Many witnesses

 Looking in the gospel of John, there are those who testify about Jesus. There is Jesus. That is one. There is the Father (ch 8, ch 10). That is two. So far these are two testimonies required by the Law of Moses. Then the Lord Jesus foretells the coming of the Holy Spirit, who will testify about Jesus. So that is three. Now the Law truly is well satisfied. But wait, there are more. There are the apostles who also must testify. So that is at least fifteen. Fifteen witnesses. Plus the disciples and close family of Jesus who may also testify. Plus the later disciples, the number goes up and up. All are united in Jesus. All are one. All agree in their support for the truth they know and believe, that Jesus is truly the Son of God, sent into the world by God the Father to give light to the world. So the gospel of John ends with the statement that many can testify that this gospel is true. I can testify too. It proves to be true in my own experience. I am not coerced into saying this, it is my truth, my own experience. More and more know it. More and more are one in saying it. The Father is God and Jesus is the Son of God. 

The Word became flesh

 Were there nine months in which the universe was ruled from a human womb? It would be a big deal wouldn’t it? Something some psalms would speak about, some prophecies, etc. The spirit inspires me personally, especially if I listen to Isaiah being read out loud (such as in audio book online), inspires me to sense that something strong within God, and it seems to be His word, is sent out like a delegation to become very small but still carrying the authority and spirit of God. It is to become so small that it becomes a single human cell within Mary’s womb. This meets the need for salvation which God is speaking of in the Isaiah prophecies. It is just what my spirit shows me as I contemplate it, as first happened when listening to Isaiah being read, the first ten chapters especially. So, no, it was the word of God made flesh in the womb, not the Most High God Himself.

Robbing the Gospel of its power

 A Trinitarian assertion: “We have one God manifest in three persons.” There is a problem, well illustrated in this typical statement. The problem is not in “three persons”. That doctrine was pushed on Trinitarians by various schisms over the centuries. The problem is when “one God” actually means, to a fairly typical Trinitarian, the set of the essential qualities that are found in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yes the same qualities are there. They are essential qualities (Greek biblical term : hypostasis) of the Father represented perfectly in the Son (as Hebrews Epistle 1:3 states). The qualities are the same, the Father and Son have them. The Father has them and the Son represents them perfectly. However, Trinitarians at an advanced level of understanding of the Trinity are instructed to call these qualities singular and shared. That goes beyond Hebrews 1:3. They are not necessarily shared since it is the Father who possesses them and the Son who is the exact representation of them. So this is contrived. It gets worse. The real problem is the assigning of the title ‘God’ not exclusively to the Father (who Jesus called the One True God), but rather, to the supposed shared singular set of essential qualities themselves. It is the essence or hypostasis which Trinitarians are taught to call ‘God’. This is worrying. It seems like something pagan-minded philosophers would do, used in their pagan lives to ascribing the title God to essential qualities of metals like gold and silver or animals. The motive? I do wonder whether the changes in Rabbinical Judaism post-Temple had something to do with it, when around 100 AD onwards the understanding of monotheism was altered to exclude acknowledgement of existence of any mighty and significant being other then the Most High God, and when a label of heresy was applied to anyone making assertions about such beings. The obvious targets of this new monotheism in Judaism were not only pagans of the Roman world, but Christians who believed in both the Most High God and His only-begotten, beloved Son. An appeasement of Judaism resulted, it seems, in muddying of the clear water of the Gospel, with worldly philosophy. This would have potential of dulling the sword edge, robbing the Gospel of its power to save, power of God. 

Critique of Trinity Doctrine

 The Father possesses essence, hypostasis, and ontological existence. Everything that is essentially true about Him, encompassing all His attributes, is represented in Christ. This concept is generally accepted, even outside Trinitarian belief. However, the doctrine of the Trinity takes this further by introducing the idea of homoousios, which posits that the essence called 'God' is shared among three persons and exists as an entity beyond the Father alone.

The rationale behind this doctrine appears to stem from a desire to logically and philosophically combine elements of Hebrews 1:3. This approach seems influenced by Neoplatonism. By examining the essence of the Father and its representation in the Son, one might be tempted to view the essence as common to both, akin to Plato's Theory of Forms and the Allegory of the Cave, where form and representation are distinct yet related.

However, this interpretation skips over a critical detail: the essence belongs to the Father and is only represented by the Son. Claiming that the essence is truly common to both is misleading. The Son represents the Father's essence; they do not share it. This subtle distinction is overlooked in the philosophical techniques seen in the works of Tertullian and his Neoplatonist successors. Their enthusiasm for applying Platonic thought led them to neglect important details, which, over time, contributed to theological errors.

This issue became apparent when critics pointed out that the early Trinitarians blurred the distinctiveness of the persons within the Godhead. To address this, they eventually clarified their doctrine by introducing the concept of distinct "personas," which was partly a response to various schisms and controversies.

Are the Father’s ‘essential qualities’ shared with Jesus or does he represent them?

 I asked the ChatGPT AI app (v4o) to assess the following for accuracy. 

The Father Himself does have essence, hypostasis, being, ontological existence. Everything which is essentially true about Him - His combined attributes. All represented in Christ. That is true of course. You do not have to be Trinitarian to accept this. But Trinity takes it further, making it into a thing in itself, homoousios. Then it calls the essence ‘God’ and says it is shared between three and is an entity in itself beyond the Father. I get why it does this. It is tempting to get clever by combining the two parts of Heb 1:3 and making a new doctrine out of the way you logically, philosophically combine them. It might be Neoplatonistic. To look at essence of the Father and the image representation of that essence in Jesus (see Plato's Theory of Forms and Allegory if the Cave where he cleverly distinguishes form and representation) and say they have essence as something common to both, skipping the fact it is form owned by the Father and only represented in the Son. They say it is common to both. Well not really. It is a trick. Yes Father has essence, but Son does not have it, he represents it. Not the same. Not shared. You see the philosophical technique at play though in Tertullian and his Neoplatonist successors. Zeal to apply Plato and they miss the detail, hoping it does not matter. But it takes them and their follows away from truth, as was later, it seems, pointed out when people charged them with ignoring distinctiveness of person. They had to add personas later, after schisms.

Here is its response.

Your statement involves a mix of theological and philosophical perspectives on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Here's a detailed assessment:

1. Essence, Hypostasis, and Ontological Existence

Essence and Hypostasis: The distinction between "essence" (ousia) and "hypostasis" (personhood) is a crucial aspect of Trinitarian doctrine. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered distinct hypostases sharing one essence.

Ontological Existence: This refers to the being or existence of God. The Father, as part of the Trinity, has ontological existence along with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

2. Representation in Christ

Attributes of God in Christ: The statement correctly notes that attributes of God are represented in Christ. According to Trinitarian doctrine, Christ is the "exact representation" (Heb 1:3) of God's being.

Non-Trinitarian Views: Non-Trinitarians might accept that Christ represents God’s attributes without affirming the same essence.

3. Trinity and Homoousios

Doctrine of Homoousios: The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is "homoousios" (of the same essence) with the Father. This means the same divine nature is shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Essence as 'God': Trinitarianism posits that the one essence (God) is shared among the three persons.

4. Philosophical Influence

Neoplatonism: The influence of Greek philosophy, including Neoplatonism, is often noted in the development of early Christian doctrines. The distinction between form and representation in Platonic thought can be seen as analogous to discussions on essence and person in Trinitarian doctrine.

Hebrews 1:3: The passage describes the Son as the "radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being." Trinitarians interpret this as affirming the shared essence.

5. Critique of Trinitarian Logic

Essence and Representation: The critique argues that while the Father has essence, the Son only represents it. This challenges the Trinitarian view that essence is shared rather than merely represented.

Philosophical Technique: The critique suggests that early Church Fathers like Tertullian may have been influenced by Platonic thought, potentially obscuring the distinctiveness of the persons in favor of a shared essence.

6. Development of Doctrine

Personas and Schisms: Historical development of the doctrine did involve controversies and clarifications, such as the nature of Christ and the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. Terms like "persona" were refined to address these issues.

Summary

Your statement reflects a deep engagement with both theological and philosophical issues surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity. It accurately highlights key points of Trinitarian doctrine and raises valid questions from a non-Trinitarian perspective. Here are the main points:

The essence-hypostasis distinction is central to Trinitarian doctrine.

Non-Trinitarians may view Christ as representing God's essence without sharing it.

Trinitarianism posits a shared essence (homoousios) among the three persons.

Neoplatonic influence is significant in the historical development of the doctrine.

The critique of shared essence versus representation is a common non-Trinitarian argument.

The development of Trinitarian doctrine involved significant philosophical and theological debates.

Understanding these complexities is essential for a nuanced discussion of the Trinity and its historical and philosophical underpinnings.

The coming Lord

 When Jesus, the Lord, leads the world into a period of ever-growing subjection to himself, probably just thirty, forty years from now, it will be best to understand that Jesus and the Father are distinct individuals: Don’t try telling Jesus he isn’t. Learn truth from him now, while there is still time. 

As a thief

 Will he come as a thief to you? When Jesus, the Lord, leads the world into a period of ever-growing subjection to himself, probably just thirty, forty years from now, will it come as a surprise to you? When, a thousand years later, he leads everything and everyone, all subject to himself, into his own subjection in turn to the Father who is God, will you be surprised? Will the eternity of God the Father being all in all come as a surprise to you? 

Avoid clouding the gospel

 I Corinthians chapters 1 to 3 is famous and powerful instruction regarding the power of the gospel to save. Paul emphasised that his gospel is devoid of worldly wisdom, lest its power be nullified by worldly wisdom. He wanted the cross of Christ to have full emphasis with nothing worldly to detract or distract from this, in order to save believers by it. When I was freed from my teenage habitual lying by the power of the Spirit, it was a simple gospel message I had believed in my heart, the words “CHRIST DIED FOR YOU”. Anything more complex and I would have been dubious about whether I had understood it correctly and it would not have opened the way for God to free me by heavenly power from my dishonest sinning. Now the water gets cloudy when you add concepts like essence of divinity. These were concepts borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

If the truth is stated simply: The Most High God is God. The Son is the Son of God. The Father of the Son is the Most High God. That is simple and powerful. It is truth that, along with the power of God, can be depended on. Trinitarian philosophy of Tertullian and others clouds all this. To obey 1 Cor 1 to 3 teaching we should imitate Paul and keep such philosophy out of our gospel.

Gentle Rule

 Pray for a spirit of wisdom and revelation to know God better and His Son. His Son is God’s way to rule over all gently. He is gentle by letting all things be subject first to His Son who is human and can sympathise, so that it will be comfortable for everyone and every creature on Earth to become subject to a pure and perfect and gentle and lowly human, His Son Lord Jesus Christ. This is not to say the Son does not judge. He presides over horrible judgments, such as rotten floods and losses of life and property and losses of homes, but it is still not as terrible as the fire of God on Sinai. God does not want to oppress people with terrible rule like He had to inflict during the time of Israelites around Sinai, when even an animal touching the mountain had to die. God wants to be kind so He first subjects all things to a perfect human, His Son. Thus the Son mediates. Like Moses did. Then when all is fully subject to the Son, the Son will gently hand it all to God and subject himself also to God so that everything under the Son and the Son under God will mean everything is subject to God. The gentle way. With the Son as the intermediary power. Forever. This intermediary power is what the Son is, hence we must call him Lord.

Pearl of Great Price

 Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is crucial to becoming a child of God. Oneness Pentecostalism makes it tricky. A Father - Son relationship does not fit well with a concept of one singular divine nature with three manifestations. Moreover, the Oneness statement that "Jesus is the Father" is a clear and important expression of Oneness theology, but can hinder faith that Jesus is the Son. Trinity makes it tricky too. The term ”God the Son” easily hinders the faith that Jesus is Son of God. Like in Oneness, a Father - Son relationship does not fit well with a concept of one shared divine nature with three personas, and when the title ’God‘ is typically attached to the  shared divine essence, rather than to the Father persona. It leads to confusion as to whether Jesus is God or Son of God, since it begs the corollary of him being Son of himself, which somehow has to be discounted. In reality it makes better sense to “put aside all that hinders and run the race with perseverance”, recognising that becoming a child of God is a pearl of great price, exceeding prestiges of being able to claim a thorough conformance to Oneness or Trinity dogma. If we start with the important faith, Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus is the Son of the Father, sent by the Father, to give light to this dark world; then we can build ourselves up from there in the most holy faith. Like Peter we can be a rock. 

The Father is God

 The title ’God’ usually means the God of the Bible, the Most High God. It tends to identify one specific individual because only one can be referred to forever as the Most High God and this is the Father, whose Son is Jesus Christ. Trinitarianism moved the label, moved the ’God’ title. Philosophy was used, pagan Ancient Greek philosophy of famous people Plato, Aristotle, to invent something called the ‘ousia‘ of the Most High God of the Old Testament. This ‘ousia’ was the Greek philosophy word for the innate essential substance, essence of something. The first Trinitarians took this pagan concept and applied it to the Most High God to invent the idea of an essence of this specific God. Then they moved the title ‘God’ from Most High God the Father and gave it to their invented ’essence’, ‘ousia’ (Latin ’substantia’). So, today, when people think of ‘God’, unlike the apostles such as Paul, they no longer automatically think of the Father. They think of an unscriptural concept which some might call Godhead, and others Trinity, or both. For many it is just too confusing to know what to think. So when people think of Son of God they are even more confused. Go one step further and ‘God the Son’ as a concept (again unbiblical) is hopeless. Trinitarians, and Oneness modalists to some extent too, took this essence they entitled as ‘God’ and added either modes or personas to it. Then the Father is relegated from true God to just one of these modes or personas. No longer is He regarded as the Most High God, as God Himself. It is confusing in this paganised gospel whether He even exists. If He is not God, the Most High, what is He? How sinful were the teachers who taught such things and passed them down the generations to us. Give the Father back His true gospel status as the Most High, the one true God, to whom even the Son, Jesus, will eventually be subject forever. Then it means more when we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. It means he is Son of the Most High God. He is Son of the One who forever will be all in all. We can scrap the ‘ousia’. The gospel of the apostles did not need it. The Bible did not need it: It did not have such a concept specific to the Most High God. No need for any shared essence. The essence of divinity is just a general term applicable to any kind of godlikeness, just great might and the right to judge. Like royalty. It is the Father who is exclusively The God. Or as we can say it colloquially, simply ‘God’. The Father is God. Jesus is His Son. 

Two who are united

 Jesus plus the Father makes two. They are who have a lot of unity, just as some believers have, “We are one”, but Jesus and the Father are legally valid as two witnesses. John 8:18. When two individuals are very close and are of one mind, one in spirit and purpose, it is a precious thing, but they are still fundamentally two. 

Jesus is the Lord

 Some people think a god is not by nature a human. We have to keep in mind that Jesus is human, albeit a resurrected immortal human with tremendous spirit power, but human still. The Son of Man. This might be one reason the apostles were led by the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ teachings to always call Jesus ‘Lord’ rather than ‘a god’. When Paul preached in Athens about Jesus (Acts 17) there were Stoic philosophers who thought Paul was speaking about a foreign god. This was a kind of misunderstanding. 

Truth right now

 Those who engage in twisting of the gospel, or the inventing of a gospel, or loving a false gospel, are slaves to their notions. They cannot learn the truth while they hold to their own teachings and they cannot escape this hold their own teachings have on them. By their conceit they have fallen into the devil’s trap. He holds them captured. The only escape is to believe in the light of the world, Jesus Christ, and to hold to his teachings. Then the truth will eventually enter their minds and free them from their trap. This must happen in this life, if they are ever to be freed from sin in this life. The next life is too late. Without this escape, they will die in their sins. The same applies to all of us too since we all need the light of the world. We all need his freedom. We all have to escape sin in this life. After this life it is too late because it is not long after death that judgement comes. The way we live now determines what happens then. We need to learn the light and truth now while there is time to stop sinning, otherwise we will die in our sins and face judgement in them. 

Events in the Middle East

 The morally reprehensible actions in the Middle East will be permitted by God to continue for a while, but under angelic oversight that often leads to consequences for the perpetrators, as observed in the past. God is aware of both the sins and the resulting punishments. The eagle in the sky is the sign. Eventually, over the course of two or three decades, just when things seem to have settled, this will escalate into full-scale invasions against the wrongdoers. This will mark the beginning of Armageddon. God will allow it to a certain extent before ending it. Then, God Himself will administer punishment. The final events of the Apocalypse will then commence, with no further delay.

Oneness Pentecostalism is a nice sounding doctrine that is not true

Oneness is an intriguing concept, suggesting an underlying divine truth. For those new to the scriptures, it offers a simple explanation for certain gospel facts. However, it is not actually true. In John 8:18, Jesus stated that the Father serves as a second witness to Jesus' truth, with Jesus himself being the first witness. The idea of oneness cannot adequately support this truth without resorting to convoluted reasoning. While oneness may seem appealing and logical, it does not reflect reality. The Father and the Son are distinct individuals, united in purpose and values, not the same divine being in different forms. They are two separate witnesses, fulfilling the legal requirement of two testimonies to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God.

Future-proofing vital information

 Technology is a major part of the lives of many of us. Yet is it long lived? We might be wise to persist some of what we need to keep outside of the technology, perhaps even on paper. Can we still read a floppy disk? I recently found important potentially valuable data from years ago and a lot was on DVD disks, some on older versions, maybe CD disks and some of it was on floppy disks. Emails, in old archive formats. Luckily I was able to buy low cost disk readers but the email archives took a bit of thinking. I transferred it all eventually to modern media and formats. How long can this continue? We might not be able to read social media posts and other Cloud data at all in five years if companies do not help us see it, or go under. I used to work with a tech specialist who was trying to ensure there were copies of Bible texts preserved in formats suitable to be kept for decades. Will there even be computers and Cloud in decades? It might all be made obsolete. AI might only talk to other AI and humans be out of the loop. We might want to make sure we keep paper Bibles and print out stuff we really need, now while we still have a say, before progress takes the initiative away from us. 

The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

 Jesus' teaching refers to the Father as the "Only True God," indicating that the Father is the highest among all gods. This does not deny the existence of other divine beings but asserts the Father's supreme authority over them. John 17:3 records Jesus saying, "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

When the Father sends a messenger, a prophet, they can minister to others what the Father, God, has given them. The Son of this God is Jesus, the Lord, the Christ. He too fulfils the will of the Father and may cooperate with the Father to teach and empower the one being sent. If they believe, and they accept correction and chastisement from the Father, they are treated as His children and the Father may give them the Holy Spirit, as promised. They might be sent by this Holy Spirit too, to do the will of the Father in the way of Jesus. So now they can go with threefold authority. They have authority in the name of the Father. They have authority in the name of the Son. They have authority by the authority of being sent by the Holy Spirit. With many of those sent, it might be the Son and Holy Spirit each sending them. Yet the authority of the Father is included because the Son and Holy Spirit have this authority and can relay it to those they send. Some might only experience the Holy Spirit at the very start of their ministry such as when hands of elders are laid on them and a church send them. Yet the authority is still relayed to them of Father and Son too, by extension. If they have been sent to make disciples and baptise them, then it will be by all of this authority. They might only be sent to teach about those who have sent them, relaying the knowledge given them by Father and by Son and by Holy Spirit. They would do so in all of this authority. This is how the church first came to be built up. It is still built this way today. 

The Only True God, by ChatGPT 4o

 ‘The distinction between "only God" and "Only True God" is significant in theological discussions and can be clarified with scriptural and historical sources.

1. "Only God": This phrase suggests exclusivity, meaning that there is no other deity. For instance, second-century Rabbinical Judaism, particularly the Pharisees post-Temple, taught that the Father is the only God. This perspective is rooted in monotheism, where God alone is worshipped and recognized as divine. A key source is Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema), which states, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
2. "Only True God": This term implies supremacy rather than exclusivity. Jesus' teaching refers to the Father as the "Only True God," indicating that the Father is the highest among all gods. This does not deny the existence of other divine beings but asserts the Father's supreme authority over them. John 17:3 records Jesus saying, "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
• The Psalms reflect this view by portraying the Father as the supreme deity. For instance, Psalm 95:3 says, "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."
• Early Christian writings, such as those by the Church Fathers, emphasize this distinction. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul writes, "When he [Christ] has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

The significant difference lies in the implication of these terms. "Only God" conveys exclusivity, a strict monotheistic view that there is no other deity but the Father. In contrast, "Only True God" conveys a hierarchical supremacy, where the Father is the supreme deity above all other gods, who will ultimately be subject to Him.

Historical and scriptural sources clearly distinguish these concepts, showing the nuanced differences in theological interpretation.’ (ChatGPT 4o)

The Only True God

 Saying the Father is the Only God is not the same as saying He is the Only True God. "Only True God" implies the highest authority above all other gods, not that no other gods exist. Second-century Rabbinical Judaism (Pharisees post-Temple) taught that the Father is the only God, while Jesus taught that the Father is the Only True God, which is a significant difference. The Psalms describe the Father as the king above all gods, a concept that post-Temple rabbis would consider polytheistic. Jesus referred to the Father as the "Only True God" because, in the end, the Father will be the only one to whom even the Son is subject, and everything will be subject to the Son. Therefore, the Father will always be God, all in all. This does not deny the existence of other gods but means that all other gods will ultimately be forever subject to the One True God, the Father.

Philippians 2

How do we best translate Philippians 2

“… Christ Jesus:

6 Who, existing in the form of God (or ‘a god’)

did not consider equality with God  (or ‘god’)

something to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself,

taking the form of a servant,

being made in human likeness.”

How do you translate the middle of verse 7? The NIV translates it “taking the form” but could it be translated as something less voluntary? ‘lambano’ is the Greek word. It can mean ‘receiving’ rather than ‘taking’: A more submissive meaning. This would fit with “being made in …” later in the verse. The Father has the initiative and the command. It is the Father who is making and the Son who is “being made …”. The Son has the more submissive action of being made.

Parallels are made between this passage and Isaiah 52:13 “Behold, My Servant …”. A servant is submissive. A servant does not decide how to serve, what tasks to do. A servant is assigned their tasks. Was there a point where the servant was not a servant, in order to become one? Or was he even then in a submissive position of receiving from the Father and being made a servant by the Father?

It is a very fine point. Perhaps even Paul struggled in choosing the words as he wrote it in Greek.

The Son forever will be subject to the Father and calls the Father “the one true God” who sent him. He was godlike and received it from the Father to be a servant of the Father and humanlike. Before Jesus came his godlike form was there with the Most High God. He was there with the Father. The Jews and later the Pharisee Rabbis did not like this. To the Jews in his time it looked like blasphemy, because they did not believe the Father made him godlike. Then later the Pharisees after 70 AD made it law that to even afford high status to a godlike being other than the Most High God was heresy, polytheism. The blindness took hold of them. Nevertheless the Father, the Most High God saw fit to raise him from the dead so although human, he had immortality in a spirit empowered body, again godlike forever. He will raise up his true disciples in this same way. 

The Gospel of the Real Jesus Christ

 In the first stage of the work of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospel of John, Jesus was positively influencing righteous living in the world around him by providing teachings for believers to follow, and by the indirect effects of them doing this to positively influence lives around them. The pinnacle of this is recorded halfway through the Gospel of John. Then came a major second phase and this would truly boost the development of righteousness in the world. This was the suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which made him more fully the Christ, the reviver of righteousness, the champion of the righteous who come to righteousness through him and his followers, their helper forever. Firstly, his death on a cross was purification for their sins. Secondly, the resurrection provided them with a Great High Priest forever, to mediate between them and the Father who sent him. His conquest of the killers who killed him, their bitter envy, their jealousy, their hatred, their hypocrisy, this was complete victory when God raised him from the dead. So, thirdly, his full emergence as the Christ, this the Father combined with making Jesus the Lord over the believers, conquering all their enemies, even death, and equipped fully with resurrection spiritual power to provide them with the mastery of all they needed for serving him and living life to the full. His lordship power even started to emerge as power even over Nature, as the miracles had suggested. It holds promise of him eventually making everything subject to him, God placing all his enemies under his feet. Jesus himself hinted several times that he would then forever himself be subject to the Father, who Jesus had called the One True God who sent him. He would never supersede God but would bring all things under God in a civil, sympathetic way, because he is human and knows true humanity and can bring things into subjection with minimal violent force. This would be no oppressive tyranny. In principle a tyranny of sorts because he will have uttermost power subject only to God, but not without sympathy and empathy. God wants it to be human kingship in this way to bring everything into human subjection before it comes under Almighty God spirit subjection. The Son of Man. This Christ died for you. 

Towards a purer divine gospel

 There can exist many gods which are supernatural, such as Satan (possibly worshipped in various religions by other names), Azazel, along with various name forms for the same beings, some of which could actually exist. The recognition of the existence of such beings is not in itself polytheism. If it was polytheism, then recognising the existence of Satan would be polytheism. Polytheism originally used to be understood as worship of these beings, perhaps a select group of them associated with one’s city or nation. Then the Pharisee Rabbis c100 AD changed their meaning of polytheism and monotheism in Judaism. It might be they did this to combat the influences of paganism as the Jews were dispersed through the world. It might be they also wanted to make things difficult for Christians. Either way, they made it heresy to even acknowledge existence of gods other than the Most High God. By outlawing any acknowledgement of the existence of gods other than the Most High, and making it heresy to ascribing to them of any significance and importance, this caused a headache for the believers in Jesus as the only begotten Son of the Most High God. Some Christian leaders were trying to appease Judaism and a few unscrupulous ‘Christian’ writers and scribal teachers used Neoplatonist philosophical concepts borrowed from Greek such as ‘ousia’ and applied them to the gospel message of there being both God and His Son together. In this use of philosophy mixed with the gospel these teachers invented a new ‘gospel’ which allowed them to make the Father and Son into just one God. That way they could pretend to be monotheistic in a way which aligned with the new Rabbinical monotheism. It is important to note that by the original concept of monotheism there is no need for such trickery. Worshipping just the Father as Most High God to whom even the Son will forever be subject, this is still monotheism in its original sense. It recognises that the Father alone is the One True God. It does not require denial of the Son as a second distinct being to the Father. Both Son and Father are through time distinct living beings, but only the Father is the Most High God to whom the Son will forever be ultimately subject. It is important to keep worldly philosophy out of the gospel so that it is not deprived of its divine power. 

Family considerations when seeking God

 The only way to truly know God is to believe in Jesus Christ, the light of the world sent by God, and to follow His teachings by striving to understand and obey them in your life. By doing this, God will reveal Himself to you, and Jesus will also make Himself known to you. For those likely to need to be married through life, or in a relationship already, perhaps with children, if is best of course to know God together with others in a relationship or family. Ideal. Not always easy. You have to make the most of your situation, taking it from God. There is no easy opt out. To plough a straight furrow if you follow Jesus you need either equal partnership or a lone journey. Lone journeys have special temptation. Mixed partnerships are prone to conflicts of interest. Not impossible but an even more problem journey for the children involved. Things to consider when you are turning from your own devices and starting to follow belief in Jesus as light of the world and discipleship to his teachings. CHRIST DIED FOR YOU. 

Knowing God

 The only way to truly know God is to believe in Jesus Christ, the light of the world sent by God, and to follow His teachings by striving to understand and obey them in your life. By doing this, God will reveal Himself to you, and Jesus will also make Himself known to you.

The ‘faith’

 The ‘faith’ around today is not faith at all. It is blind acceptance of a philosophical concept invented by Tertullian to satisfy unbelieving Pharisees.

My Gospel

 Many think they are simply following some Bible verses with Oneness or Trinity when actually those verses were around when Jesus was around and the apostles did not let them stop them following Jesus without any Oneness or Trinity. Other verses show a more complete picture which is why the few OT verses cited by Oneness proponents were not a problem. After the Temple destruction some new rabbis took over, Akiva, Simeon, Aquila. Their teachings are what Oneness and Trinity are unknowingly actually following. Their teaching redefined monotheism among Jews, to create modern Judaism. That is what is influencing Oneness and Trinity theology. Not the Bible. The Shema? It certainly holds. It is referring to the Father. Jesus taught that the Father alone is the One True God. The Father is the Most High God forever and is One. So how about another verse. “I am he… besides me there is no other.” Again the Father Himself expresses being The One True God. To me He said “I am God” but He still showed me that Jesus is His only-begotten Son. There is no conflict. That leaves something else Oneness and Trinity proponents must be following. I believe it is the Rabbinical Judaism of Rabbis Akiva, Simeon, Aquila and then the Geonim and the Tulmud. These determine Oneness and Trinity beliefs. The Rabbis also indirectly brought about Oneness and Trinity dogma by their revising of the principles of Judaistic Monotheism to exclude any significant “second power”. They were called out by Justin Martyr for trying to destroy the Christian faith. They succeeded. They removed the faith in a second power, the Son. Now I am bringing it back - so help me God. This is my gospel. Biblical Unitarians are doing so too, but they do not usually preach his preexistence. I preach his preexistence. And I preach that the Holy Spirit is a third testimony and a distinct being. I discount a divine shared essence. I find no need for a shared divine essence when preaching there are three distinct beings, only one of whom is Most High God (I believe and teach that the so-called essence -  subtantia, ousis - was an idea of Tertullian to align with the Pharisee Rabbis and compete with Oneness). 

Monotheism the original way

 Many in the first century were writing about Jesus as “a god” or “my god”, although not as Most High God, or God. There is no suggestion they learned this from the apostles. They considered Jesus like a god to them, their god, as in the centre of their universe, their lives revolving around him. Like some today might consider baseball their god, or music, or facebook. In those times monotheism had not yet been reformed by the Rabbis so calling something or someone your god was not yet widely regarded as heresy or idolatry. The actual apostles seldom risked confusion and always called Jesus ’Lord’ rather than divine, never using God when speaking of him. Later the writings changed as Pharisee Rabbis such as Akiva started to make monotheism into a new thing all about not calling anything or anyone divine except the Most High God. Many follow this same concept today, calling ‘polytheism’ any implication of another being having divinity. So it is easier for such people to find a way to hide the divinity of the Son of God by calling the Son a mode or persona of a singular divine essence. However, this is not because of any scriptures or revelation but simply through fear of the Pharisaical accusation of polytheism. So instead of the biblical teaching that the Father is the Most High God with Jesus as His subordinate Son, we are told we must accept Oneness or told we must accept Trinitarian dogma. But if we are led by the Holy Spirit, then we will learn the truth taught by Jesus, as given to Jesus by the Father, even if it contradicts Oneness and the Trinity concept. 

Origins

From around 100 AD onwards, the Pharisees, facing the influence of Roman polytheism, sought to minimize the recognition of any significant beings besides the Most High God, labeling such beliefs as heresy. Consequently, any belief in subordinate or secondary divine beings was deemed heretical. To align with this stance, some writers altered the gospel. They understood that the Pharisees would condemn as heretical any claim that Jesus is both Lord and the Son of God, a powerful being now immortal. To avoid this, they modified the gospel to propose a single divine essence with multiple modes or personas, thereby denying the distinct existence of the Son of God. This gave rise to the doctrines of Oneness and Trinitarianism.

Monotheism Today

 Oneness and Trinitarianism both attempt to eliminate the "second power," the Son, as a distinct entity, in order to conform to the Pharisee Rabbis' alteration of Judaistic monotheism. Oneness achieves this by presenting a single being and portraying the Son as a mode of this singular being. The Trinity, on the other hand, does so by depicting a single being with the Son as a persona of this unified being. This contrasts with the belief that the Father is the one Most High God, while the Son also exists as a distinct entity and is subject to the Father. In this belief, the Father and the Son are separate beings, with the Son subordinated to the Father, rather than being modes or personas of a single being as in Oneness and Trinitarianism.

Reverting to the original Gospel

 Simplistically putting it perhaps, for better clarity, around 100 to 250 AD Post-Temple Judaism invented a new monotheism to stave off worship of Roman gods, after the Jews lost their Temple and were scattered throughout the world. They needed to support a dispersed Diaspora form of Judaism in a world that worshipped many supernatural gods. They tightened up monotheism so that they replaced their “King above all gods” God (the one Most High God with all other gods potentially really existing but all subject to Him), with a new concept of a God who had no supernatural competitors at all, where it was a monotheism in which no gods even existed or had any importance. Now for these new Pharisee-led Jews in Diaspora there was only one God. So Oneness, Modalism as it was then called, changed the gospel to fit in with this new monotheism of the new flux of Diaspora Jews in exile. To do so they needed to remove the existence of a Son of God, in their new gospel, replacing him with a God with multiple modes, one of which could be Son of God. Some lies would be needed about meanings of scripture verses but they could sell it to the Jews. The Trinity dogma was a similar alternative approach to fitting the gosoel into this new Jewish ultra-monotheism, making it accessible to Jews who wanted there to be only one divine being. Trinity said only one divine being, God, but multiple personas, one of who could be Son of God. Again, lies are needed about meanings of scripture verses but they could sell it to the Jews and even get approval of Rome making it officially stamped by Rome. 

Now, two thousand years later, there are no gods of Rome to contend with or compete with. Why cannot we just ditch these alternative modifications  of the gospel and quit supporting them with lies, and repent of lying and go back to the light taught by the light of the world, Jesus Christ, and his sent apostles? Lying is Satanic. God, the Father, the Most High God, abhors liars. Heaven is a place for truth. Let us be of heaven, not of Satan. 

In this original gospel, the Father is the one Most High God, and all others, even the Son himself, are subject to Him forever. 

You cannot follow both truth and Oneness Pentecostalism

 You cannot follow both truth and Oneness Pentecostalism. To follow Oneness you have to lie. To follow truth you have to repent of lying. You cannot do both.

Exploring Different Beliefs on the Nature of God, by ChatGPT 4o

In religious discussions, the nature of God is often a central and deeply personal topic. Different faith traditions have distinct interpretations, and these can sometimes lead to significant theological differences.

Strict Monotheism in Talmudic Judaism:

• Core Belief: Talmudic Judaism emphasizes a strict form of monotheism. Central to this belief is the Shema, a declaration from Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." This highlights the absolute oneness and indivisibility of God.
• Divine Exclusivity: In this tradition, God is unique and singular. Any belief in subordinate or secondary divine beings is seen as incompatible with this strict monotheism.

Non-Trinitarian Christian Views:

• Subordinationism: Some Christians hold the view that the Father is the Most High God, with Jesus as His subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit as an expression of God's presence or power. This view differs from Trinitarian Christianity, which posits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single divine essence as co-equal persons.
• Comparison to Trinitarianism: Unlike the Trinitarian view, which sees the three persons as equal, this perspective maintains a hierarchy within the divine.

Modalism / Oneness Pentecostalism:

• Core Belief: Oneness Pentecostalism, also known as modalism, teaches that God is a single person who has manifested Himself in different modes or aspects, such as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rather than distinct persons within the Godhead.
• Distinct from Trinitarianism: This belief contrasts with Trinitarian Christianity by rejecting the idea of three co-equal, co-eternal persons, emphasizing instead the singularity of God's personhood expressed in various forms.

Tension with Talmudic Jewish Beliefs:

• Conflicting Views: Both subordinationist and modalist perspectives can conflict with the monotheism of Talmudic Judaism. While Judaism acknowledges angels and spiritual beings, it does not attribute any form of divinity or godlike status to them. The belief in subordinate divine beings or manifestations of one God in different modes is outside the bounds of Jewish monotheism.
• Strict Unity: The Jewish understanding maintains that God’s unity is absolute and indivisible, rejecting any notion of divine multiplicity or subordination.

In summary, while different religious traditions may share some common ground, their views on the nature of God can be profoundly different. Understanding these differences can foster respectful dialogue and greater insight into each tradition’s unique beliefs.

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)