't come on the scene and be the Savior without being God the Father in Flesh or it violates and contradicts this Scripture. The repeated assertion that there is no other God beside Him indicates not only that there is no competing deity but also that within Himself, God remains an indivisible, unified entity. If the OT were to imply a multi-personal or complex nature within God, we would expect language accommodating such plurality, but instead, we see emphatic statements about God’s uniqueness and oneness, terms that imply unity without division or multiplicity.

So, rather than “begging the question,” the understanding of God’s absolute unity is drawn directly from OT texts and affirmed through the progressive revelation in the New Testament (NT). The NT does not redefine God's nature; (God changes Not) it reveals the previously veiled truth that God was fully manifest in the man Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). This understanding respects the consistent biblical portrayal of God as singular, unified, and ultimately indivisible, as both the OT and NT describe.

You simply repeated your position which, as I stated, is fallaciously begging the question. Again, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that God is absolutely one person, and the door is even left open for such a reality. And, again, to state that those verses prove that God is an absolute unity is to conflate monotheism with the nature of God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I must not being saying it right let me try again:

"The Word" (Logos) in John 1:1: In this context, "the Word" refers to the eternal, preexistent expression of God's own divine mind, plan, and purpose. "The Word" is not merely a spoken utterance but an intrinsic part of God's very nature, encompassing His wisdom, reason, and the fullness of His will. It is God’s eternal self-revelation, present with Him from the beginning. When John says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” he is affirming that the Word is fully divine and inseparable from God Himself. This Word became tangible through the incarnation, as John later states, “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14), when God revealed Himself directly to humanity through Jesus Christ.

The Spoken Word in Action: In contrast, the spoken word is God’s power in action, carrying out His will and purposes within creation. This spoken word is what we see in Genesis 1, where “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Here, God’s spoken word is the expression of His command; it brings into existence what He has decreed. This spoken word is an outworking of “the Word” in action—it is how God brings forth His will into the tangible, physical realm.

Thus, “the Word” refers to God’s self-existent mind and nature, while the spoken word refers to God’s direct commands as they bring about His purposes within creation. "The Word" became flesh in Jesus Christ, embodying the fullness of God's nature, while the spoken word remains an instrument by which God interacts with and shapes creation.

In Genesis 1:26, when God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," it is crucial to read this as God's intentional self-reflection, not a conversation between separate beings. The very next verse, Genesis 1:27, switches to the singular: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” This shift to singular pronouns clearly underscores the oneness of God in action. Similarly, in Genesis 2, the narrative consistently uses singular terms for God, affirming that creation was an act of a single, unified God—not multiple beings or persons.

Isaiah 44:24, "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself."
Isaiah 45:12, "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
Isaiah 46:9, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." In this respect if Jesus wasn't the expression of God the Father, when he was worshipped they would have been worshipping an Idol.

Isaiah 48:11-12. "For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
Revelation 22:13, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Here we either have Two God's, which we know isn't true, saying the same thing or Jesus is God the Father in bodily form. They both can't be First and Last.

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."

None of these verses show a plurality in God in making or forming creation, man or otherwise.

tota Scriptura asserts that every part of Scripture has value and authority, supporting a holistic approach to understanding God's Word. It underscores that interpretation should take into account the entire biblical canon as a cohesive, divinely inspired whole. (Not your one single verse)

All your philosophizing just hides the simplicity in a cloud.

 

[My Rock]

All your philosophizing just hides the simplicity in a cloud.

God is Spirit and invisible to man. Jesus Christ is the only visible and final complete physical tangible representation of God forever. So saying God is One Being in One Person is the simplest ever explantation of God. The Trinity, divided God Internally in His Being and still saying He is One is what is not simple and complicated.

 

[My Rock]

And, yet, they are clearly and consistently shown as distinct persons throughout Scripture. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in Gen 1:2 and then in various places in the OT. So, according to your position, was made manifest prior to the Son. One the Son arrives, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are never conflated and never said to be one person; they are always kept distinct. The best explanation is that it is because they are distinct and always have been. Hence, the best explanation of Matt 28:19 is that it points to the distinct persons of the Trinity.

And yet, the Scriptures consistently affirm the oneness of God and never present Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct “persons” in the sense of separate individual beings. The term “person” is not found in biblical descriptions of God’s nature but is a later, theologically developed term—man-made Philosophy, not God-inspired. If this concept of distinct “persons” were essential to understanding God, it would have been explicitly included in the inspired written Word.

Genesis 1:2 does mention the Spirit of God, but this is described as God’s own Spirit—His presence and power actively involved in creation. It does not imply a separate personal identity distinct from God. When Jesus arrives, we see the full revelation of God in human form. As the "Word made flesh" (John 1:14), Jesus embodies the fullness of God’s nature (Colossians 2:9). This is not one part of God acting in isolation but God Himself manifesting in the flesh to accomplish redemption.

The Scriptures emphasize the mystery and unity of God’s manifestation rather than distinguishing “persons.” Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah the “Mighty God” and the “Everlasting Father,” titles that clearly align the Son with the Father’s identity, not as distinct persons but as expressions of the same indivisible God. When Jesus prayed, it was from His humanity—His authentic human experience, having “emptied Himself” to take on full humanity (Philippians 2:7-8). This reflects the dual nature of Christ, both fully divine and fully human, rather than implying a separation of persons within the Godhead.

Matthew 28:19 points to the “name” (singular) in which God is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This name, as fully revealed in the New Testament, is Jesus. Rather than indicating separate “persons,” these titles highlight God’s multifaceted relationship with humanity: as Father (Creator), Son (Redeemer), and Holy Spirit (indwelling presence). Thus, the best explanation of Matthew 28:19 is that it directs us to the singular divine identity, revealed and accessible to us in Jesus Christ.

But, Jesus is the name of the Son, so how can that become the name of God?

If we consider that Jesus is the name given to the Son in His incarnation, we must ask, How can this name belong only to the Son and not to God as a whole? Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.” This statement strongly suggests that Jesus bears the name of the Father as well, indicating that the name “Jesus” is more than just the designation of the Son’s humanity. Instead, it signifies the very identity and presence of God with us (Matthew 1:23).

In Philippians 2:9-11, we see that God has given Jesus a name that is above every name, so that at His name every knee should bow and every tongue confess. This means that Jesus’ name holds the highest divine authority, a position that belongs to God alone. Therefore, Jesus as the name of the Son does not limit it to a singular role. Rather, it reveals God in the fullness of His character—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as one unified identity manifested in Jesus, “for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

You simply repeated your position which, as I stated, is fallaciously begging the question. Again, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that states that God is absolutely one person, and the door is even left open for such a reality. And, again, to state that those verses prove that God is an absolute unity is to conflate monotheism with the nature of God.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify further. The assertion that a “single verse” must explicitly state God is “absolutely one person” may misunderstand the comprehensive nature of scriptural revelation about God’s singularity. While the Bible may not use the precise phrase “one person,” it also obviously doesn't use the phrase "three persons" but it consistently describes God in terms that denote a unified, indivisible identity—terms that convey an absolute oneness rather than any form of internal plurality or multiplicity.

The oneness is affirmed with language emphasizing exclusivity and indivisibility. In Hebrew, the term used here, echad, commonly implies an indivisible unity. The Shema, which this verse is part of, was central to Israel’s understanding of God and was not a statement about monotheism in general, but specifically about the nature of Israel’s God: that He is one and without internal division. This singularity is further underscored by passages like Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5–6, where God declares, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me, there is no God,” and “There is no God beside me.” These verses emphasize God’s uniqueness as an indivisible, singular being.

Additionally, the Hebrew Scriptures consistently use singular pronouns for God (“I,” “Me,” “He,” “Myself”), as seen in Exodus 3:14, where God identifies Himself to Moses as “I AM.” These grammatical choices are critical—they reflect not only God’s exclusive divinity but also His unified, undivided identity. The Bible makes no allowance for internal distinctions or separate centers of consciousness within God, which would imply a division not only of identity but of being.

The New Testament continues this affirmation of God’s singularity without introducing a new concept of a “multi-personal” being. Instead, it reveals Jesus as the embodiment of God Himself, not a separate person but “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Passages like 2 Corinthians 5:19 affirm that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,” indicating that the fullness of God’s identity was manifest in Jesus, rather than introducing any new division within God. John 14:9-10 further supports this when Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” emphasizing that God’s nature is entirely visible in Jesus, not alongside Him.

To summarize, the singular language and imagery used for God in both the Old and New Testaments describe Him as an indivisible, unified being. This absolute oneness remains the biblical position on God’s nature, revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the full and complete manifestation of God Himself, not a distinct person within a multi-personal deity. This view harmonizes with Scripture’s emphasis on God’s unity, uniqueness, and indivisibility without needing to impose multi-personal language where the Bible consistently affirms His absolute oneness.

 

[My Rock]

In the Old and New Testaments, God is overwhelmingly referred to with singular pronouns. While an exact count varies depending on translation, it is estimated that singular pronouns for God (such as "He," "Him," "His," "I," "Me," and "Myself") appear well over 20,000 times. These instances strongly underscore the biblical emphasis on God's unified and singular nature throughout the narrative of Scripture.

By contrast, only a very few passages—often numbering around half a dozen—use language that some interpret as potentially implying a plurality within God. Notable examples include Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image," and Genesis 11:7, "Let us go down and confuse their language." However, these few instances are far outweighed by the thousands of verses that employ singular language about God, which consistently reinforces His absolute oneness and unity.

In passages such as Isaiah 45:5-6, 45:18, and 45:21-22, God emphatically declares, "I am the LORD, and there is no other," reinforcing an undivided divine identity. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus declares that "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), affirming the unity of God’s identity.

The sheer predominance of singular pronouns, alongside clear declarations of God’s oneness, provides a strong case for understanding God as an absolute unity without internal division, which is in harmony with the oneness of God.

 

[Free]

In the Old and New Testaments, God is overwhelmingly referred to with singular pronouns. While an exact count varies depending on translation, it is estimated that singular pronouns for God (such as "He," "Him," "His," "I," "Me," and "Myself") appear well over 20,000 times. These instances strongly underscore the biblical emphasis on God's unified and singular nature throughout the narrative of Scripture.

By contrast, only a very few passages—often numbering around half a dozen—use language that some interpret as potentially implying a plurality within God. Notable examples include Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image," and Genesis 11:7, "Let us go down and confuse their language." However, these few instances are far outweighed by the thousands of verses that employ singular language about God, which consistently reinforces His absolute oneness and unity.

In passages such as Isaiah 45:5-6, 45:18, and 45:21-22, God emphatically declares, "I am the LORD, and there is no other," reinforcing an undivided divine identity. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus declares that "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), affirming the unity of God’s identity.

The sheer predominance of singular pronouns, alongside clear declarations of God’s oneness, provides a strong case for understanding God as an absolute unity without internal division, which is in harmony with the oneness of God.

No, again, that is fallaciously begging the question, as you are first assuming God's use of singular personal pronouns and verses in which he says he is the only God are speaking of his nature. But, as I have stated, those verses and God's use of singular personal pronouns point to him being the only true God, which is monotheism. None of that reflects the nature of God--whether he is one person or three, or something else.

And, it is worth saying that this isn't a numbers game. It isn't that there are a handful of verses in which God uses plural personal pronouns, possibly pointing to a plurality in God, but are outweighed by thousands where God uses singular personal pronouns. If God uses plural personal pronouns even once, then we ought to take notice, since God doesn't make mistakes. This is all the more important in Gen 1:26-27 where God speaks to himself in the plural pronouns regarding creating man, but the very next verse uses singular pronouns when he does the actual creating. Of course, there is some disagreement as to what the plural pronouns in verse 26 mean, but they could mean that God is more than one person, a compound unity, whereas verse 27 is just stating that the one true God created man.

It might be worth considering that it is both male and female that are said to be created in his image, yet they are clearly distinctly different. Two distinct sexes created in the one image. And, it is those two that become one flesh--a compound unity.

Even if God had used all singular personal pronouns, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is only one person.

 

[My Rock]

No, again, that is fallaciously begging the question, as you are first assuming God's use of singular personal pronouns and verses in which he says he is the only God are speaking of his nature. But, as I have stated, those verses and God's use of singular personal pronouns point to him being the only true God, which is monotheism. None of that reflects the nature of God--whether he is one person or three, or something else.

Your response seems to draw a distinction between monotheism and the nature of God, as though monotheism simply describes God numerically without implying anything about His essence. However, monotheism inherently speaks to the very nature of God as one unified being, rather than a composite or divisible entity. The consistent use of singular pronouns and statements like “I am the LORD, and there is no other” are not merely expressions of numerical oneness but reveal the undivided and absolute nature of God. This is why the Bible does not depict God in a multi-personal or internally divided form but instead in profoundly unified terms.

If the biblical authors intended to describe a multi-personal God, it would be reasonable to expect explicit language indicating such a nature—rather than tens of thousands of singular references that underscore unity. So, if you’re suggesting that these statements speak only to monotheism without reflecting God’s nature, I would ask: if the language of absolute singularity doesn’t communicate God’s nature, then what does? This view not only seems to miss the significance of monotheism but also diminishes the depth of biblical statements on God’s indivisible identity.

 

[Free]

And yet, the Scriptures consistently affirm the oneness of God and never present Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct “persons” in the sense of separate individual beings.

On the contrary, they are always presented as distinct persons, otherwise the language and their being mentioned separately is meaningless.

The term “person” is not found in biblical descriptions of God’s nature but is a later, theologically developed term—man-made Philosophy, not God-inspired. If this concept of distinct “persons” were essential to understanding God, it would have been explicitly included in the inspired written Word.

Which has no bearing on the matter. It's the closest English approximation to describing the three "persons," each of which shows "personhood." It is a non-sequitur to say that 'If this concept of distinct “persons” were essential to understanding God, it would have been explicitly included in the inspired written Word.'

Do you believe God is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient? We use a lot of words to describe what we know of God because God has given us language and reason for that very purpose.

Genesis 1:2 does mention the Spirit of God, but this is described as God’s own Spirit—His presence and power actively involved in creation. It does not imply a separate personal identity distinct from God. When Jesus arrives, we see the full revelation of God in human form.

It is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of your Father, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of his Son. He is always mentioned as distinct from the Father and the Son.

As the "Word made flesh" (John 1:14), Jesus embodies the fullness of God’s nature (Colossians 2:9). This is not one part of God acting in isolation but God Himself manifesting in the flesh to accomplish redemption.

But, again, the Word was in intimate, personal relationship with God (John 1:1-2). How was the Father in intimate, personal relationship with himself? And, again, the God of Oneness theology cannot be love (1 John 1:8, 16). It's no coincidence that it is John who wrote both and who wrote much more regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Scriptures emphasize the mystery and unity of God’s manifestation rather than distinguishing “persons.” Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah the “Mighty God” and the “Everlasting Father,” titles that clearly align the Son with the Father’s identity, not as distinct persons but as expressions of the same indivisible God.

And, yet, Isa. 9:6 says that "a child is born," but that "a son is given," not born. As for "Everlasting Father," that isn't God's identity as Father, but his role as being a Father.

When Jesus prayed, it was from His humanity—His authentic human experience, having “emptied Himself” to take on full humanity (Philippians 2:7-8). This reflects the dual nature of Christ, both fully divine and fully human, rather than implying a separation of persons within the Godhead.

Who did the emptying? Who was he obedient to and who exalted him? Who gets the glory when every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord?

2Co 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (ESV)

When was Jesus rich, considering he was born into a carpenter's family?

Matthew 28:19 points to the “name” (singular) in which God is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This name, as fully revealed in the New Testament, is Jesus. Rather than indicating separate “persons,” these titles highlight God’s multifaceted relationship with humanity: as Father (Creator), Son (Redeemer), and Holy Spirit (indwelling presence). Thus, the best explanation of Matthew 28:19 is that it directs us to the singular divine identity, revealed and accessible to us in Jesus Christ.

No, the name would be YHWH. Jesus is the name of the Son only. See Phil. 2:8-11.

If we consider that Jesus is the name given to the Son in His incarnation, we must ask, How can this name belong only to the Son and not to God as a whole? Jesus said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.” This statement strongly suggests that Jesus bears the name of the Father as well, indicating that the name “Jesus” is more than just the designation of the Son’s humanity. Instead, it signifies the very identity and presence of God with us (Matthew 1:23).

No, there is nothing to suggest that the name "Jesus" is the Father's name. That is misunderstanding what it means to "come in my Father's name." Do you understand what "name" generally means in the NT? It is to come not in the literal name, but in what the name represents--the authority of the Father. It's the same as Matt 28:19--it is speaking of all that the "name" represents, that is, the sum total of the the divine being; not the actual name, but what that name represents.

In Philippians 2:9-11, we see that God has given Jesus a name that is above every name, so that at His name every knee should bow and every tongue confess. This means that Jesus’ name holds the highest divine authority, a position that belongs to God alone. Therefore, Jesus as the name of the Son does not limit it to a singular role. Rather, it reveals God in the fullness of His character—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as one unified identity manifested in Jesus, “for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

Do you really think that the name Jesus is above YHWH? Yes, the Godhead dwelt in Jesus, but that doesn't mean they are all one person.

 

[Free]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify further. The assertion that a “single verse” must explicitly state God is “absolutely one person” may misunderstand the comprehensive nature of scriptural revelation about God’s singularity. While the Bible may not use the precise phrase “one person,” it also obviously doesn't use the phrase "three persons" but it consistently describes God in terms that denote a unified, indivisible identity—terms that convey an absolute oneness rather than any form of internal plurality or multiplicity.

Here you're resorting to reasoning that goes against your previous reasoning. You stated above: 'If this concept of distinct “persons” were essential to understanding God, it would have been explicitly included in the inspired written Word.' But here you're arguing that the Bible doesn't need to 'explicitly state God is "absolutely one person" as you believe the idea is taught in the Bible. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, as is convenient for your position. You should try to be more consistent.

The oneness is affirmed with language emphasizing exclusivity and indivisibility. In Hebrew, the term used here, echad, commonly implies an indivisible unity. The Shema, which this verse is part of, was central to Israel’s understanding of God and was not a statement about monotheism in general, but specifically about the nature of Israel’s God: that He is one and without internal division.

No, that is to read that into the verse. Deut. 6:4 is about YHWH alone being Israel's God; it says nothing about the nature of God. 'Echad is the equivalent of the English word "one"--it can mean either an absolute unity or a compound unity or simply just "one." Yachid always means an absolute unity and it is never used of God. I wonder why God would never use that of himself?

This singularity is further underscored by passages like Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5–6, where God declares, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me, there is no God,” and “There is no God beside me.” These verses emphasize God’s uniqueness as an indivisible, singular being.

Again, only monotheism. There is absolutely nothing about God's nature, that he is "an indivisible, singular being." That is fallaciously begging the question because that has to be assumed and read into the verses first.

Additionally, the Hebrew Scriptures consistently use singular pronouns for God (“I,” “Me,” “He,” “Myself”), as seen in Exodus 3:14, where God identifies Himself to Moses as “I AM.” These grammatical choices are critical—they reflect not only God’s exclusive divinity but also His unified, undivided identity. The Bible makes no allowance for internal distinctions or separate centers of consciousness within God, which would imply a division not only of identity but of being.

See immediately above.

The New Testament continues this affirmation of God’s singularity without introducing a new concept of a “multi-personal” being. Instead, it reveals Jesus as the embodiment of God Himself, not a separate person but “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Passages like 2 Corinthians 5:19 affirm that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,” indicating that the fullness of God’s identity was manifest in Jesus, rather than introducing any new division within God. John 14:9-10 further supports this when Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” emphasizing that God’s nature is entirely visible in Jesus, not alongside Him.

Except that John strongly implies that the Son was eternally distinct from and in relationship with the Father. Jesus himself says the Father loved him and that he shared in the glory of the Father prior to all creation. Throughout the NT the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are kept distinct, which, again, is completely pointless (and misleading) if they are one and the same.

To summarize, the singular language and imagery used for God in both the Old and New Testaments describe Him as an indivisible, unified being. This absolute oneness remains the biblical position on God’s nature, revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the full and complete manifestation of God Himself, not a distinct person within a multi-personal deity. This view harmonizes with Scripture’s emphasis on God’s unity, uniqueness, and indivisibility without needing to impose multi-personal language where the Bible consistently affirms His absolute oneness.

There is nothing in the entire Bible that explicitly or directly states or shows that God is "an indivisible, unified being." But, there is much to suggest that the one Being that is God consists of three, distinct, divine Persons.

 

[Free]

Your response seems to draw a distinction between monotheism and the nature of God, as though monotheism simply describes God numerically without implying anything about His essence. However, monotheism inherently speaks to the very nature of God as one unified being, rather than a composite or divisible entity. The consistent use of singular pronouns and statements like “I am the LORD, and there is no other” are not merely expressions of numerical oneness but reveal the undivided and absolute nature of God. This is why the Bible does not depict God in a multi-personal or internally divided form but instead in profoundly unified terms.

Not "seems to," I have explicitly stated that they are two distinct concepts. Monotheism simply affirms that there is one true God, over against the multiplicity of gods of heathens. Nothing more.

If the biblical authors intended to describe a multi-personal God, it would be reasonable to expect explicit language indicating such a nature—rather than tens of thousands of singular references that underscore unity.

Again, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You need to decide whether something needs to be explicitly stated or not in order for it to be biblically true.

So, if you’re suggesting that these statements speak only to monotheism without reflecting God’s nature, I would ask: if the language of absolute singularity doesn’t communicate God’s nature, then what does?

Your question assumes there is language of "absolute singularity" being used of God.

This view not only seems to miss the significance of monotheism but also diminishes the depth of biblical statements on God’s indivisible identity.

On the contrary, as I've pointed out several times, the Oneness insistence on the absolute singularity of God means that God cannot be love as John states is the case. That certainly diminishes the nature of God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

God is Spirit and invisible to man.

Agreed.

Jesus Christ is the only visible and final complete physical tangible representation of God forever.

I beleive that the Word could be seen, if needed.
Like when Jacob wrestled with the "man", in Gen 32:24.

So saying God is One Being in One Person is the simplest ever explantation of God.

Which Person do you refer to ?

The Trinity, divided God Internally in His Being and still saying He is One is what is not simple and (un)complicated.