Understanding the GodHead.

[KUWN]

You raise a good example. Let me ask you this. If you found the Trinity Doctrine to be incorrect, would you still believe in the existence of Christophanies in the Old Testament? Or does your belief in Christophanies rely on your belief in the Trinity?

My basic point is this. Once I abandoned the Trinity Doctrine, I discovered a lot more about Jesus.

I just follow where the evidence leads. I am certain that the Bible teaches that the Godhead is a trinity. When I say certain that I am certain that the Godhead is a trinity, I mean it is true IF and only IF one holds to the literal interpretation method of the Word. The only way the Trinity could be false is if I abandoned the literal interpretation method. You hold to a spiritual or metaphorical interpretation in the Scriptures.

In GJohn 10:30 we read ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
You will notice that the I and the Father are in the masculine, while "one" is in the neuter. The nouns are singular while the verb is plural.
This is what I mean by the literal interpretation method. If one consistently employs this method, they are led to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Notice again the Title of this thread. It uses "Godhead" not God.

 

[marks]

I believe we should make every attempt to try to understand the Bible around these kind of rare and unambiguous statements.

We have to make sure we are in harmony with all the statements in the Bible, and that has led me to conclude our God is Triune.

Much love!

 

[Runningman]

I just follow where the evidence leads. I am certain that the Bible teaches that the Godhead is a trinity. When I say certain that I am certain that the Godhead is a trinity, I mean it is true IF and only IF one holds to the literal interpretation method of the Word. The only way the Trinity could be false is if I abandoned the literal interpretation method. You hold to a spiritual or metaphorical interpretation in the Scriptures.

Not to interrupt, but, if I may, would you consider 1 John 1:1-3 literal? John departed from his narrative concerning the Word in John 1:1. He wrote about the Word, not as a personal being, but as a thing. What do you think?

1 John 1 (KJV)
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Wrangler]

I just follow where the evidence leads. .... The only way the Trinity could be false is if I abandoned the literal interpretation method.

Great! What verse literally says something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever?

 

[KUWN]

Not to interrupt, but, if I may, would you consider 1 John 1:1-3 literal? John departed from his narrative concerning the Word in John 1:1. He wrote about the Word, not as a personal being, but as a thing. What do you think?

The neuter "that which" includes all that is mentioned in 1-3.

Not to interrupt, but, if I may, would you consider 1 John 1:1-3 literal? John departed from his narrative concerning the Word in John 1:1. He wrote about the Word, not as a personal being, but as a thing. What do you think?

1 John 1 (KJV)
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The best solution, if you ask me and in keeping with the emphasis later made clear in verse 3 with the introduction of the main verb, is to understand the antecedent of the relative pronouns in verses 1 and 3 to be a comprehensive reference to Jesus, the incarnate Word, including the apostolic testimony or witness about the earthly career of Jesus. This is all the more natural since marturion (“witness, testimony”) is neuter in gender and would naturally agree with the neuter gender of the relative pronouns.

This is not to say, however, that the opening phrase of 1:1, “what was from the beginning”) is devoid of any personal reference. It seems almost certainly a deliberate allusion to John 1:1, and as such, cannot be separated from the Person about whom the apostolic testimony is being given. But verse 1 does not refer solely to Jesus himself; it includes the apostolic testimony about the whole earthly career of Jesus. This is especially true because the significance of Jesus’ earthly career is precisely what is being disputed by the author’s opponents, the false teachers, and thus what the author is undertaking to defend.

So, yes, I take it literally, like I do with all passages that are not obviously using a metaphor or some other interpretive method.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I just follow where the evidence leads.

Most of us follow the evidence, but evidence must be understood correctly. I don't see any evidence of Christophanies in the Old Testament.

I am certain that the Bible teaches that the Godhead is a trinity. When I say certain that I am certain that the Godhead is a trinity, I mean it is true IF and only IF one holds to the literal interpretation method of the Word.

Can you give an example?

The only way the Trinity could be false is if I abandoned the literal interpretation method. You hold to a spiritual or metaphorical interpretation in the Scriptures.

Again, I would need an example. But I see no evidence that God exists as one being in three persons.

In GJohn 10:30 we read ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
You will notice that the I and the Father are in the masculine, while "one" is in the neuter. The nouns are singular while the verb is plural.

You think Jesus is making a statement about his nature in that verse? What if he isn't? What if that isn't his point?

This is what I mean by the literal interpretation method. If one consistently employs this method, they are led to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Notice again the Title of this thread. It uses "Godhead" not God.

I don't think any passage would lead to the Trinity Doctrine, since the doctrine wasn't based on the Biblical text but rather on the philosophy of Plato.

 

[KUWN]

Most of us follow the evidence, but evidence must be understood correctly. I don't see any evidence of Christophanies in the Old Testament.

Can you give an example?


Again, I would need an example. But I see no evidence that God exists as one being in three persons.

You think Jesus is making a statement about his nature in that verse? What if he isn't? What if that isn't his point?

I don't think any passage would lead to the Trinity Doctrine, since the doctrine wasn't based on the Biblical text but rather on the philosophy of Plato.

I am not being rude but if you are asking me to show you a Christophony in the OT, you can't possibly be a serious student of the Word. BTW, I do not hold to there existing "God exists in one being in three persons."


You think Jesus is making a statement about his nature in that verse? What if he isn't? What if that isn't his point?
You would have to ask someone who holds to the metaphorical or spiritual interpretation method. With the literal approach, we simply accept what Christ said, the Father (masculine) and I (masculine) are one. The interpretation of this passage is found in a literal method. Jesus is saying The Father and I are one THING, not in a Person.

 

[Brakelite]

then I conclude that Jesus ruled himself out of being God.

No, Jesus only ruled Himself out of being "the only true God". In the sense of "only true God", we would refer possibly to

“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. ”
1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

and see the "only true God" as the one source of all things, as Paul said above, "of Whom are all things", the Father.

Christ is begotten of God. Only God can come out from God. Christ therefore is God. This is His inheritance (Hebrews 1:2, 1:4). This is why He is called the Son of God. The angels did not come out from God. Christ created them. Christ is the Creator of this world. Nothing exists in the universe except that it was made through Him (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17). Angels therefore are external to God. Not so with Christ. He is the only begotten of God. This is why He is God’s only begotten Son. He therefore would have been begotten (brought forth) in the “express image” of God’s very being. The difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father is unbegotten whilst the Son is begotten. This is why Jesus said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). Christ recognised His Father as the source of His life (John 5:26). It is also why God and Christ (Father and Son) each possess a personal identity of their own. They are two distinct personalities.
The early church believed in the difference between Father and Son, unbegotten and begotten, not in the sense so common today as a title or metaphor, but as literal and ontological.

In GJohn 10:30 we read ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
You will notice that the I and the Father are in the masculine, while "one" is in the neuter. The nouns are singular while the verb is plural.
This is what I mean by the literal interpretation method. If one consistently employs this method, they are led to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Notice again the Title of this thread. It uses "Godhead" not God.

While what you say concerning language may be true, you are making an assumption that it refers to a "trinity", the trinity, rightly described as a creedal, but not biblical belief here...

Great! What verse literally says something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever?

...but goes to the other extreme of rejecting the literal Sonship of Christ thus denying His Divinity, from which we may bounce back to the other extreme as expressed here by

We have to make sure we are in harmony with all the statements in the Bible, and that has led me to conclude our God is Triune.

Much love!

which i imagine would more closely follow wrangler's statement in red above as representative of the common Trinitarian creedal statements, which also of taken literally, deny the Sonship of Christ.
It's fascinating that the two extremes in this debate, on the one side creedal trinitarianism, and the other strict Unitarianism, both deny the one thing the apostle John was at pains to prove in his Gospel...
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. ”
John 20:31 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

 

[Wrangler]

which i imagine would more closely follow wrangler's statement in red above as representative of the common Trinitarian creedal statements, which also of taken literally, deny the Sonship of Christ.
It's fascinating that the two extremes in this debate, on the one side creedal trinitarianism, and the other strict Unitarianism, both deny the one thing the apostle John was at pains to prove in his Gospel...
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. ”
John 20:31 KJV

No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God. It's just that is merely a title and not some kind of biological amoeba reproducing one into two persons.

As another poster pointed out, all of David's descendants are titled sons of God per 2 Samuel 7:12-14
12 For when you die and are buried with your ancestors, I will raise up one of your descendants, your own offspring, and I will make his kingdom strong. 13 He is the one who will build a house—a temple—for my name. And I will secure his royal throne forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I am not being rude but if you are asking me to show you a Christophony in the OT, you can't possibly be a serious student of the Word.

I am a serious student of the Word, but your challenge is to find an example of a Christophony without first assuming that Christ existed before he was born.

Do you see the problem here?

BTW, I do not hold to there existing "God exists in one being in three persons."

Then how do you say you believe in the Trinity?

You think Jesus is making a statement about his nature in that verse? What if he isn't? What if that isn't his point?
You would have to ask someone who holds to the metaphorical or spiritual interpretation method. With the literal approach, we simply accept what Christ said, the Father (masculine) and I (masculine) are one. The interpretation of this passage is found in a literal method. Jesus is saying The Father and I are one THING, not in a Person.

Why do you assume that every statement is literal?

 

[KUWN]

I am a serious student of the Word, but your challenge is to find an example of a Christophony without first assuming that Christ existed before he was born.

Daniel 3:25, Judges 2:1

Any time God appears to man, it is a reference to Christ, the One who reveals the Godhead. The Father nobody has seen.

I cut and pasted the below passages.

1. Appearance to Abraham (Genesis 18)​

Three men visited Abraham, and one of them was God Himself. We know he was God because the text says, “and the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre.” The other two men were angels.

2. Appearance to Jacob (Genesis 32:22-32)​

Jacob once wrestled with a man all night, and that man was God. He said to Jacob, “your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel for you have striven with God, and with men, and have prevailed.” Afterward, Jacob named the place Peniel and said, “for I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

3. Appearance to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15)​

A man with a sword in hand appeared to Joshua before the fall of Jericho. He identified himself as the commander of the army of the Lord. Joshua immediately fell to his face and worshiped the man. And the commander said, “take off your sandals from your feet for the place where you are standing is holy.” This man was another Christophany.

Theologians also believe every visit of “the angel of the Lord,” or “the angel of God,” was a Christophany.

In Exodus 23:20-21, God told Moses He would send an angel before him to guide him, and that God’s name was in the angel. As the name of God represents His nature, will, and character. A random angel can’t bear God’s name; only God himself can. And this angel of the Lord must have been Jesus because He said in John 17:7, “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.”

Here are a few visits from Jesus as the angel of the Lord.

4. Visit to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-14)​

The angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar in the wilderness and said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” The angel of the Lord spoke with the authority of God and said he would multiply her offspring. Hagar called the angel, “You are a God of seeing,” and said, “truly here I have seen him who looks after me.”

5. Visit to Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:11-18)​

Abraham took Isaac to Mount Moriah to sacrifice him as God commanded. But when he was about to kill Isaac, the angel of the Lord appeared and told him to stop. He said, “now I know that you fear God seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son from me.” The angel spoke as if he was God.

6. Visit to Jacob (Genesis 31:11-13)​

The Angel of God appeared to Jacob in a dream and said, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me.” The God of Bethel is Yahweh (Genesis 28:13-22).

7. Visit to Moses (Exodus 3:2-6)​

The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses “in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush,” and then, “God called to him out of the bush.” He said, “I am the God of your Father, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac.”

Do you see the problem here?

Please tell me what it is.

Then how do you say you believe in the Trinity?

THREE Persons in ONE Godhead

Why do you assume that every statement is literal?

As a literalist I first take any passage as literal, if that doesn't fit, since the Bible also has a few metaphors, and an allegory that Paul actually calls it an allegory since that was not his mode of writing.

Finally, BEFORE Abraham was I AM. These are the words of Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

Any time God appears to man, it is a reference to Christ, the One who reveals the Godhead.

This is Circular Reasoning.

Finally, BEFORE Abraham was I AM. These are the words of Jesus.

Something short of a claim of deity.

 

[Runningman]

The neuter "that which" includes all that is mentioned in 1-3.

The best solution, if you ask me and in keeping with the emphasis later made clear in verse 3 with the introduction of the main verb, is to understand the antecedent of the relative pronouns in verses 1 and 3 to be a comprehensive reference to Jesus, the incarnate Word, including the apostolic testimony or witness about the earthly career of Jesus. This is all the more natural since marturion (“witness, testimony”) is neuter in gender and would naturally agree with the neuter gender of the relative pronouns.

This is not to say, however, that the opening phrase of 1:1, “what was from the beginning”) is devoid of any personal reference. It seems almost certainly a deliberate allusion to John 1:1, and as such, cannot be separated from the Person about whom the apostolic testimony is being given. But verse 1 does not refer solely to Jesus himself; it includes the apostolic testimony about the whole earthly career of Jesus. This is especially true because the significance of Jesus’ earthly career is precisely what is being disputed by the author’s opponents, the false teachers, and thus what the author is undertaking to defend.

So, yes, I take it literally, like I do with all passages that are not obviously using a metaphor or some other interpretive method.

Thanks, but I just wanted to see if you thought it was literal like you do with John 1:1. I just wanted to see if you would agree or try to explain it all away.

I think you have a heavy Trinitarian bias or at least a heavy bias toward the alleged deity of Jesus because you had previously said:

"I mean it is true IF and only IF one holds to the literal interpretation method of the Word. The only way the Trinity could be false is if I abandoned the literal interpretation method."

If you follow the literal interpretation method, then the Word in 1 John 1:1-3 would have to be a thing with the Word in John 1 being personified. All of that with the fact the Word doesn't seem to have pre-existed in the Old Testament, John 1 could be a poem. This is a position some scholars agree with due to some of the aforementioned evidences:

Meyer's NT Commentary
"The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy. A way was thus paved for the hypostatizing of the λόγος as a further step in the knowledge of the relations in the divine essence; but this advance took place gradually, and only after the captivity, so that probably the oriental doctrine of emanations, and subsequently the Pythagorean-platonic philosophy, were not without influence upon what was already given in germ in Genesis 1."

 

[Runningman]

No, Jesus only ruled Himself out of being "the only true God". In the sense of "only true God", we would refer possibly to

“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. ”
1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

and see the "only true God" as the one source of all things, as Paul said above, "of Whom are all things", the Father.

Christ is begotten of God. Only God can come out from God. Christ therefore is God. This is His inheritance (Hebrews 1:2, 1:4). This is why He is called the Son of God. The angels did not come out from God. Christ created them. Christ is the Creator of this world. Nothing exists in the universe except that it was made through Him (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17). Angels therefore are external to God. Not so with Christ. He is the only begotten of God. This is why He is God’s only begotten Son. He therefore would have been begotten (brought forth) in the “express image” of God’s very being. The difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father is unbegotten whilst the Son is begotten. This is why Jesus said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). Christ recognised His Father as the source of His life (John 5:26). It is also why God and Christ (Father and Son) each possess a personal identity of their own. They are two distinct personalities.
The early church believed in the difference between Father and Son, unbegotten and begotten, not in the sense so common today as a title or metaphor, but as literal and ontological.

It's true that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and that makes him unique, but on the other hand there are also many children of God. What status do the various sons/daughters of God have?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Please tell me what it is.

In your opinion, what is the difference between a "Christophany" and a "theophany"? While both terms refer to manifestations of the divine, they have distinct differences based on the figures involved and their context. What do you think differentiates the two?

This point is important because Paul argued that Jesus is not an angel. Some people mistakenly believe that the phrase "angel of the Lord" refers to Jesus; however, this is incorrect, as Paul clearly states that Jesus is not an angel.

THREE Persons in ONE Godhead

All Christians believe in a Triad, but not all Christians believe that the Triad exists as a single entity -- a Trinity. The term "Godhead" refers to the single entity -- the Trinity, not the triad.

Do you affirm the Triad or the Trinity?

As a literalist I first take any passage as literal, if that doesn't fit, since the Bible also has a few metaphors, and an allegory that Paul actually calls it an allegory since that was not his mode of writing.

The drawback of your strategy is that it can result in misunderstandings. For example, a reader might interpret a passage literally when the author intended it to be understood symbolically or metaphorically. A more effective approach is to consider both the context and the genre in order to decide whether a passage should be understood literally or figuratively.

Finally, BEFORE Abraham was I AM. These are the words of Jesus.

There are multiple ways to understand Jesus' statement here: 1) I existed before Abraham, and 2) God's plan for me existed before Abraham. The meaning depends on the context. What was the subject matter, and who was listening?

 

[Brakelite]

No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God. It's just that is merely a title and not some kind of biological amoeba reproducing one into two persons.

As another poster pointed out, all of David's descendants are titled sons of God per 2 Samuel 7:12-14
12 For when you die and are buried with your ancestors, I will raise up one of your descendants, your own offspring, and I will make his kingdom strong. 13 He is the one who will build a house—a temple—for my name. And I will secure his royal throne forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do.

Jesus wasn't crucified because He claimed to be a Son like every other child of Abraham.
“33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ”
John 8:33-42 KJV
Unfeigned Bible
A title? Just a title? How can you read the above and pretend you take into consideration every word of God when formulating belief? Just a title? And you accuse others of manipulating or using eisegesis in understanding scripture. You are absolutely denying the Sonship of Christ, and therefore also the Father. And it's monumentally outrageous that you would liken God to his creation. The first time you did that I thought it inadvisable, seeing we are talking about such sacred matters, now I think you are are simply foolish, and trampling on holy ground with no thought to your assumptions and implications. That's worse than trinitarians likening the Godhead to ice, water, and gas. Such dangerous ground to be walking on.
Just a title? Show me one instance in the gospel of John where one could make such a definitive statement regarding the numerous times Jesus called upon His Father in intimate prayer using a title as His special right to be heard. Jesus Christ was and is not just a human. How people come to that conclusion after reading scripture had only one explanation.
“7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: ”
2 Thessalonians 2:7-11 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

A title? Pffft.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus wasn't crucified because He claimed to be a Son like every other child of Abraham.

He was crucified for admitting to be anointed by God.

 

[Brakelite]

It's true that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and that makes him unique, but on the other hand there are also many children of God. What status do the various sons/daughters of God have?

Adopted, or created. There is only one begotten child who became human in order to die.

 

[Brakelite]

There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:3033). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).

The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.

All the above loudly proclaims to all the world with ear-piercing clarity, that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Most High God, begotten in eternity and by inheritance has the right to be called God and receive the worship and fidelity of mankind.

 

[AW Bowman]

I assume most, if not everyone, contributing to this thread has been in Oneness vs. Trinitarian debates before. So, the question is: Has anyone observed a change in position among the partisans? I, for one, have not, not even on ministerial forums.

A suggestion: Collect every scripture that addresses both God's singularity and plurality. This would require a word study including those texts in the original biblical languages. Don't forget the context and religious practices at the time. Group the collected texts according to the several authors. Of course, this would require time, effort, commitment, and above all else, spiritual honesty, and a willingness to alter one's view of God. Don't skip text you don't yet understand or don't like. I don't remember the nineteenth-century pastor's name, but I remember his wise comment, "If your view of God had not changed in five years, you're brain-dead." Seek spiritual growth.

Set aside what you have been told to be the truth by your family members, your friends, pastors, bible teachers, etc. Try to clear your mind of the suppositions you bring to your study. Remember your highest priorities should be You, Your Bible, and the Holy Spirit, not someone else's Bible commentary - not even your own. Still, all of this promises to be a very difficult undertaking, and few are willing to undertake such a demanding study, being comfortable in what they already believe (and accept) as "the truth". If one "truly" understood everything they think they know about the Bible, they would be a spiritual giant.

May your studies be fruitful.