Why Are Non-Trinitarian Believers Sometimes Labeled as Non-Christian?

[My Rock]

The idea that Jesus was merely an ordinary man who received divine power at baptism is fundamentally flawed when viewed through biblical perspective. This notion would suggest that any human could have potentially taken on the role of the Messiah if endowed with divine power, which undermines the unique and essential nature of Christ's identity and mission. The core of this argument lies in the understanding that mere human blood, tainted by sin, could never suffice to atone for the sins of the world. The sacrificial system in the Old Testament, which required unblemished animal sacrifices, symbolized the need for purity and foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice. However, animal blood was only a temporary covering, not a true cleansing of sin.

Jesus, however, was not just a man—He was God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). The incarnation was necessary because only God, who is sinless, holy, and immortal, could provide the perfect, untainted sacrifice. Hebrews 9:14 emphasizes that Christ offered Himself "without spot to God" through the eternal Spirit, underscoring the divine nature of His sacrifice. His blood was not merely human; it was the blood of the sinless God who took on flesh specifically to redeem humanity (Acts 20:28). This is why Jesus could uniquely bear the sins of the world—because He was not just a man with divine power; He was God Himself, fully divine and fully human.

To think of Jesus as an ordinary man with added divine power reduces the magnitude of what God accomplished through the incarnation. It overlooks the necessity of a divine sacrifice and diminishes the significance of God’s love and holiness in providing salvation. God took on flesh so that He could fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, offering Himself as the perfect sacrifice that no mere human could ever be. This understanding is not only essential for grasping the depth of the gospel but also preserves the integrity of God's redemptive plan, demonstrating that Jesus, being fully God and fully man, was uniquely qualified to be the Savior of the world.

 

[CherubRam]

The Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples, and the Catholics altered them (the scriptures) for their Pagan beliefs.

The Judaizing Christians were commandment keeping Non-trinitarians.

 

[Free]

The Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples, and the Catholics altered them (the scriptures) for their Pagan beliefs.

The Judaizing Christians were commandment keeping Non-trinitarians.

Evidence. Where is it? You say a lot of things, even some serious claims against those you disagree with, but never provide support. You need to provide legitimate support.

 

[Runningman]

John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body."

According to John 2:22 Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead though. He was just speaking prophetically and we can get some clues by the things he said. In order for what Jesus said to be true and congruent, then if he destroyed the temple then he would have had to commit suicide. If Jesus were to rebuild the temple then he would have had to resurrect himself.

Do you see how Jesus wasn't try to say he actually took his own life and resurrect himself now? He was speaking prophetically. Read on to the next verse. John 2:22 says that Jesus was risen from the dead as indicated by the word "risen" being a verb in the aorist indicative passive 3rd person singular usage of the word. What this means is that an agent external to Jesus' self was responsible for his resurrection and freedom from death.

Reading along more into Acts 2, verse 24 says, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." While John 2:22 refers to an unnamed and unspecified agent that was external to Jesus being the one who resurrected him, we can now see in Acts 2:24 that the agent responsible for Jesus' resurrection is God, not Jesus, who released Jesus from the bonds of death.

John 10:17-18, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

Very clearly and plainly Scripture says Christ has the power to resurrect His own body. How, because He is God.

That just means that Jesus had the option to go through with the crufixion or not. As strange as that may sound, Jesus suggested he could have asked the Father to fight for him to get out of being crucified and that the Father would have answered in the affirmative.

Matthew 26
53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

 

[Runningman]

The claim that "there is no mention of God, who is immortal, eternal, and invisible having blood in Scripture" overlooks the profound truth of the incarnation, where God manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:16). The blood that was shed on the cross was indeed the blood of God, for in Christ, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9). This underscores the reality that the immortal, eternal, and invisible God took on human flesh to purchase the church with His own blood, fully identifying with humanity while still being divine. The symbolic significance here is that the sacrificial blood of Jesus is not merely human but is of divine origin, bridging the gap between God and man, making the sacrifice uniquely efficacious for our redemption.

I will have to remind you again that there is no mention of a the word incarnation in the Bible whether in explicit word or description. So I believe you are still at square on on this. Can you first provide the burden of proof for your claims that Jesus is an incarnation?

Regarding the translational argument, the phrase "blood of His own (Son)" versus "His own blood" does not diminish the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The practical implication is that Jesus, as the Son, is not a separate person from God but rather the manifestation of God in the flesh. The scriptural context supports that the "church of God" was indeed purchased by God's own sacrifice, which is why the blood shed is referred to as "His own." This emphasizes that Jesus, in His humanity, was the means through which God provided salvation. Therefore, the essence of the passage remains consistent across translations: the blood shed was not just any blood but the precious blood of God in Christ, making the church a treasured possession purchased at the highest price.

But nothing in the Bible says God was incarnated in the flesh or was incarnated as a human being. I know we have repeatedly come to this before, but actually I hold the Biblical high ground here with my claims actually being affirmed by Scripture. Do you recall that God had already denied that He is not a man in Hosea 11:9? Jesus, speaking as a man, referred to God the Father as a Spirit (John 4:24) and yet Jesus isn't a spirit. He was resurrected as a man, and taken heaven as a man, and is still a man in heaven today.

Luke 24​

39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.​

I would also like to draw your attention to Matthew 12:31,32 where Jesus pointed out one of the differences between himself and God by saying that speaking against himself is forgivable, but speaking against the Holy Spirit (God) is not forgivable, in accordance with Jesus is not God or the Spirit.

Matthew 12​

31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.​

 

[Runningman]

John 20:28-29, "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

I see no rebuke from Jesus in His word to Thomas.

If you don't understand where my premise lies you haven't really been reading my posts.

However, in John 20:17, Jesus already pointed out who his God and Thomas' God is, saying that he and his brothers' God is the Father.

John 20​

17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.​

I would also like to point out that Thomas didn't say "You (Jesus) are my god" as is apparent by the context where Jesus had already stated Thomas' God is the Father. If you will look a little more into the Greek, the Greek doesn't use the vocative case when Thomas made his statement. So the proof is that Thomas wasn't actually calling Jesus God.

Jesus actually reacted to Thomas with what can only be seen as a rebuke or scolding, but confirming that Thomas is indeed not blessed for doubting he was resurrected.

Thomas lost a blessing for requiring physical, material, proof for the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, Thomas had a bad answer and a bad attitude.

​

John 20​

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.​

 

[Runningman]

You fail to distinguish between the human and divine nature of Christ. The human nature has to be given authority via the divine nature. John 17:2 does not go into the division of the two natures. When speaking of Christ scripture can speak of the divine or human nature.



Again, I argue that Christ had two natures. Eternal life was given to the human nature. The divine nature is eternal.


True, the human nature of Jesus did not have like at one time. God decided to abide in a human nature...like a man putting on a suit. I can talk about the man or the suit. When I say "you're lookin good" I speak to both natures. When I say Jesus is God I could speak to the human nature as it is part of the whole being of Jesus which includes a divine nature. Thus Jesus disciples called Jesus God.



The human nature of God died in Christ.



Well, then you either:
1) Don't worship Jesus or
2) You worship an idol

Again, just because I put on a suit I am still me.... and if God puts on a human body He is still God.

A nature is a thing, but God is a person. You seem to be saying God is a nature and having a divine nature is God's nature, but that God also has a human nature.

Is it possible to you that Jesus is a regular man with a divine nature because God is his Father? What do you think would happen to you if God was also your Father? Well, according to Scripture, God can indeed be your Father. When you are born again and raised by God in the paths you ought to go you will become incrementally more and more in the image of Jesus. If you are in the image of Jesus, you are in the image of God. If you are in the image of God then you are like God, but not God. This is the same with Jesus and it's the destiny of every true Christian.

Ephesians 4​

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.​

​

2 Peter 1​

4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

​

Romans 8​

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.​

​

Colossians 1​

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

 

[My Rock]

A nature is a thing, but God is a person. You seem to be saying God is a nature and having a divine nature is God's nature, but that God also has a human nature.

The primary distinction within God's self-revelation is between His divinity and humanity as revealed in Jesus Christ, rather than a division of persons within the Godhead. God is fundamentally one, a singular, unified being. When discussing the nature of God, it’s important to clarify that while "nature" refers to the essential qualities or characteristics of something, God is not merely a nature or essence—He is a person, a singular divine being who has revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ. The strict oneness of God is affirmed by Scriptures such as Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one"). God is one in essence, with no internal division into separate persons.

Jesus Christ embodies both the divine nature and the human nature. The distinction in Christ is not a division within the Godhead but the dual nature of Christ—He is fully God and fully man. This means that while God, as a divine person, has a divine nature, He also took on a human nature when He was manifested in the flesh. Philippians 2:6-7 speaks of Christ, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." This dual nature is central to understanding how Jesus could experience human limitations and suffering while also possessing divine authority and power.

The distinction between the divine and human natures in Christ does not imply a plurality within God Himself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood not as separate persons, but as different manifestations of the one God. The Father refers to God in His transcendent role, the Son refers to God in His incarnate role as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit refers to God's active presence in the world. Thus, the distinction within God is solely the distinction between His divinity and humanity as revealed through Christ, not a division of persons within the Godhead.

 

[Free]

The primary distinction within God's self-revelation is between His divinity and humanity as revealed in Jesus Christ, rather than a division of persons within the Godhead. God is fundamentally one, a singular, unified being.

Where is just one verse that shows that God is fundamentally just one person?

 

[My Rock]

Where is just one verse that shows that God is fundamentally just one person?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me."
Isaiah 45:21-22 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
1 Kings 8:60 "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else."
2 Samuel 7:22 "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
1 Chronicles 17:20 "O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
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."
Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
Mark 12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
1 Corinthians 8:6 "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."
Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

When someone says that referring to God as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost" can be fundamentally confusing because it seems to imply multiple gods rather than one, they highlight a crucial point in understanding the nature of God. It is essential to recognize that God, in His essence, is indivisible and singular. The concept of God being "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" does not indicate a division within the Godhead, but rather a revelation of the one God in different roles or manifestations. The use of these terms symbolizes the various ways God interacts with creation and reveals Himself to humanity. However, these roles or manifestations do not separate or divide God’s unity. The divine essence remains wholly undivided, and the distinction is functional rather than ontological. Thus, God cannot be divided externally or internally; He is fundamentally one, with the fullness of His divine nature expressed through His interactions and revelations in the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This perspective maintains the integrity of God's singularity while acknowledging the different ways He engages with His creation.

 

[Free]

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me."
Isaiah 45:21-22 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
1 Kings 8:60 "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else."
2 Samuel 7:22 "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
1 Chronicles 17:20 "O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
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."
Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
Mark 12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
1 Corinthians 8:6 "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."
Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

I've addressed all of these before, in the two posts HERE, and am still waiting for a response to those posts (after even pointing out on page 3 that you hadn't responded). With all of these verses you're conflating monotheism with the nature of God. These verses only support monotheism, that there is only one God. This is an essential distinction that must be understood.

None are saying that God is one person, although a couple of them strongly imply that God is more than one person.

When someone says that referring to God as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost" can be fundamentally confusing because it seems to imply multiple gods rather than one, they highlight a crucial point in understanding the nature of God. It is essential to recognize that God, in His essence, is indivisible and singular.

Which the doctrine of the Trinity agrees with. It just recognizes the biblical distinction between the three persons.

The concept of God being "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" does not indicate a division within the Godhead, but rather a revelation of the one God in different roles or manifestations. The use of these terms symbolizes the various ways God interacts with creation and reveals Himself to humanity. However, these roles or manifestations do not separate or divide God’s unity. The divine essence remains wholly undivided, and the distinction is functional rather than ontological. Thus, God cannot be divided externally or internally; He is fundamentally one, with the fullness of His divine nature expressed through His interactions and revelations in the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This perspective maintains the integrity of God's singularity while acknowledging the different ways He engages with His creation.

And, again, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't divide God, it doesn't divide the essence.

 

[My Rock]

And, again, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't divide God, it doesn't divide the essence.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I’m having trouble keeping up with all the responses. Could you please repost the ones you need a response to? I thought I had responded to everything, but it seems I might have missed some. Thank you!

When Scripture speaks of "One God," it emphasizes not only external but also the internal oneness of God. This unity is reflected in passages like Deuteronomy 6:4, which declares, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." I believe, this oneness means that God is indivisible and unfragmented, encompassing His omnipresent and invisible Spirit as well as His manifestation in human form.

The distinction between the omnipresent, invisible Spirit of God and the tangible human body of Jesus Christ (the Son) highlights the dual aspects of God’s revelation rather than a division within the Godhead. The concept is that while God is indeed an invisible, uncreated Spirit, He chose to manifest Himself in a tangible form through Jesus Christ. This manifestation does not imply a division or multiplicity within the Godhead but rather a singular divine presence revealed in different forms. Just as the burning bush in Exodus 3 was a tangible representation of God's presence without compromising His divine omnipresent essence (seeing His people suffering at the same time), so Jesus Christ is the tangible embodiment of the one God.

The notion of "persons" or "distinct" entities implying division (maybe not externally, but internally), which contradicts the oneness of God described is Scripture. Jesus Christ is understood as the full and complete revelation of the one God, embodying both the divine nature and the human experience without separation. This means that the divine essence and the human form are inseparable in the person of Jesus Christ, maintaining the eternal oneness of God. The glorified body of Jesus Christ, therefore, represents the permanent and tangible form in which the one God has chosen to reveal Himself, embodying both His eternal Spirit and His incarnate presence.

This understanding affirms that God's essence remains undivided and that His manifestations—whether in the omnipresent Spirit or the tangible form of Jesus—are expressions of the same unified divine reality. Thus, the distinction is not in the Godhead itself but in the different ways God has chosen to reveal and relate to humanity, all while remaining eternally one and indivisible. When we look directly at the Bible and the writings of the original biblical authors without the influence of Greek thought or later theological terminology, we find that the Scriptures consistently affirm the oneness of God. The concept of a plurality within God, as understood in Trinitarian theology, is not explicitly outlined in the Old or New Testament using terms like "persons" or "hypostases." Instead, the Bible emphasizes the unity and singularity of God

The term hypostasis comes from the Greek language. In pre-Christian Greek philosophy, it was used by philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics to refer to the underlying reality or substance of something, essentially what makes a thing what it is. It could be translated as "substance" or "essence," but also carried the meaning of an individual, distinct existence or "that which stands under" (the literal meaning of the word).

The term persona comes from the Latin language, originally referring to a "mask" worn by actors in ancient Roman theater to denote the role they were playing. Over time, it came to signify the role itself or the character represented by the mask. It later evolved to mean an individual person, particularly in legal contexts, where it denoted a human being with specific rights and responsibilities. 100% division.

These terms didn't originate from Christianity.

 

[Free]

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I’m having trouble keeping up with all the responses. Could you please repost the ones you need a response to? I thought I had responded to everything, but it seems I might have missed some. Thank you!

I did. The link is there.

When Scripture speaks of "One God," it emphasizes not only external but also the internal oneness of God. This unity is reflected in passages like Deuteronomy 6:4, which declares, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." I believe, this oneness means that God is indivisible and unfragmented, encompassing His omnipresent and invisible Spirit as well as His manifestation in human form.

But that is fallaciously begging the question. There is nothing in that verse that rules out God being triune.

The distinction between the omnipresent, invisible Spirit of God and the tangible human body of Jesus Christ (the Son) highlights the dual aspects of God’s revelation rather than a division within the Godhead. The concept is that while God is indeed an invisible, uncreated Spirit, He chose to manifest Himself in a tangible form through Jesus Christ. This manifestation does not imply a division or multiplicity within the Godhead but rather a singular divine presence revealed in different forms. Just as the burning bush in Exodus 3 was a tangible representation of God's presence without compromising His divine omnipresent essence (seeing His people suffering at the same time), so Jesus Christ is the tangible embodiment of the one God.

There is no division in the Godhead. You keep using this sort of language which has nothing to do with Trinitarianism.

The notion of "persons" or "distinct" entities implying division (maybe not externally, but internally), which contradicts the oneness of God described is Scripture.

No, not division, distinction. One essence, indivisible.

Jesus Christ is understood as the full and complete revelation of the one God, embodying both the divine nature and the human experience without separation. This means that the divine essence and the human form are inseparable in the person of Jesus Christ, maintaining the eternal oneness of God. The glorified body of Jesus Christ, therefore, represents the permanent and tangible form in which the one God has chosen to reveal Himself, embodying both His eternal Spirit and His incarnate presence.

Which Trinitarianism agrees with.

This understanding affirms that God's essence remains undivided and that His manifestations—whether in the omnipresent Spirit or the tangible form of Jesus—are expressions of the same unified divine reality. Thus, the distinction is not in the Godhead itself but in the different ways God has chosen to reveal and relate to humanity, all while remaining eternally one and indivisible. When we look directly at the Bible and the writings of the original biblical authors without the influence of Greek thought or later theological terminology, we find that the Scriptures consistently affirm the oneness of God.

Without the influence of Greek thought? All the Oneness use of reasoning to understand Scripture is based on Greek thought. Be careful in making such arguments:

"In short, Greek philosophy is not literally a source of Christian belief or a meaningful influence in the spiritual beliefs of Christians. At the same time, the systems with which Christians teach, discuss, and understand biblical truth have been deeply affected by Greek philosophy.

The apostle Paul was well-acquainted with Greek philosophy and often quoted Greek writers as he spread the gospel (Acts 17:23–28). New Testament writers also reference Greek philosophical concepts in order to better explain their ideas. John’s use of the word Logos, for instance, plays off of a pre-existing Greek term while connecting it to a personal, unique divine being (John 1:1–4). This shows how the prevalence of certain philosophical methods greatly influenced how early Christians presented their faith but not what they preached."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Greek-philosophy-Christianity.html

The concept of a plurality within God, as understood in Trinitarian theology, is not explicitly outlined in the Old or New Testament using terms like "persons" or "hypostases." Instead, the Bible emphasizes the unity and singularity of God

The concept of absolute unity or oneness of the nature of God, as understood by Oneness theology, is also not explicitly outlined in Scripture. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that explicitly or clearly states that God is an absolute unity (paraphrased from Dr. Michael Brown).

The term hypostasiscomes from the Greek language. In pre-Christian Greek philosophy, it was used by philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics to refer to the underlying reality or substance of something, essentially what makes a thing what it is. It could be translated as "substance" or "essence," but also carried the meaning of an individual, distinct existence or "that which stands under" (the literal meaning of the word).


The term persona comes from the Latin language, originally referring to a "mask" worn by actors in ancient Roman theater to denote the role they were playing. Over time, it came to signify the role itself or the character represented by the mask. It later evolved to mean an individual person, particularly in legal contexts, where it denoted a human being with specific rights and responsibilities. 100% division.

These terms didn't originate from Christianity.

Which has no relevance as to whether or not they are accurate reflections of the biblical, triune nature of God. You might as well be consistent then and say John was wrong for using Logos.

 

[My Rock]

But that is fallaciously begging the question. There is nothing in that verse that rules out God being triune.

And vice versa, of course.

No, not division, distinction. One essence, indivisible.

There is distinction but between His Divine Nature and His Human nature which are inseparably intertwined in the body of Christ and His Omnipresence in the World being the Father to ALL His children.

The concept of absolute unity or oneness of the nature of God, as understood by Oneness theology, is also not explicitly outlined in Scripture. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that explicitly or clearly states that God is an absolute unity (paraphrased from Dr. Michael Brown).

There is no biblical basis for claiming that God is internally three distinct persons. Just as a person’s word is inseparable from their being, so is God’s Word inseparable from Him. When the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ—the Son—He was both fully God and fully man, united in one being. This union is not a temporary arrangement but an eternal reality, making Jesus the only physical, tangible, and permanent manifestation of the invisible God. The Holy Ghost, referred to as the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God, is not a separate entity but rather the same Spirit of God in action, moving and working in and through His people. This understanding emphasizes the unity of God’s essence and His self-revelation in different forms or roles, all while maintaining that there is only one God who manifests Himself in various ways for the purpose of redemption, guidance, and empowerment of His people. This view aligns with the scriptural portrayal of God’s singular nature and His redemptive work through Christ, without dividing His essence into separate persons. I am just presenting truth as I see it through Scripture.

Without the influence of Greek thought? All the Oneness use of reasoning to understand Scripture is based on Greek thought. Be careful in making such arguments:

"In short, Greek philosophy is not literally a source of Christian belief or a meaningful influence in the spiritual beliefs of Christians. At the same time, the systems with which Christians teach, discuss, and understand biblical truth have been deeply affected by Greek philosophy.

The apostle Paul was well-acquainted with Greek philosophy and often quoted Greek writers as he spread the gospel (Acts 17:23–28). New Testament writers also reference Greek philosophical concepts in order to better explain their ideas. John’s use of the word Logos, for instance, plays off of a pre-existing Greek term while connecting it to a personal, unique divine being (John 1:1–4). This shows how the prevalence of certain philosophical methods greatly influenced how early Christians presented their faith but not what they preached."

Thank you for this, I will never use this line of response in defense of my position again.

 

[Free]

And vice versa, of course.

Except that I'm not begging the question as I'm not arguing that it states God is triune. I have made the point before that Deut 6:4 is only about monotheism and says nothing about whether God is unitarian or Trinitarian. The issue is with the Hebrew word used for "one":

There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and 'echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would obviously mean the Trinity is false.

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

There is distinction but between His Divine Nature and His Human nature which are inseparably intertwined in the body of Christ and His Omnipresence in the World being the Father to ALL His children.

But that doesn't disagree with Trinitarianism.

There is no biblical basis for claiming that God is internally three distinct persons.

But there is. Most of it has been left unaddressed, at least all the clear stuff, which is also the most difficult for non-Trinitarian positions to make sense of.

Jesus clearly states at least twice that he was with the Father, as the Son, prior to the creation of all things, which is why John and Paul say it. Even if one wants to deny that, Jesus states multiple times that he had been with the Father and was sent into the world. Very importantly, there is not one verse that states it was the Father who came to Earth; it is always the Son.

John says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, the Son, when Isaiah says he saw the glory of Yahweh. John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews state that the preincarnate Son was the agent of creation, with the latter two clearly stating or implying that both the Father and the Son were involved.

All of this is supported by John's statements that God is love and Jesus's claim that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world, before all creation. This is something that a unitarian view of God cannot account for--God cannot be love and the love the Father had for the Son becomes merely abstract and potential, rather than actual, and doesn't make sense of the biblical text.

Just as a person’s word is inseparable from their being, so is God’s Word inseparable from Him.

What do you mean by "a person's word" and how does that compare to "the Word" (note the use of the article in the Greek)?

When the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ—the Son—He was both fully God and fully man, united in one being. This union is not a temporary arrangement but an eternal reality, making Jesus the only physical, tangible, and permanent manifestation of the invisible God. The Holy Ghost, referred to as the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God, is not a separate entity but rather the same Spirit of God in action, moving and working in and through His people. This understanding emphasizes the unity of God’s essence and His self-revelation in different forms or roles, all while maintaining that there is only one God who manifests Himself in various ways for the purpose of redemption, guidance, and empowerment of His people.

Of course. Again, this is in full agreement with Trinitarianism. The Athanasian Creed explains the doctrine of the Trinity nicely.

This view aligns with the scriptural portrayal of God’s singular nature and His redemptive work through Christ, without dividing His essence into separate persons. I am just presenting truth as I see it through Scripture.

Again, the Trinity doesn't divide God's essence and as such make separate persons. There is one essence with three distinct persons. As it is often put: one what, three whos.

Thank you for this, I will never use this line of response in defense of my position again.

You're welcome.

 

[My Rock]

Except that I'm not begging the question as I'm not arguing that it states God is triune. I have made the point before that Deut 6:4 is only about monotheism and says nothing about whether God is unitarian or Trinitarian. The issue is with the Hebrew word used for "one":

There are at least two Hebrew words that mean "one," yachid and 'echad. Yachid means an "absolute unity," that is, if used of God, it would mean he is a single, solitary "unit," absolutely only one person, as we are. That would obviously mean the Trinity is false.

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

Excellent information

Jesus clearly states at least twice that he was with the Father, as the Son, prior to the creation of all things, which is why John and Paul say it. Even if one wants to deny that, Jesus states multiple times that he had been with the Father and was sent into the world. Very importantly, there is not one verse that states it was the Father who came to Earth; it is always the Son.

The best answer I have is when Jesus spoke of being with the Father before the world was, He was using the language that fit within the understanding of His audience at that time. The full revelation of Jesus as the pre-existent Word, who would later be revealed in John 1:1-14, was not yet fully disclosed. Jesus communicated in terms that His followers could grasp, gradually unfolding the mystery of His identity. By speaking of His relationship with the Father in terms that suggested a pre-existing Sonship, He laid the groundwork for the deeper truth that would be revealed after His resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This progressive revelation culminates in the understanding that Jesus is the Word made flesh—the very expression of God’s mind and will—who was with God in the beginning and was God. The language Jesus used was appropriate for the context, but it was part of a larger revelation that would be fully understood only as the gospel message was fully revealed through the apostles' teaching.

John says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, the Son, when Isaiah says he saw the glory of Yahweh. John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews state that the preincarnate Son was the agent of creation, with the latter two clearly stating or implying that both the Father and the Son were involved.

John 12:41 highlights the profound connection between Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory and the revelation of Jesus Christ. When John states, “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him,” he is identifying the divine glory Isaiah saw as belonging to Jesus, affirming His deity. However, it is important to understand that Isaiah’s experience was a vision, a symbolic representation of God’s majesty and holiness, rather than a tangible encounter with God in a physical form. In the vision, Isaiah perceived the fullness of God’s glory, which would later be revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. This vision was a prophetic glimpse into the divine nature of Christ, showing that the same God who Isaiah saw high and lifted up is the one who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus. The vision was not a literal, physical manifestation but a symbolic and spiritual revelation of God’s glory, pointing forward to the ultimate revelation of God in Christ. This underscores the unity and indivisibility of God, as the same glory that filled the temple in Isaiah’s vision is fully embodied in Jesus, who is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

All of this is supported by John's statements that God is love and Jesus's claim that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world, before all creation. This is something that a unitarian view of God cannot account for--God cannot be love and the love the Father had for the Son becomes merely abstract and potential, rather than actual, and doesn't make sense of the biblical text.

I have two scriptures:

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 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Not yets Son but shall be.

Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." God is omniscient and He had the Son in mind from the foundation of the world so yes He loves the Son.

What do you mean by "a person's word" and how does that compare to "the Word" (note the use of the article in the Greek)?

When I speak of "a person’s word" being inseparable from their being, I’m drawing a parallel to how God's "The Word" (Logos) is inseparable from Him. I understand that just as a person’s word is an expression of their thoughts, intentions, and identity, so too is God’s Word an expression of His divine nature and purpose. The use of the definite article "the" in Greek (ho Logos) highlights that this is not just any word, but the definitive and unique expression of God Himself.

The Word is God Himself in action, expressing His will and nature. The Word is the creative power of God, bringing forth life and light (Genesis 1:3, First time The Word in action created Light) (John 1:3-4), and when this Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), it was God manifesting Himself in human form. The inseparability of the Word from God mirrors the way our words reveal who we are; they are part of us and cannot be detached from our identity.

In this light, "The Word" is the very expression of God’s being, fully manifested in Jesus Christ. Just as our words are integral to who we are, God’s Word is integral to His identity and is one with Him, revealing His nature, will, and purpose in a way that is completely unified with His essence. This underscores the belief that God’s manifestation as the Word is a direct and complete expression of His singular, indivisible nature.