Mitchell, I hear your frustration, and I appreciate the desire for unity in the shared experience of loving and following Jesus. But my intention was never to diminish the sincerity or devotion of Trinitarians. In fact, I deeply respect anyone who trembles at the cross and loves the Lord with all their heart. The point I raised was not to claim exclusive ownership of divine encounter, but to underscore the profound weight of who exactly went to Calvary—and how our view of God affects that understanding. This isn’t just a “new doctrinal detail” or an exercise in wordplay—it’s a matter of divine identity and redemptive intimacy. For me, the revelation that it wasn’t a second person in a Godhead sent by another, but God Himself, robed in flesh, reaching for us—this doesn’t just inform theology; it shapes worship, prayer, and awe in ways that are deeply personal. This isn’t about manipulation or dismissal; it’s about clarity and conviction. If truth matters, then how we articulate who God is matters too. We’re not playing with semantics—we’re responding to the mystery of the invisible God made visible in Christ. And while we may differ doctrinally, my hope is that we can at least meet in reverence at the foot of that same cross, and continue to reason together in love.
St. Roymond, I appreciate your concern for the integrity of Christ’s nature, but I must respectfully clarify that what I affirmed is not Nestorianism in any form. Nestorianism wrongly divides Christ into two separate persons—one human and one divine—as though Jesus were a mere cooperative of natures. That is not what I believe or stated. When I said “Son of God may refer to the human nature,” I was emphasizing how Scripture sometimes uses the title to highlight either His divine origin or His manifested role in the flesh (Luke 1:35; Romans 1:3–4). The “Son of God” is not a separate divine being, nor a mere man elevated, but the one God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), fully God and fully man—not pasted together, but indivisibly united in one Person. There is no Nestorian divide here—only a biblical distinction between what pertains to His humanity and what pertains to His divinity, as both are present in the one Christ. The mystery is not in separation, but in union: the eternal God stepped into time, not by fusing with a second divine person, but by manifesting Himself in true humanity without ceasing to be who He eternally was.
I truly do understand the concern about avoiding Nestorianism, but your response seems to overlook a crucial distinction: affirming the full union of Christ’s two natures does not mean conflating terms that Scripture itself does not use. When I say the phrase “God the Son” is inappropriate, I’m not denying the union of the divine and human in the one Person of Jesus Christ—I’m emphasizing that the title “God the Son” is a post-biblical construct that misrepresents the biblical language regarding the Son. Scripture teaches that the Son was born (Luke 1:35), sent in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4), and died (Romans 5:10)—all experiences of the human nature. The eternal Logos, yes, was always with God and was God (John 1:1), but it was not “the Son” who was eternally with the Father—it was the Word. The Sonship began at the incarnation when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). So I’m not dividing Christ—I’m simply being faithful to the progression and terminology of Scripture. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, but calling Him “God the Son” risks collapsing the incarnational distinction and reading later theological categories back into the Bible. The eternal Spirit who was God became the Son in time. That’s not Nestorianism—that’s biblical precision.
The statement “God died” may sound logical on the surface, but it collapses under the weight of theological clarity and biblical revelation. Yes, Jesus is fully God and fully man—but it is critical to understand that it was not the divine nature that died, but the human nature through which God chose to reveal Himself. God, by His very nature, is eternal, immortal, and unchanging (1 Timothy 1:17; Malachi 3:6). To say “God died” is not only imprecise—it borders on theological confusion, if not contradiction. The Scripture is clear: it was the man Christ Jesus who tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), the Lamb slain in His flesh, not in His deity. When Mary bore Jesus, she bore the one who would be called the Son of God—not because she originated deity, but because the fullness of the Godhead chose to dwell in that body (Colossians 2:9). To say “God died” without qualification misrepresents the mystery of the Incarnation. The eternal Spirit did not cease to be; rather, He experienced death in the only way deity could—through the veil of flesh He willingly assumed.
While it’s true that some strands of Jewish mystical thought—particularly within certain Second Temple texts like the Book of Enoch or Philo’s writings—explored complex heavenly figures or functions, it’s inaccurate to say that mainstream Judaism “recognized a plurality within God.” The so-called “doctrine of the two powers in heaven” was not an accepted teaching within normative Jewish monotheism; in fact, it was ultimately declared heretical by the rabbinic authorities precisely because it was seen as violating the indivisible oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). When John says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), he’s not introducing a plurality of persons within God, but rather affirming that God’s Word—His eternal self-expression—is both distinct in function and fully divine in essence. The Word is not a second divine person beside the Father, but the visible, manifest self-revelation of the invisible Spirit. This is not philosophical plurality; it’s revelatory unity. Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), not a second power in heaven, but the one God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Any interpretation that introduces separate divine persons departs from the radical monotheism upheld both in Jewish thought and apostolic doctrine.
I believe there’s a serious misrepresentation both of what I’ve said and of what the Scriptures affirm. The Logos, as described in John 1:1, is God—fully, truly, and inseparably. I have no hesitation in affirming that. But where we differ is not in the divinity of the Logos, but in how we understand that term Logos and what it means for God’s self-revelation. The Logos is not a separate Person alongside God, but God’s self-expression, His divine utterance, inseparable from His being. It is not some impersonal emanation or abstract force as in Gnostic thought, but the very nature of God going forth in revelation and, in the fullness of time, being made flesh (John 1:14). That’s not Gnostic—that’s biblical.
To say the Logos must be a distinct person because God is personal is to misunderstand the rich Hebraic context of John’s prologue and to import later philosophical categories foreign to the original apostolic witness. When Isaiah 44:24 says that God created all things alone and by Himself, that leaves no room for co-eternal persons collaborating in creation. The Logos is not a second divine agent, but the eternal Spirit expressing Himself—revealing Himself—as Word, and then ultimately in flesh, as Jesus Christ. That is neither modalism nor Arianism, but biblical monotheism rightly understood. The Word didn’t become a separate Son in eternity past—the Word was God, and the Sonship began in time when the Word became flesh.
What I affirm is this: Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), the embodiment of the Logos, not a separate divine “Person” but the one true God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). God didn’t send someone else—He came Himself. That’s not a contradiction of divine personhood; it’s the fullest revelation of it.
yeah you know this is exactly the sort of response one gets from New Testament only proponents…and its why one must ensure they research a little farther in biblical history:
Isaiah 9:6 (Note the “4th quality” in the prophecy)
I would be careful in the suggested implications of that image there St Roymond…it gives the impression that the Father “predates” the spirit and the son…this is not trinitarian belief. Trinitarian belief holds that the 3 are one “eternally past”…so the Father “proceeds” on RHS is only true in that the father sends his Holy spirit (as did Christ after His ascension)
One of the complications which has been talked around here in this thread is the notion of the “Dual Nature of Christ”. I think we should make it simple:
God + Man - where its the man part that was begotten…not the God part (Christ our Lord has always been, the “Son of Man” has not always been)
The incarnation specifically deals with the above notion…God became “Incarnate” via the power of the Holy Spirit, through the “virgin” Mary.
How a spirit impregnates a virgin…we dont know. But thats what the Bible teaches, thats the Catholic doctrine (im not referring to catholic church doctrine btw…dont get my use of Catholic confused there)
All I hear that isn’t meaningless noise, is that you didn’t care for the doctrine of the Trinity. The same is not true for me – quite the opposite. Your meaningless noise includes all the “God Himself” babble. How many times must I repeat it? In the Trinitarian teaching Jesus is God Himself. So all that you say you like about this remains exactly the same. It is God Himself because there is only one God and not a council as you like to say. As Jesus said, He and the Father are one. They are one being, one God.
So what is different? In Trinitarian doctrine, this is not a God made in our own image. It is a God who is even greater. This is an answer to many who look at theism with skepticism including Einstein who didn’t believe in a personal God because it looked like we were making God in our own image. But Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t do that at all. It is one being, one God, but not limited to a singularity of personhood. God is not just like us. And the difference is a lack of limitations we have – things God can do which we cannot. So in the end, all I am saying is that God can and I reject your claim that God cannot.
The difference is that Jesus is not talking to Himself. And the Father is not saying, “this is my beloved self in who I am well pleased.” In Garden Jesus is not saying, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as I will” And I could go on and on. I frankly do not find your teaching helpful at all in understanding the Bible. But if you find it helpful, then good for you.
I understand where your perspective is coming from, but I believe it’s rooted more in interpretive tradition than in the actual revelation of Scripture. The Oneness position does not deny that we see a distinction between the Father and the Son, or between the Son and the Spirit—but we affirm that these distinctions are not Persons in a co-equal Trinity, but rather manifestations and roles through which the one eternal God reveals Himself in redemptive history.
When Jesus prayed to the Father or spoke of the Spirit, He was doing so as a real man—fully human, not merely pretending, and not acting as His own ventriloquist. This is not “divine Person speaking to divine Person” but the man Christ Jesus—who had a real human will, mind, and nature—speaking in relationship to the eternal Spirit who indwelt Him without measure (John 3:34). This is not modalistic illusion or schizophrenia—it’s the mystery of God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), where the man prays to the Spirit, and the Spirit empowers the man.
The language of conversation between the Father and the Son reveals the beautiful dynamic of God’s redemptive plan unfolding in time, not eternal interpersonal dialogue within a triune council. Even in passages like Psalm 110:1 or John 17, we are witnessing communication between the human Messiah and the divine Spirit, not a conversation among divine Persons in a co-eternal Godhead.
“Three Persons” is not how the Bible explains these manifestations—it’s how post-biblical theology tried to explain the unexplainable. But Scripture consistently emphasizes the oneness of God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and never once uses the word “persons” to define His nature. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not three centers of consciousness—they are three ways the one true God has revealed Himself to us: as Creator, as Redeemer, and as the indwelling Spirit.
Let’s be clear: affirming that “the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily” in Christ (Colossians 2:9) is not tritheism—it is the opposite. Tritheism posits three separate gods, but what I am declaring is the indivisible One God who made Himself visible. The eternal Spirit did not send another divine person to redeem us; He robed Himself in flesh and entered time as the man Christ Jesus. The Father was not absent from heaven while Christ walked the earth; rather, as Spirit, He fills all space. He is simultaneously enthroned in heaven and manifest in the flesh because He is omnipresent. The incarnation did not divide the Godhead—it revealed it.
What’s often missed in these dialogues is that the Creed’s language is interpreted through later philosophical developments that Scripture itself doesn’t employ. The Nicene Creed says Christ is “God from God,” but Scripture says He is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). Those are not two persons cooperating—they are one eternal God manifesting Himself in time. The Word didn’t become a second divine person—the Word was God and became flesh (John 1:1,14). So to affirm that Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily is not to deny anything the Scripture teaches—it is to uphold it, without adding speculative terms or dividing God’s indivisible nature.
To suggest I’m denying the Creed is missing the point: I’m affirming the Word of God without filtering it through extra-biblical formulations. We don’t need to redefine biblical revelation in post-apostolic philosophical categories to honor the mystery of the incarnation. We simply need to believe that God—not another divine person—was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
I believe there’s a misunderstanding of what was actually said—and more importantly, of how Scripture presents the nature of Christ. To say Jesus was not speaking as one divine person to another, but rather from His fully human consciousness to the divine Spirit that filled Him, is not an accusation of schizophrenia or fragmentation. It’s a recognition of the biblical truth that Christ is both fully God and fully man (Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16), and that He operated at times from His human will (Luke 22:42) in perfect submission to the divine will—the will of the Spirit within Him. This does not divide Christ into “two persons,” but acknowledges the dual nature of His one Person.
Jesus never lied. Rather, He prayed, obeyed, submitted, learned, and even grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)—things the divine nature, apart from incarnation, cannot do. These were not actions of deception but of redemptive identification. He was not “talking to Himself” in the way your response implies, but was modeling the relationship every Spirit-filled believer is to walk in: the human will yielded to the indwelling Spirit of God (Romans 8:14). To claim this is “worse than Nestorius” is to misrepresent both Nestorianism and the Oneness understanding of Christ. Nestorius proposed two persons in Christ. We are simply affirming one Person with two natures—divine and human—interacting in real time during the incarnation.
When Jesus speaks of the Father, He speaks as the Son—the man born of a woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4), filled without measure by the invisible Spirit (John 3:34). The Son prays to the Father not as a separate God talking to another, but as a man communing with the Eternal Spirit. This affirms the unity of God rather than dividing it into persons and preserves the biblical identity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh, not a divine committee member in conversation.
your response misrepresents the Oneness Pentecostal understanding of God by framing it through a Trinitarian lens. We do not believe in a God made up of “parts” or “pieces,” nor do we define God as a composite being divided into “Person” and “non-Person” elements. That framing assumes the Trinitarian paradigm—three co-equal, co-eternal persons—as the standard, and then critiques Oneness theology for not conforming to it. But Oneness theology begins from a different foundation: the absolute, indivisible oneness of God—not in shared essence among distinct persons, but in a singular, self-existent Spirit (John 4:24; Deut. 6:4) who has revealed Himself relationally and redemptively in various ways, most supremely in the man Christ Jesus.
The distinctions we recognize—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are not pieces of God, but manifestations of the one eternal God who is fully and completely present in each role without division. The Son is not a separate “piece” of God, but the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; 1 Tim. 3:16). The Father is not a segment, but the eternal Spirit (John 17:3), and the Holy Ghost is not a third portion, but the same Spirit working in the world and in the believer (Romans 8:9–11). These roles are functional and relational as God interacts with creation—not ontologically distinct persons in an eternal committee.
So rather than ending up with “part Person and part non-Person,” the Oneness view declares that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). There is no division—no fractional Godhead—but one indivisible God who manifested Himself in flesh to redeem humanity. It’s not that some aspects are personal and others are not; rather, God is one personal Being who reveals Himself in different ways across redemptive history, yet remains undivided in essence, identity, and authority.
the Oneness view is often mischaracterized as if we deny the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That’s simply not accurate. We fully affirm the scriptural revelation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—but we reject the idea that they are three distinct, co-equal persons within a divided Godhead. Instead, we see these as real manifestations or modes of operation of the one indivisible God, who reveals Himself distinctly but never as separate beings or minds.
Calling it “just functions” flattens the depth of biblical revelation. The Father is not merely a title—it is God in His transcendence. The Son is not simply a temporary mode—it is the fullness of God manifested in genuine, authentic human flesh (Colossians 2:9). The Holy Ghost is not a third entity—it is the very Spirit of the Father active in and among His people (Matthew 10:20). None of these revelations are costumes or roles in a play; they are how the one eternal Spirit engages with creation, redemption, and indwelling. This isn’t modalism in the Sabellian sense—which erased the distinctions of revelation—but it is a firm affirmation that the distinctions are not between divine persons, but between God’s self-revelations in time.
Jesus did not pray to Himself in a psychological paradox. He prayed as the man—the Son—submitting His human will to the indwelling Father (John 14:10). That’s not a denial of the Father and Son, but a deep recognition that the man Christ Jesus was truly human, even while the fullness of God dwelled in Him. Oneness believers aren’t simplifying God into functions—we are exalting the fullness of the Godhead in Christ without dividing Him into parts.
dismissing someone’s position with ad hominem rather than engaging the biblical argument isn’t the way forward. The issue at hand is not ignorance of theological jargon, but fidelity to biblical categories over post-biblical constructs. The term “Person,” as used in Trinitarian theology, is a Latinized philosophical concept (from persona), later grafted into Christian thought during creedal development—most notably in the post-Nicene era. It’s important to note that Scripture never uses the Greek term for “person” (prosōpon) in a Trinitarian framework to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct divine centers of consciousness. In fact, prosōpon in the New Testament typically refers to a face, presence, or outward appearance—not a distinct “Person” in the Trinitarian sense.
The claim from Isaiah 43:11—“beside Me there is no Savior”—isn’t a minor semantic point; it’s a theological pillar. The Hebrew bilti (בִּלְעָדַי), meaning “apart from Me” or “besides Me,” eliminates the possibility of a co-equal or co-eternal divine person alongside YHWH. To say otherwise is to contradict the monotheism so rigorously affirmed throughout Scripture. When we say there is “no Savior beside Him,” we’re not failing to understand theology—we’re refusing to reinterpret plain declarations of God’s indivisible nature through post-apostolic philosophical filters.
This is not “doing theology based on English alone,” but rather a return to biblical revelation over metaphysical speculation. Theology must begin with God’s self-disclosure, not man’s attempt to categorize Him. And when the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9), it wasn’t the second “Person” of a triune God manifesting—it was the one true God manifesting Himself in the only body He ever prepared (Hebrews 10:5). That’s not error—that’s revelation.
You just described what the Trinity doctrine says.
The problem here seems to be that you are reading in English and trying to force that understanding on things that just don’t say or mean what you claim.
That’s exactly what the Trinity doctrine says – there was no fusing, there was the second Person of the Trinity, fully God, who was made flesh.
How is it misrepresent anything when it just follows scripture? Who calls someone “Father” but a son? who is begotten but a son?
Rather it emphasizes “the incarnational distinction” by asserting that Christ is truly God.
Nestorianism again. It was not a part of the Savior Who died, it was the Logos made flesh, the “enfleshed word” as St. Cyril loved to say. It was a Person Who died, not a part of a Person.
Hebrews does not slice Christ into two, as you just did. The text does not say “the man Jesus Christ”, it says Jesus, who does not come in pieces but a whole.
You can deny Nestorianism, but you make statements that could come right out of his writings.
No, it was declared a heresy because it too obviously lent itself to a bridge to the Incarnation. Declaring it a heresy just stomped on all the scriptures where there are plainly two distinct Yahwehs and pretended they don’t exist.
But the Word/Logos is introduced as a person – that’s the force of the preposition.
Right – He is a distinct Person Who is God. There is no “alongside” except in your imagination here.
Sorry, but no; it’s to follow the philosophical categories already in Jewish use.
You don’t get to ignore how Jewish thought went by appealing to some bare notion of scripture; John was using concepts his readers would grasp, and both Jewish and Greek philosophy had the Logos as a living active principle organizing Creation, and John’s language in the very first verse sets up a relationship between two persons – you don’t use πρὸς τὸν with some sort of force, you use it of a relationship between two persons – the first to be introduced is a person and the second is the other person, in an intimate relationship.
That’s adding to the text: the Logos is the Logos, face-to-face with God.
The Word was already the “uniquely-begotten God”. That doesn’t describe a human nature, it refers to a divine one.
Exactly what the Trinity doctrine says.
It correctly portrays the relationship the scriptures set out between the Father and the Son, and between the Father and the Spirit. The scripture explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and that the Son is begotten by/of the Father.
John calls Christ the “uniquely-begotten God”.
I.e. modalism.
Stop turning Christ into two pieces! It was the “enfleshed word” Who spoke, not just half a Person.
No, it’s just that the grammar treats them as distinct Persons.
That’s modalism – it’s the exact language of modalism.
Now another heresy, that it was the Father Who suffered.
And that’s drawn from scripture; Christ is the “uniquely-begotten God”.
Because the Logos was already a Person, according to John 1:1.
You’re not following the scriptures, you’re imposing a framework that ignores the grammar and the concepts that John and others make use of.
To deny the Creed is to deny scripture – there is only one word in the Creed that is not drawn from scripture, and all word does is affirm that Christ really is God.
This has been explained already – you’re attacking a straw man. The Father is a divine Person, the Son is a divine Person, and the Spirit is a divine Person – that is how the grammar of the New Testament treats them. The Father is not the Son, nor is He the Spirit; the Son is neither the Spirit nor the Father; the Spirit is not Father or Son. This is just a summary of how the grammar of the Greek in the New Testament treats the Three.
It makes Christ a liar because He plainly prays, “Father” – not “My inner self”, not “my divine spirit”, but Father, a person Who is not Christ to Whom Christ speaks. To say that one part of Christ is speaking to another part of Christ divides Christ and is Nestorianism. Christ is not two pieces pasted together, He is one whole Person; when He speaks He speaks as a unity, a whole Person.
That was the accusation, but the language he used is just the same as what you’re using. The problem was that he failed to see that he was dividing Christ into two persons.
He prays as the “uniquely-begotten God”.
I’m framing it through a scriptural lens, a lens of the Greek grammar. The fact that the grammar is Trinitarian is a different matter – but it is nevertheless true; the text treats the Father as a Person, the Son as a Person, and the Spirit as a Person.
But your language does.
(emphasis mine)
In other words, modalism.
Presenting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as “various ways” that God reveals Himself is modalism, no matter how much you protest.
The passage does not say that – you’re adding to the text.
Mitchell is right; your view makes verse 5 read like this:
And now, Father, glorify me in my own presence with the glory that I had with myself before the world existed.
Flat-out modalism.
But that’s what you just called it in essence – “manifestations of modes of operation” is just a way to say “different functions”.
The Son is not an “it”.
This is one function of the Trinity doctrine; besides summing up how the grammar of the scripture treats the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it reminds us that God is always “He”, never “it”.
I appreciate your engagement, but there is a crucial and foundational distinction here that cannot be brushed aside as mere semantics or English limitations. What I described is not the Trinity, but the Oneness of God—indivisibly One, not internally divided into co-equal persons with distinct centers of consciousness. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and yet all three are said to be fully God. That inherently introduces a tri-personal distinction within the Godhead—three “whos” sharing one “what.” But biblical monotheism—especially as revealed in Deuteronomy 6:4 and fully manifested in the Incarnation—declares that God is One in being, essence, and person.
The Oneness view affirms that God Himself, not a second co-equal person, came in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). There is no eternal fellowship of “persons” within God, but a single, undivided Spirit (John 4:24) who revealed Himself in different modes and manifestations, culminating in Jesus Christ, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Jesus is not one person of three, but the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). The difference is not in wording but in nature: the Trinity introduces internal division by positing multiple persons in the Godhead, while the Oneness of God insists that He is eternally and indivisibly one person, who manifests Himself as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration—never dividing Himself, but revealing Himself. That is the intimacy of redemption: not God sending another, but God becoming the one who saves us.
The titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are perfectly biblical and preserve the mystery of Christ’s dual nature—fully God and fully man. But the phrase “God the Son” subtly undermines that balance. It emphasizes His deity in a way that often detaches Him from His full humanity. This is why many Trinitarians struggle to explain why Jesus prays to the eternal, omnipresent God who fully indwelt Him—because they overlook that He prayed not as a second divine person, but as a man, operating fully within the limitations of His human experience. The prayers of Jesus are not conversations between divine persons, but the authentic cries of the Son of Man depending on the Spirit of God who was in Him without measure.
I understand your concern with guarding against Nestorianism, but let’s be clear: affirming that it was the human nature of Christ that experienced death is not to divide the Person of Christ, but to rightly distinguish between the natures within the one Person. Scripture is clear that God cannot die (1 Timothy 1:17)—the divine nature is eternal and immortal. What happened on the cross was that the man Christ Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, tasted death in His humanity. That does not reduce the crucifixion to “a part of a person” dying; rather, it magnifies the mystery of the Incarnation: that the Logos, who is God, took on real flesh so that He could truly suffer and die as a man. It was not some abstract principle or just flesh alone—it was the whole Person of Christ, but in His human experience, who died. The Person is indivisible, but the natures are distinct (Hebrews 2:14). To say “the divine nature did not die” is not Nestorian—it is biblical, reverent, and essential to uphold both the true divinity and true humanity of Jesus Christ without confusion or conflation.
Pointing out that it was “the man Christ Jesus” who tasted death for every man is not an attempt to divide Christ, but rather to affirm the very thing Scripture emphasizes—that Jesus, in His full humanity, was the one who suffered and died (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5). This isn’t Nestorianism; it’s biblical precision. Hebrews 2 is explicit in showing how Christ had to be “made like unto His brethren” (v.17), and that He took not on Him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham (v.16). This underscores His genuine human experience in order to be our merciful and faithful High Priest. Recognizing that He died as a man does not divide Him—it magnifies the Incarnation. The eternal God truly took on flesh (John 1:14), and it was in that flesh—His humanity—that He could suffer death. The divine nature did not die, for God cannot die. But the man Christ Jesus—fully God, yet fully man—tasted death for every man. This is not slicing Christ into parts; it’s honoring the mystery of the Incarnation rightly, as Scripture itself presents it.
- I’m sure I asked you what denomination or sect you belonged to, and you never answered.
- I submitted your modification of my Scutum Fidei to Chat GPT and I received the following:
- The Second Group of Images:
The second group of images you shared shows a significant alteration:
- The central circle says “God IS Jesus”.
- There’s a red X crossing out “Jesus” from the “Son” circle.
This is a modified diagram that rejects the orthodox Trinity. It visually conveys the “Oneness” or “Modalist” interpretation—specifically the idea that God is only Jesus, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not truly distinct persons but are different modes or aspects of the same single person: Jesus.
So, what is it?
This second diagram is a representation of the Oneness Pentecostal or Modalistic Monarchianism view of God, often summarized as:
- Jesus is the name of the one God.
- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes or manifestations of that one God (Jesus).
- It rejects the doctrine of the Trinity (three co-eternal persons).
This is not orthodox Christianity (which holds the Trinity as three co-eternal persons). Instead, this diagram reflects a non-Trinitarian view that equates God directly and exclusively with Jesus, sometimes called Oneness or Jesus-only theology.
- This modified diagram reflects a modalist or Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of God. Let’s see if there are logical errors in it, especially in relation to itself and to orthodox Christian theology.
Inconsistency with itself:
In the second set:
- It says “God IS Jesus”.
- It also says the Son IS God.
- But then it says the Son is NOT Jesus (crossing out “Jesus” in “Son”).
This leads to a contradiction:
- If God IS Jesus and the Son IS God, then the Son IS Jesus by the transitive property of identity:God=JesusandSon=God ⟹ Son=Jesus\text{God} = \text{Jesus} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{Son} = \text{God} \implies \text{Son} = \text{Jesus}God=JesusandSon=God⟹Son=Jesus
- But the diagram also says the Son is NOT Jesus (explicitly crossed out).
This creates a direct logical contradiction:
- The Son IS Jesus (by transitivity).
- The Son is NOT Jesus (by explicit assertion in the diagram).
A cannot be both B and not B at the same time in the same sense (the Law of Non-Contradiction). So the diagram is logically inconsistent.
Deviation from historic Trinitarian logic:
The classic Shield of the Trinity (Scutum Fidei) avoids this contradiction because it uses three “IS” (in essence) and three “IS NOT” (in person) relationships to express simultaneous unity and distinction (God’s single essence and three persons).
The second set of diagrams discards this careful distinction — especially by equating God exclusively with Jesus — and ends up destroying the internal consistency.
Philosophical implications:
- In traditional logic, if God IS Jesus, and if Father IS God, then the Father is Jesus.
- But it also says Son is NOT Jesus, even though Son IS God and God IS Jesus — so Son would also have to be Jesus by logic.
This diagram tries to affirm Jesus as the whole of God while simultaneously denying that the Son (who is traditionally understood to be Jesus) is Jesus — a logical error.
Conclusion:
The diagram in the second set is internally contradictory and violates the basic law of non-contradiction in logic.
It’s also incompatible with the careful logical structure of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, which preserves distinctions in person while affirming unity in essence.
Seeing an ad hominem in an objective statement is . . . less than honest.
The only thing “grafted in” was the shift in meaning between the Greek and the Latin (and then the English). That philosophical terms could be used to describe what the scripture sets forth is just convenient, it does not change the meaning as you think.
No, scripture just employs grammar that is normally employed of different persons.
Do you know what “fullness” means there?
(hint: it’s a philosophical term)
I think both of these are wrong.
Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
So the 3 “is not” phrases should be changed to “is not the same person as”. But it is wrong to make them exclusive in any general sense. The Son and the Father ARE one. When you see the son, you see the father.
As for graft2vine’s version. It makes little sense. The “God is Jesus” is redundant. The word “is” means equivalent, for it is quite wrong to make these one way as if these were parts of God. And certainly to say Jesus is not the Son is to contradicts the Bible in many places.
I don’t subscribe to any particular denomination but attend a local church. I prefer a Spirit filled church over a dry one. You don’t have to agree with every detail of a statement of faith but we are called to not forsake assembling together. The church I attend and serve as a door greeter for is a Pentecostal one, of the trinitarian variety.
A church should focus on what unites us, that is the Word of God, not on things that divide. My church is focused on loving God and loving people. We are all about changed lives, local outreach to the community as well as supporting missionaries.
You understood why I crossed out Jesus didn’t you? It seem ChatGPT didn’t. I was deleting and moving Jesus from the side to the center where He belongs. How is that one simple move on a trinitarian diagram make it not trinitarian?
Jesus is the name of God who is the one God in three persons.
If you think so, then you do not understand what the Trinity doctrine says.
Because that’s how the grammar of the New Testament Greek treats them.
No, it doesn’t – that’s adding to the text.
Modalism.
No, it doesn’t, it insists on the unity of the Godhead.
Modalism.
You keep denying it, but you keep saying it.
Only if you’re not paying attention.
He prayed as a single being, God and man. You’re doing Nestorianism again.
The whole Christ experienced death – you don’t get to chop Him in pieces.
No, He tasted death as a single Person.
True – but it is also correct to say that God died, or if you want to be picky, the God-Man died.
You keep insisting on the very things that the Trinity doctrine is all about as though it doesn’t say them. That shows a failure to comprehend the scriptures, since the Trinity doctrine is merely a summary of what the scriptures have to say about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- Yeah, I understood: You crossed out my Jesus-circle, instead of deleting it altogether. I thought it was funny that you confused ChatGPT.
Ok I see where you are getting that but I think you are taking this wrong. I think The_Omega means the same thing, that Jesus prayed as a single being. In other words the emphasis here is on “person” in what he is rejecting not “divinity.” He is not saying Jesus is not divine when he prays. It is praying as a man in whom the fullness of God dwells. No Nestorianism intended. Modalism yes. He is denying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons.
Or… hmmm… maybe we need to ask him about this. The_Omega are you saying that the humanity and divinity is separate in Jesus so that one is praying to the other?
You are right about this though. Maybe he hasn’t thought this through…?..
Perhaps we need to ask him… what happened to the fullness of God dwelling in Jesus? Did that disappear when He was dying on the cross?
I think that is an ouch.
Humans have an inbuilt curiosity and need to “know”. If God created us thus then he would hardly be surprised if we tried to fathom Him out.
I think the distinction is between actuality and understanding. Perhaps we do not neew to know the precise actuality as long as we have enough understanding to relate to Him.
Worship due to ignorance is basically pagan. The whole point of Scripture is that god does reveal Himself, maybe not completely, and certainly not all at once, but it is more than ignorance or hiding.
We know enough to worship but not enough to prevent wonder and awe.
Richard
No, I’m not saying Jesus’ humanity and divinity are separate in the sense of two persons dialoguing within Him, like one individual talking to another. That would veer dangerously close to Nestorianism, which divides Christ into two distinct persons. What I am saying is this: within the one person of Jesus Christ exists both a fully human will and a fully divine nature. When Jesus prays, we are witnessing His real, unborrowed humanity in relationship to the eternal Spirit of God dwelling within Him (John 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). It’s not that Jesus is switching roles or talking to Himself in some theatrical way, but that the man Christ Jesus, filled without measure by the Spirit, is modeling perfect submission and communion with the Father—not as another divine person, but as the Omnipresent (everywhere all at once) and invisible Spirit of God who indwelt Him and also This doesn’t divide Jesus—it reveals the harmony of God’s plan: divinity clothed in authentic humanity, reconciling the world to Himself.
The fullness of God did not disappear when Jesus was dying on the cross—rather, it was fully present in that moment of ultimate surrender. Colossians 2:9 declares, “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” and this was not a temporary arrangement or a fluctuating presence. The eternal Spirit of God, who cannot die, was still present even as the man Christ Jesus suffered and gave up the ghost. What we witness at the cross is not the departure of divinity but the self-emptying (Philippians 2:7–8) of God’s visible manifestation in the flesh enduring death for our sake. He did not cease to be God in that moment—He was revealing the heart of God in the most profound way: love expressed through sacrificial suffering. The humanity of Christ died, but the divine Spirit remained intact, just as eternal and unchangeable as ever. This is the mystery and the beauty of the incarnation—not that God left Christ at the cross, but that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, even in the agony of death (2 Corinthians 5:19).
I woulld say that was the opposite of the text. The text implies that for that brief moment God left Jesus the man being separated from the Father by our sin. At least that would be how Scripture presents it. However there are several views of that moment that sit better depending on your world or theological view.
The duality of Jesus is probably more of a mystery than the Trinity. We can just about see how it looks from God the Father, but less so from the human perspective.
The connection is the work of the Holy Spirit within us, but even that is much debated. At what point are our actions our choice or God guided? How do thoughts emerge? From where? I guess if we could answer that we might be God Himself.
Richard
We try to look at the question from our viewpoint, having fully developed terminology and doctrines. We might gain more understanding if we forget our modern theology and try to step into the world of the followers of Jesus during the first century.
What we have are pieces of information that seem to be contradictory or at least, there is a tension between the details. Jesus had a mother, was born and grew from a child to adulthood, lived like an ordinary human and died on the cross. Clearly, a human. And yet, what he told and did was something that was not part of being an ordinary human. What he spoke was what a lunatic could have spoken but Jesus did not just speak, he actually could do what he claimed - he told that if you do not believe because of my words, believe because of what I do. He did acts that only God could do. A human - but also someone who could do what only God could do.
When the followers tried to form a coherent picture of the apparently contradictory pieces, they did that through their worldview.
For Jews, the basic doctrine of theology was that God is one. The problem was how to unite what Jesus said and did to this basic doctrine. What may have helped was the diversity of teachings within the second-temple Judaism. There were the discussions about the complex God: the Hebrew Bible had stories where God seemed to be on earth and in the heaven, stories where people saw God and discussed with him but also teachings telling that no humans could see the God and live. There were the teachings of Logos among the Alexandrian learned and there were teachings that have been partly preserved in how the Palestinian Targumin explains the creation story (those creating were God, the Memra (word) of God and the glory of God). There were such interpretations about the promised Messiah that came close to the Messiah being divine.
God is one but He also seems to be complex.
For those coming from the world of Greek philosophy, the problem seemed to be almost the opposite. That Jesus is the son of God was not problematic, what was problematic was how the eternal and pure God could have lived in the bad material, in corrupted ’flesh’. For example, the letters of John seems to fight against this kind of thinking, denial that the pure and eternal God could have emerged in mortal flesh.
Later, there were also claims that for our salvation, Christ needed to be both God and human. Salvation was something only God could do. That we could become part in the heavenly act of salvation, Christ needed to be human. Only if Jesus combined what is in Heaven (divine) and what is on Earth (human), he can fully save us.
While trying to put the difficult pieces into the general worldview, some have tried to approach the question through analogiesand mental pictures. Such may help but there is always the danger that if we draw the parallels with an analogy too far, we end up in something that the others call a heresy.
Finding correct words for the mystery behind the seemingly contradictory details was a challenge. Many words were used and it took some time to find the words that the others could accept. The accepted words got a a very specific meaning that may be somewhat different than what we think when we hear these words. The words are just imperfect attempts to describe the partly hidden mystery of God.
My applications from this viewpoint is that I try to avoid theological terminology that can cause unnecessary schisms among the believers and a somewhat tolerant attitude towards those that use differing ways to describe the mystery of God. I do support the classical explanations about God but I can work well with ‘Oneness’ believers.
The limit to tolerance comes when the doctrinal explanations and opinions lead to practical applications that are against what I consider to be the will of God.