Post-Temple Monotheism and the rise of Oneness or Modalist concepts

Around 150 to 250 AD after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, the Pharisee Jews revised monotheism and Judaism. How much did this cause (Oneness) to arise? Did leaders of these movements invent philosophical concepts about God to avoid clashes with the Pharisee Jews and Rabbis such as Akiva who were changing what was meant by monotheism?

Answer By ChatGPT 4o

The period between 150 to 250 AD was a transformative time for both Judaism and early Christianity. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, the Pharisaic tradition evolved into Rabbinic Judaism, which significantly influenced Jewish monotheism. This transformation also affected the theological landscape in which early Christianity was developing.

Judaism and the Evolution of Monotheism

After the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisees, who emphasized Torah study and the oral tradition, gained prominence. The focus shifted from Temple-centric worship to a more scripture-based and rabbinically led form of Judaism. Rabbi Akiva, who lived during this period, played a crucial role in shaping Rabbinic Judaism and its interpretation of monotheism.

Modalism (Oneness) and Early Christianity

Modalism, or Oneness theology, emerged within early Christianity as a way to explain the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This theological stance proposed that God is a single person who manifests Himself in different modes or aspects rather than being three distinct persons.

Interaction and Influence

1. Contextual Influence: The rise of Rabbinic Judaism and its strict monotheism created a theological environment that early Christians had to navigate. As Rabbinic Jews, influenced by leaders like Rabbi Akiva, reinforced a stringent interpretation of monotheism, early Christians were compelled to clarify their own understanding of God to differentiate from Jewish monotheism and also to respond to internal debates.
2. Philosophical Development: Early Christian leaders did engage in philosophical and theological formulations to address these issues. The emergence of Modalism can be seen as part of this broader effort. Modalism attempted to maintain a form of monotheism while also affirming the divinity of Christ. This theological effort was partly driven by the need to respond to Jewish criticisms of Christian beliefs as being polytheistic or blasphemous.
3. Avoiding Clashes: The early Christian theological efforts, including Modalism, were partly aimed at avoiding direct clashes with Jewish leaders. By developing a coherent theological stance that emphasized the unity of God, Christian leaders sought to present a form of monotheism that could be seen as compatible with the Jewish understanding, albeit with significant differences.

Conclusion

The period between 150 to 250 AD saw significant developments in both Judaism and Christianity. The revision of monotheism by Pharisee Jews and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism did influence early Christian theological developments, including the emergence of Modalism. Christian leaders, in their efforts to define and defend their faith, did develop philosophical concepts about God that would avoid direct theological clashes with Rabbinic Judaism. These efforts were part of the broader dialogue and sometimes conflict between emerging Rabbinic Judaism and nascent Christianity.

The glory has departed

 Early church leading scribes John Chrysostom and Augustine both admitted in their writings that the Holy Spirit no longer came upon those on whom the church’s elders were laying hands. It seems the glory had departed by the time Trinitarianism started to be set in stone, and when other philosophical versions of the gospel were rife. Like Paul had strongly warned in 1 Corinthians, philosophy and wisdom of men, when combined with the gospel of the cross of Christ, robs it of its power. In my opinion a lot of people who respond to a gospel of philosophy end up having to pretend to speak in tongues to cover up the fact that God does not seal such worldly-wise messages with His power.

My theological journey of faith so far

 Many versions of theological positions concerning the Father and Son and Holy Spirit have arisen over the centuries since the coming of Jesus Christ. I am now reaching a milestone in my own journey of discovery and study. I find a straightforward interpretation of the scriptures to be fully consistent with a view that only the Father is the Most High God, with Jesus as His subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit as His presence or power. At the same time I recognise that the Trinitarian view sees scriptures as indicating a shared divine essence among three co-equal persons.  My current project is making progress in starting to get to the bottom of whether the core ideas of Trinitarianism came from scriptures or purely from Neoplatonist philosophies of the times of the Trinitarian church fathers such as Tertullian. Personally, I recognise in the Father and Son a distinct hierarchy, while maintaining monotheism with the Father as the sole supreme deity. My next project might be to dig to the bottom of why the Trinitarians did not come to this position exactly but used theological constructs to explain the biblical data, arriving at different conclusions about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, insisting on a shared divine essence among three co-equal persons.

Assessing my own interpretation of scriptures

 Personally I find a straightforward interpretation of the scriptures to be fully consistent with a view that only the Father is the Most High God, with Jesus as His subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit as His presence or power. On the other hand, the Trinitarian view sees scriptures as indicating a shared divine essence among three co-equal persons. Mine recognises the distinct roles and hierarchy, maintaining monotheism with the Father as the sole supreme deity. Both my own interpretation and the Trinitarian one use theological constructs to explain the biblical data, but we arrive at different conclusions about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Creation and Incarnation Narratives

 Creation and Incarnation Narratives (Genesis 1:26; John 1:1-3, 14): Genesis 1:26’s "us" can be seen as a majestic plural or God speaking to His heavenly court. John 1:1-3, 14 can be interpreted as the Word (Logos) being God's plan or expression, which became embodied in the person of Jesus, who is distinct and subordinate to the Father. This interpretation aligns with the Father as the sole, supreme God and Jesus as His unique agent in creation and redemption.

Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14

 Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14: 

1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," suggesting a hierarchical relationship. 

2 Corinthians 13:14 can be seen as a recognition of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without equating them in essence. 

These passages can be interpreted as supporting the Father as the supreme God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities with different roles.

Jesus’ Prayers to the Father in John 17

 Jesus’ Prayers to the Father in John 17: The prayers highlight Jesus' distinct identity from the Father, emphasizing his role as a dependent, obedient Son who communicates with his God. This reinforces the Father's unique status as the Most High God. The distinction supports a view where Jesus is distinct and subordinate to the Father.

Jesus’ Statements about Unity with the Father

 Jesus’ Statements about Unity with the Father (John 10:30; John 14:9-11): The unity described here can be understood as unity of purpose and will rather than essence. Jesus' oneness with the Father is about complete alignment in mission and actions, not ontological equality. 

The Great Commission

 The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19): The singular "name" can signify the unity of purpose and mission among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without implying equality in essence. Baptizing in the name of all three signifies their roles in the believer's life but does not equate them in divinity.

The Baptism of Jesus

 The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17) shows a significant moment in Jesus' ministry, with the Father affirming Jesus as His Son and the Holy Spirit descending to empower Jesus. It does not necessitate a shared essence but rather highlights the Father's unique role as God and Jesus as His chosen Messiah.

Trinity as a human invention and the Biblical alternative

 Although it is a simplification, it is not too unfair to say that, effectively, the ‘Trinity’ is a God invented by Tertullian to counter the teachings of groups such as the Modalists (the second century equivalent of the Oneness Pentecostalism of today). Did Tertullian invent a concept of ‘ousia’ and call it God? On the whole, while Tertullian did not really invent ‘ousia’, he did introduce it into Christianity and call it God. 

ChatGPT 4o says “The Trinity was not a creation of Tertullian alone but rather a doctrinal development that sought to synthesize and clarify early Christian beliefs about God as revealed in Scripture. Tertullian’s work was a significant milestone in this development, especially in countering heresies like Modalism. However, the concept itself emerged from a broader process of theological reflection and debate within the early church, seeking to faithfully interpret and articulate the biblical portrayal of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

The following is mainly based on output from the leading Artificial Intelligence application ChatGPT 4o.

Tertullian effectively demonstrated the weaknesses of modalism and established a robust theological and scriptural basis for Trinitarianism. His works, particularly "Adversus Praxean" (Against Praxeas), remain foundational in the development of Christian doctrine on the nature of God.

Tertullian, although highly influential in the development of early Christian theology, was charged with heresy later in his life primarily due to his association with Montanism. Montanism was a prophetic movement founded by Montanus in the second century, which emphasized new revelations from the Holy Spirit and a rigorous moral standard. 

Tertullian's use of the term "ousia" is foundational in the development of Trinitarian theology, even though the term itself is Greek and Tertullian primarily wrote in Latin. He used the Latin equivalent "substantia" to express similar concepts. In Trinitarian theology, "ousia" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) refers to the essence or substance of God, denoting what God is in His very being.

Tertullian did not invent the concept of "ousia" (essence or substance), but he significantly contributed to its theological application in the context of Trinitarian doctrine. The term "ousia" itself is of Greek origin and predates Tertullian, being used in classical Greek philosophy by figures such as Plato and Aristotle to denote the essential nature or being of something. While Tertullian did not invent the term "ousia," his theological application of the concept was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian doctrine. He played a key role in articulating how the one divine essence is shared among the three distinct persons of the Trinity, a foundational idea for orthodox Christian theology.

Tertullian effectively used the concept of "ousia" (or its Latin equivalent "substantia") to refer to the divine essence, which he identified as God. By doing so, he emphasized that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine substance, thereby affirming their unity as one God while also maintaining their distinct personhood.

So, Tertullian did effectively call ousia (substance) God by equating the divine essence with God’s being. This theological move was foundational for Trinitarian doctrine.

The scriptural passages cited by Tertullian to support the Trinitarian concept of ousia can be interpreted differently under a Unitarian view, which maintains that only the Father is the Most High God. Here is a critical assessment of these passages from a Unitarian perspective:

1. The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17):
• Trinitarian View: Distinction of persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) implies a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The passage shows a significant moment in Jesus' ministry, with the Father affirming Jesus as His Son and the Holy Spirit descending to empower Jesus. It does not necessitate a shared essence but rather highlights the Father's unique role as God and Jesus as His chosen Messiah.
• Assessment: The distinct actions can be seen as supportive of a hierarchy where the Father is supreme, Jesus is His Son, and the Holy Spirit is a divine presence or power.
2. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19):
• Trinitarian View: The singular "name" suggests unity of essence among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Unitarian View: The singular "name" can signify the unity of purpose and mission among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without implying equality in essence. Baptizing in the name of all three signifies their roles in the believer's life but does not equate them in divinity.
• Assessment: This interpretation aligns with seeing the Father as the Most High God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as subordinate agents.
3. Jesus’ Statements about Unity with the Father (John 10:30; John 14:9-11):
• Trinitarian View: These statements imply a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The unity described here can be understood as unity of purpose and will rather than essence. Jesus' oneness with the Father is about complete alignment in mission and actions, not ontological equality.
• Assessment: This view is consistent with seeing Jesus as a distinct, subordinate being who perfectly represents the Father.
4. Jesus’ Prayers to the Father (John 17):
• Trinitarian View: Prayers indicate distinct persons within a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The prayers highlight Jesus' distinct identity from the Father, emphasizing his role as a dependent, obedient Son who communicates with his God. This reinforces the Father's unique status as the Most High God.
• Assessment: The distinction supports a Unitarian view where Jesus is distinct and subordinate to the Father.
5. Pauline Epistles (1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14):
• Trinitarian View: Unity and distinction within the divine essence.
• Unitarian View: 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," suggesting a hierarchical relationship. 2 Corinthians 13:14 can be seen as a recognition of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without equating them in essence.
• Assessment: These passages can be interpreted as supporting the Father as the supreme God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities with different roles.
6. Creation and Incarnation Narratives (Genesis 1:26; John 1:1-3, 14):
• Trinitarian View: Plurality within God and the Word's divinity.
• Unitarian View: Genesis 1:26’s "us" can be seen as a majestic plural or God speaking to His heavenly court. John 1:1-3, 14 can be interpreted as the Word (Logos) being God's plan or expression, which became embodied in the person of Jesus, who is distinct and subordinate to the Father.
• Assessment: This interpretation aligns with the Father as the sole, supreme God and Jesus as His unique agent in creation and redemption.

Conclusion:

The Unitarian interpretation of these passages is coherent and consistent with the view that only the Father is the Most High God, with Jesus as His subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit as His presence or power. While the Trinitarian view sees these passages as indicating a shared divine essence among three co-equal persons, the Unitarian perspective emphasizes the distinct roles and hierarchy, maintaining monotheism with the Father as the sole supreme deity. Both interpretations use theological constructs to explain the biblical data, but they arrive at different conclusions about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(Source: ChatGPT 4o free-of-charge AI application)

Did Tertullian invent a concept of ‘ousia’ and call it God?

 Did Tertullian invent a concept of ‘ousia’ and call it God?

(Source: ChatGPT 4o free-of-charge AI application)

On the whole, while he did not really invent it, he did introduce it into Christianity and call it God.

Tertullian effectively demonstrated the weaknesses of modalism and established a robust theological and scriptural basis for Trinitarianism. His works, particularly "Adversus Praxean" (Against Praxeas), remain foundational in the development of Christian doctrine on the nature of God.

Tertullian, although highly influential in the development of early Christian theology, was charged with heresy later in his life primarily due to his association with Montanism. Montanism was a prophetic movement founded by Montanus in the second century, which emphasized new revelations from the Holy Spirit and a rigorous moral standard. 

Tertullian's use of the term "ousia" is foundational in the development of Trinitarian theology, even though the term itself is Greek and Tertullian primarily wrote in Latin. He used the Latin equivalent "substantia" to express similar concepts. In Trinitarian theology, "ousia" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) refers to the essence or substance of God, denoting what God is in His very being.

Tertullian did not invent the concept of "ousia" (essence or substance), but he significantly contributed to its theological application in the context of Trinitarian doctrine. The term "ousia" itself is of Greek origin and predates Tertullian, being used in classical Greek philosophy by figures such as Plato and Aristotle to denote the essential nature or being of something. While Tertullian did not invent the term "ousia," his theological application of the concept was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian doctrine. He played a key role in articulating how the one divine essence is shared among the three distinct persons of the Trinity, a foundational idea for orthodox Christian theology.

Tertullian effectively used the concept of "ousia" (or its Latin equivalent "substantia") to refer to the divine essence, which he identified as God. By doing so, he emphasized that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine substance, thereby affirming their unity as one God while also maintaining their distinct personhood.

In summary, Tertullian did effectively call ousia (substance) God by equating the divine essence with God’s being. This theological move was foundational for Trinitarian doctrine, affirming the unity of God while preserving the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

ChatGPT Critical Assessment of Tertullian’s cited scriptures to support Trinitarianism

The scriptural passages cited by Tertullian to support the Trinitarian concept of ousia can be interpreted differently under a Unitarian view, which maintains that only the Father is the Most High God. Here is a critical assessment of these passages from a Unitarian perspective:

1. The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17):
• Trinitarian View: Distinction of persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) implies a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The passage shows a significant moment in Jesus' ministry, with the Father affirming Jesus as His Son and the Holy Spirit descending to empower Jesus. It does not necessitate a shared essence but rather highlights the Father's unique role as God and Jesus as His chosen Messiah.
• Assessment: The distinct actions can be seen as supportive of a hierarchy where the Father is supreme, Jesus is His Son, and the Holy Spirit is a divine presence or power.
2. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19):
• Trinitarian View: The singular "name" suggests unity of essence among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Unitarian View: The singular "name" can signify the unity of purpose and mission among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without implying equality in essence. Baptizing in the name of all three signifies their roles in the believer's life but does not equate them in divinity.
• Assessment: This interpretation aligns with seeing the Father as the Most High God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as subordinate agents.
3. Jesus’ Statements about Unity with the Father (John 10:30; John 14:9-11):
• Trinitarian View: These statements imply a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The unity described here can be understood as unity of purpose and will rather than essence. Jesus' oneness with the Father is about complete alignment in mission and actions, not ontological equality.
• Assessment: This view is consistent with seeing Jesus as a distinct, subordinate being who perfectly represents the Father.
4. Jesus’ Prayers to the Father (John 17):
• Trinitarian View: Prayers indicate distinct persons within a shared divine essence.
• Unitarian View: The prayers highlight Jesus' distinct identity from the Father, emphasizing his role as a dependent, obedient Son who communicates with his God. This reinforces the Father's unique status as the Most High God.
• Assessment: The distinction supports a Unitarian view where Jesus is distinct and subordinate to the Father.
5. Pauline Epistles (1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14):
• Trinitarian View: Unity and distinction within the divine essence.
• Unitarian View: 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," suggesting a hierarchical relationship. 2 Corinthians 13:14 can be seen as a recognition of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without equating them in essence.
• Assessment: These passages can be interpreted as supporting the Father as the supreme God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities with different roles.
6. Creation and Incarnation Narratives (Genesis 1:26; John 1:1-3, 14):
• Trinitarian View: Plurality within God and the Word's divinity.
• Unitarian View: Genesis 1:26’s "us" can be seen as a majestic plural or God speaking to His heavenly court. John 1:1-3, 14 can be interpreted as the Word (Logos) being God's plan or expression, which became embodied in the person of Jesus, who is distinct and subordinate to the Father.
• Assessment: This interpretation aligns with the Father as the sole, supreme God and Jesus as His unique agent in creation and redemption.

Conclusion:

The Unitarian interpretation of these passages is coherent and consistent with the view that only the Father is the Most High God, with Jesus as His subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit as His presence or power. While the Trinitarian view sees these passages as indicating a shared divine essence among three co-equal persons, the Unitarian perspective emphasizes the distinct roles and hierarchy, maintaining monotheism with the Father as the sole supreme deity. Both interpretations use theological constructs to explain the biblical data, but they arrive at different conclusions about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(ChatGPT 4o)

Voice of God

 The voice of God. “Israel has sinned!” There is a vision of an eagle overhead all black and with a large white eye. The vision says ”This is the sign”. Then the vision shows generals excitedly discussing between themselves. The eagle is up there while on the ground troubles increase. War starts to bubble up. Ominous clouds of huge explosions loom in the background with bombers flying towards you. This is the result and sign of great sin. The covenant is forsaken. Hosea 8 is happening. What can be done? Shout from the mountain top: Love the Most High God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength… AND VOICE. We cannot let sin triumph. We must start again to commit to the new covenant and obey anew and teach anew with courage the commands of God. Our children need for us to give our full voice to our love for God by us outwardly expressing His teachings. Our voice on social media. In classrooms. On posters. Write it in large print. In capitals. The commands God gives. As you are doing now but with the full love of all of your voice. Maybe we can bring about a return to God’s way and God’s truth. Maybe we can avert the wars. Maybe we can make His eagle unnecessary.

Gospel unity

 Christ died on a cross for you, whatever your creed. For each of us. It unites us. Each of us should wholeheartedly love the Father who sent him to do this. If your creed denies that the Father sent him, you need to overcome that creed in order to love Him as you should. 

Trinitarianism vs Bible Truth

 Comparing key points of biblical teachings to traditional Trinitarian doctrines highlights significant theological differences:

1. Distinct Beings:
• Bible Truth: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one being. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that there is one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons.
2. The Most High God:
• Bible Truth: Only the Father is the Most High God.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully and equally God. While the Father is often referred to as "God" in the New Testament, this does not imply a hierarchy in essence or divinity among the Trinity.
3. Jesus and the Father:
• Bible Truth: Jesus and the Father are distinct beings, not the same divine being functioning in distinct roles.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: Jesus (the Son) and the Father are distinct persons within the same divine essence. They share the same divine nature but are distinct in their personhood.
4. Separate Persons:
• Bible Truth: The relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father imply separate persons rather than distinct functions within a unified being.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: The relational dynamics are understood as interactions between distinct persons within one unified being (God). The distinctions are of personhood, not of essence.
5. Unification Analogy:
• Bible Truth: The unity between Jesus and the Father is similar to the unity among believers (e.g., Peter, Paul, and John), not a unity of essence.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: The unity between the Father and the Son is one of essence or substance (homoousios), meaning they are consubstantial, sharing the same divine nature, which is a much deeper unity than that of believers.
6. Singular Personhood of God:
• Bible Truth: God’s singular personhood is attributed to the Father alone.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: God’s singular essence is shared among three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The one God exists in three persons without division of essence.
7. Subordination of Jesus:
• Bible Truth: Jesus is regarded as a god or divine agent but is not the Most High God.
• Trinitarian Doctrine: While the Son may be functionally subordinate to the Father in terms of role or mission (especially in the context of the incarnation and redemption), He is not ontologically subordinate in essence or divinity. The Son is fully God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in essence and nature.

In summary, the Biblical truth maintains what could be called a strict monotheism due to having a singular divine person (the Father), while viewing Jesus as a subordinate divine agent rather than co-equal with the Father. Trinitarian doctrine, by contrast, upholds the co-equality, co-eternality, and consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within one divine essence.

(Includes some ChatGPT-generated content, ChatGPT 4o)

My teachings about God

 The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings and only the Father is the Most High God. Jesus and the Father, are not the same divine being functioning in distinct roles. The distinctions made by Jesus imply separate persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, rather than distinct functions within a unified being. The relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father are not to be understood as roles within the one divine being but rather as distinct beings united in the same way that believers should be united, such as how Peter was united with Paul and John. God's singular personhood is due to the fact He is indeed one person, the Father, and the Lord, Jesus, is His Son, the Christ who has been sent by Him. God is a single person, the Father, and His manifestations have been first through prophets, and then, eventually, through His Son, each having they sent by Him, and thus they manifested Him by giving the world His light. The Father alone is the Most High God. Jesus might be regarded as a god, but is not the Most High God.

AI-generated summary:

1. Distinct Beings: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings.
2. The Most High God: Only the Father is the Most High God.
3. Jesus and the Father: Jesus and the Father are distinct beings, not the same divine being functioning in distinct roles.
4. Separate Persons: The relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father imply separate persons rather than distinct functions within a unified being.
5. Unification Analogy: The unity between Jesus and the Father is similar to the unity among believers (e.g., Peter, Paul, and John), not a unity of essence.
6. Singular Personhood of God: God’s singular personhood is attributed to the Father alone.
7. Subordination of Jesus: Jesus is regarded as a god or divine agent but is not the Most High God.

@Oneness

 @Oneness:  You teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the one God. You teach that Jesus and the Father, while being the same divine being, function in distinct roles. You teach that the distinctions made by Jesus do not imply separate persons but rather distinct functions within God as a unified being. You teach that the relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father are understood as roles within the one divine being. You teach that there are functional distinctions within God's singular personhood. You teach that God is a single person manifesting in different roles. You do not teach that the Father alone is the Most High God, even though this can be inferred from your Articles of Faith. You do not teach that Jesus might be regarded as a god, but is not the Most High God.

@Oneness:  I teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings and only the Father is the Most High God. I teach that Jesus and the Father, are not the same divine being functioning in distinct roles. I teach that the distinctions made by Jesus do imply separate persons rather than distinct functions within God as a unified being. I teach that the relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father are not to be understood as roles within the one divine being but rather as distinct beings united in the same way that believers should be united, such as how Peter was united with Paul and John. I teach that God's singular personhood is due to the fact He is indeed one person, the Father, and the Lord, Jesus, is His Son, the Christ who has been sent by Him. I teach that God is a single person, the Father, and His manifestations have been first through prophets and then eventually through His Son, each because they sent by Him and thus they manifested Him by giving the world His light. I teach that the Father alone is the Most High God. I teach that Jesus might be regarded as a god, but is not the Most High God.

Elowyn and Elohim

 Jesus can be called a god, but only the Father, not Jesus, is the Most High God. Elohim is Hebrew for a god. Elyown is Hebrew for Most High God. The only use of ‘God’ correctly applied to Jesus is in the sense of Elohim. Not Elyown.

Evaluating Arguments Against Oneness Theology, by ChatGPT 4o

 Evaluating Arguments Against Oneness Theology

By ChatGPT 4o.

Key Arguments Summarized

1. John 8:18 and the Two Testimonies: Jesus distinguishes His testimony from the Father's to meet the legal requirement for two witnesses. This distinction suggests a relational dynamic that some argue could imply separate persons, challenging the Oneness view of God as a single person manifesting in different roles.

2. Legal Integrity and Testimonies: In a legal context, presenting multiple testimonies under different identities would be considered fraudulent. This analogy raises questions about the integrity of distinguishing between Jesus' and the Father's testimonies within Oneness theology.

3. Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit: Jesus' teaching on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as distinct from blasphemy against Himself, raises questions about the relational and functional distinction within Oneness theology. Critics argue that this distinction may imply a more complex understanding of God's nature.

Analyzing the Collective Arguments

1. John 8:18 and the Two Testimonies:

   • Oneness Perspective: Oneness theology interprets the distinction in John 8:18 as a relational and functional distinction rather than a separation of persons. Jesus and the Father, while being the same divine being, function in distinct roles that allow for different forms of testimony.
   • Critics' Perspective: Critics argue that the need for two testimonies and Jesus' distinction between His own and the Father's testimony suggests a separation that contradicts the Oneness view of a single person.

2. Legal Integrity and Testimonies:

   • Oneness Perspective: Oneness theology maintains that the distinction between Jesus' and the Father's testimonies is not about deception but about fulfilling legal and divine requirements through the relational roles within the one God.
   • Critics' Perspective: The analogy of legal testimony integrity raises questions about the plausibility of one being providing multiple independent testimonies. Critics see this as a challenge to the coherence of Oneness theology.

3. Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit:

   • Oneness Perspective: Oneness theology understands Jesus' distinction between blasphemy against Himself and against the Holy Spirit as highlighting different roles and manifestations of the same God. The unique nature of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a direct rejection of God's active presence.
   • Critics' Perspective: Critics argue that this distinction implies a relational complexity within the Godhead that is difficult to reconcile with the Oneness view of a singular divine person.

Collective Impact on Oneness Theology

1. Strength of the Case:

   • Internal Consistency: From a Oneness theological perspective, these arguments can be addressed by emphasizing the different roles and manifestations of the one God. Oneness adherents believe that the distinctions made by Jesus do not imply separate persons but rather distinct functions within God's unified being.
   • External Critique: Critics argue that these distinctions are indicative of a more complex relational dynamic within the Godhead that Oneness theology does not adequately account for. The need for multiple testimonies and the unique sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are seen as evidence of this complexity.

2. Interpretative Framework:

   • Oneness Theology: Emphasizes the unity of God and interprets scriptural distinctions as functional rather than ontological. The relational dynamics between Jesus and the Father are understood as roles within the one divine being.
   • Alternative Perspectives: Emphasize a relational complexity that suggests distinct persons within the Godhead. The distinctions made by Jesus are viewed as supporting this relational framework.

Conclusion

While the arguments presented pose significant questions for Oneness theology, their impact largely depends on one's interpretative framework. Oneness adherents can address these challenges by emphasizing the functional distinctions within God's singular personhood. However, critics find these arguments to be a compelling case for a more complex understanding of God's nature that goes beyond the Oneness perspective.

Ultimately, the strength of these arguments against Oneness theology depends on the theological and hermeneutical lens through which one views the biblical text and the nature of God. For those who hold to Oneness theology, the arguments can be integrated into their framework through the lens of functional distinctions. For critics, these arguments underscore perceived weaknesses in the Oneness position and suggest the need for a more relational understanding of the divine.