Sage! Huge thanks for diving headfirst into those tough and sometimes controversial topics about how Christian beliefs, especially the Trinity, came to be. Your fearless approach is truly inspiring! By tackling these complex subjects, you’re kicking off some crucial conversations that make us think harder and understand the roots of our faith better.
Your exploration of the theological and political influences that molded early Christianity sheds light on how these beliefs developed over time. It also challenges us to think about what we believe in today, enriching our spiritual journey as we reflect on this.
This kind of fearless questioning shows that truth stands strong under examination. Your work is a powerful reminder that faith and reason can and should go hand in hand. Keep pushing the envelope—your bravery is both essential and uplifting!
Ultimately, the abandonment of Jewish heritage in Christianity was not a natural or scriptural progression but a deliberate restructuring of doctrine and practice to align with Roman imperial interests. Recognizing this allows for a reclamation of the original faith, centered on the covenant, the obedience of Jesus to the Father’s will, and the true role of the Logos.
A tremendously clear recounting of the descent of the Faith that was first given to the fathers. That we were told to guard.
Interesting that you quoted I Corinthians 8:6..
"For us, there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
Which - verse 7 goes on to point out..
'HOWEVER there is not in every man this knowlege!!" (emphasis mine).
FAR too many Christians seek to curry favor with God doing it however arse-backwards.
HIS favor is curried by FAITH, by a 'SEARCHING OF THE SCRIPTURES DAILY - by casting away the trappings of darkness, not by blindly following the traditions of men - who seek to forward their own doctrines at the cost of truth.
Is it not this 'seeking to curry favor with God' that leads Christians (so called) to support this iteration of ISRAEL in its diabolical slaughter of the innocents..??
Thank you thank you thank you. This Anthology deserves to be shared.. which I now do...
“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar.”
Once again I feel inspired as I read your words. You write quite eloquently and take on subjects most people won't go near. I'm just grateful for God's Holiness and my depravity. Without that simple recognition, I would be wandering aimlessly in pursuit of eternal hell without even considering the most important question we face in our lives.
Thank goodness that the Lord allowed me to get lost only to be found. Pretty raw moments came and went that have begun refining me until the Trinity (as one) is fully satisfied.
Thank you for your kind words, Scott—and I redirect them back to our Father, who encourages me to write whatever He desires for that day. If anything I wrote stirred you, may it be His Spirit drawing both of us deeper into His will.
I noticed something you said—“I’m grateful for God’s holiness and my depravity.” I understand the heart behind it, but I’ve come to see that differently over time.
Yes, we begin depraved—fallen, blind, rebellious. But the refining process isn’t just about exposing our depravity. It’s about burning it out until only His will remains.
The Spirit didn’t come just to forgive us. He came to transform us, to write the Logos—the Father’s own will—on our hearts, until we walk as Jesus walked. That’s not a call to live in our depravity. It’s a call to become holy.
The goal of holiness isn’t unreachable—it’s the reason Jesus came: to show us how to surrender so the Father could dwell fully in us too.
The disciples did not worship Jesus. They came to finally understand that he was the 'Christ, the Son of the Living God', for which claim the Lord commended Peter.
Nor did they pray to him.
Why ask - 'Lord, teach us to pray', if they thought God were standing before them?
The most insidious lie of the doctrine of the Trinity, is that it nullifies the path to salvation; As, to be saved, a man must believe that GOD raised JESUS from the dead (Romans 10:9 & 10). How to believe that Jesus were dead - if Jesus is God? And if dead, how did he raise himself? Does anyone really think the devil thought he could 'kill God'??
The problems are endless with the false doctrine, which is why the priests make the false claim that it is a 'mystery'. HAH. Yet Jesus told his disciples that they are given the 'mysteries of the Kingdom of God'. How do any 'mysteries remain' for his disciples then? They don't. Only the false 'mysteries' concocted by the antichrists.. to deprive men of their relationship with the Lord., and if possible - eternal life.
There are so many factual and logical errors to address in this post, one comment would not be sufficient. To suggest that the Trinity wasn’t formulated under AD 325 or 361 ignores what the Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote.
Here are just a few of the many quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (church leaders and writers before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) that affirm the concept of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct yet united in the divine nature.
1. **Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-110 AD)**
- From his *Letter to the Magnesians* (Chapter 13):
*"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit."*
- Ignatius frequently connects the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way that suggests their unity and distinction, reflecting an early Trinitarian framework.
2. **Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD)**
- From *First Apology* (Chapter 61):
*"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."*
- Justin links the three in the context of baptism, echoing Matthew 28:19 and showing an early recognition of their roles in Christian worship and salvation.
3. **Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-185 AD)**
- From *To Autolycus* (Book 2, Chapter 15):
*"The three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity: God, and His Word, and His Wisdom."*
- Theophilus is the first known writer to use the term "Trinity" (Greek: *Trias*), identifying God (the Father), His Word (the Son), and His Wisdom (the Holy Spirit) as a unified trio.
4. **Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD)**
- From *Against Heresies* (Book 1, Chapter 10, Section 1):
*"The Church... believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God."*
- Irenaeus consistently presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct yet working together in the plan of salvation, a key Trinitarian idea.
5. **Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD)**
- From *Against Praxeas* (Chapter 2):
*"We do indeed believe that there is only one God; but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, *oikonomia*, there is also a Son of this one only God, His Word, who proceeded from Him, and through whom all things were made... and the Holy Spirit, sent from the Father through the Son."*
- Tertullian coined the Latin term *Trinitas* (Trinity) and articulated the concept of one God in three persons (*una substantia, tres personae*), a foundational step in Trinitarian theology.
6. **Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD)**
- From *The Instructor* (Book 1, Chapter 5):
*"Thank the One only Father and Son, Son and Father; the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One."*
- Clement emphasizes the unity and distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit, pointing to their shared divine nature.
7. **Origen (c. 185-254 AD)**
- From *On First Principles* (Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 7):
*"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His Word and Reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things."*
- Origen speaks of the Trinity as a unity without hierarchy in essence, affirming the eternal coexistence of Father, Son (Word), and Spirit.
These quotes demonstrate that, well before the Council of Nicaea, early Christian writers were grappling with and expressing the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that align with Trinitarian theology. While their formulations vary and sometimes lack the precision of later creeds (like Nicea’s emphasis on *homoousios*—
I'm going to reply to 1 point at a time, otherwise I would have to write a book.:
1) The claim that Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-110 AD) taught the Trinity is a misrepresentation of his actual writings, as it retroactively imposes Nicene Trinitarian theology onto a 1st-century text. While Ignatius acknowledges the Father, Son, and Spirit in his letters, nowhere does he describe them as co-equal persons of the same divine essence, as required by the later doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he emphasizes a clear hierarchy, where the Father is the one supreme God, Jesus is His Son and agent, and the Spirit is God's power at work. The Trinitarian assumption that any mention of Father, Son, and Spirit equals Trinitarian belief is a logical fallacy called eisegesis rather than interpreting it in its original historical and theological context.
First, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians (Chapter 13) is often cited by Trinitarians as proof of early Trinitarian belief.
He writes:
“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit.”
While this passage lists the Father, Son, and Spirit together, this does not mean Ignatius was teaching the later doctrine of the Trinity. Listing three things together does not prove co-equality or a shared divine essence. If that logic were applied consistently, then the Jewish scriptures, which refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could also be called "Trinitarian," which is absurd. The burden of proof is on Trinitarians to show that Ignatius explicitly describes the three as one essence, and they cannot do this because his writings do not support it.
Second, the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist in Ignatius’ time.
* The word “Trinity” (Trinitas) was not even invented until Tertullian (c. 200 AD), nearly 100 years later.
* The doctrine of homoousios was not introduced until Nicaea in 325 AD and was highly controversial.
* Ignatius did not establish the Trinity; otherwise, early church leaders would not have debated and struggled with Christ’s divinity for over 200 years.
* The fact that the Arian controversy (c. 320 AD) divided the church proves that Trinitarian doctrine was not settled in Ignatius’ time.
If Ignatius had clearly taught the Trinity, there would have been no need for later church councils to define and defend it.
Furthermore, Ignatius emphasizes the supremacy of the Father, which contradicts Trinitarian co-equality. In Letter to the Ephesians (Chapter 3), he writes:
“Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the world began and appeared at the end of time for our salvation.”
This passage affirms Jesus' pre-existence, but it does not state that he is co-equal with the Father. Pre-existence does not mean equality; many early Christians believed that Christ was the firstborn of all creation, yet distinct and subordinate to the Father.
Likewise, in Letter to the Smyrnaeans (Chapter 8), Ignatius states:
“I glorify Jesus Christ as God, the Father who raised Him up.”
Here, Jesus is glorified as divine, but the Father is still seen as the one with ultimate authority over Him. If Ignatius believed in the Trinity, why does he continually place the Father above the Son? This hierarchical relationship contradicts the doctrine of co-equality, proving that Ignatius did not hold to later Trinitarian formulations.
Additionally, later theologians invented Trinitarianism—not Ignatius. If Ignatius had clearly taught the Trinity, then why did:
* Tertullian (c. 200 AD) introduce the term “Trinitas” with subordination?
* Origen (c. 250 AD) describe the Son as “a second God” under the Father?
* The Arian controversy (c. 320 AD) divide the church over Jesus’ divinity?
* The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) introduce homoousios to combat Arianism?
* The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) further clarify the Holy Spirit’s role?
The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop proves that Ignatius did not teach it, otherwise, there would have been no need for later councils and debates. Ignatius had not defined the Trinity, the church leaders struggled for 300 years to establish it, and another 200 years to work out its precise terminology, theological implications, and doctrinal conflicts, facing multiple revisions, rejections, and reformulations through a series of church councils and debates until it became the standardized doctrine in the late 7th century.
Finally, Ignatius' writings reflect the same early Christian monotheism:
1. The Father is the one supreme God.
2. Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, distinct from the Father.
3. The Holy Spirit is the power and presence of God.
This is not Trinitarianism, it is subordinationism, which contradicts Nicene theology. The Trinity doctrine was a later philosophical development influenced by Greek metaphysics and Roman political pressures, not an original teaching of the apostles or early church fathers. The Trinity doctrine changed or was debated at least 8–10 times before a final consensus emerged in 680-681 AD.
Thus, the claim that Ignatius taught the Trinity collapses under historical scrutiny. While he affirmed the Father, Son, and Spirit, he never describes them as co-equal persons of one divine essence, as Trinitarian doctrine requires. If Trinitarians insist that Ignatius believed in the Trinity, they must explain why his actual writings fail to explicitly state it and why the doctrine took centuries to formalize. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Trinity is a later doctrinal invention, not the faith of Ignatius or the early church.
Well I’m glad you decided to only address one point at a time since in my first reply I only made one point.
The attempt you made equates references to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are disingenuous. The words “Father” and “Son” have no meaning without relationship, while the same God can be and is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You also dismiss early references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as non-Trinitarian because the writer doesn’t discuss co-eternal status. This is an argument from silence. What is clear is that Early Church Fathers, starting with the student of the Apostles were using language consistent with Trinitarian theology.
By the time we get to The Early Church Father, Gregory Thaumaturgus** (c. 213–270 AD) Known as "the Wonderworker" (from Greek *Thaumaturgus*), in his *Declaration of Faith* he presents Trinitarian Theology as clearly as anything you will find written later.
You are confusing the early church clarifying a doctrine and addressing controversial views that deviate from orthodoxy with the idea that the orthodoxy didn’t exist prior to Tertullian, the Council of Nicaea or whatever other arbitrary date you care to present.
The fact is that the Gospels present a very high Christology of Jesus. I would need to go through the laborious task of showing you how the Synoptic Gospel writers apply OT passages about YHWH to Jesus so for simplicity sake, let’s stick with John. He clearly presents the man Jesus as God in human flesh. Hopefully an Apostle is close enough to the source to dispel this nonsense that the doctrine of the Trinity was created later.
The Bible states in no uncertain terms that YHWH is the Creator but John 1:3 says the Logos created everything that has ever been created. In John 1:1 the Logos is said to both be with God and is God. Then in John 1:14 the Logos takes upon Himself a tent of human flesh and tabernacles among us. so the Logos who in-dwelt the man Jesus is God and the Creator.
There are dozens of other examples like this from scripture where the actions of YHWH are attributed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For example: The Bible indicates that all three Persons of Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. (Gal 1:1) says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. (1Pet 3:18) says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. And in (Jn 2:19) Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also Jn 10:18).
The doctrine of the Trinity is how these passages are resolved. To suggest that John, Paul and Peter didn’t know what they were teaching because the word Trinity wasn’t invented yet, defies logic.
The idea already existed in Second Temple Judaism that somehow the one and only God, YHWH existed as Two Powers In Heaven. Alan F. Segel (not a Christian) has documented this in his book by the same name.
Not only do we find commentary on the physical presence of YHWH in the Greek Second Temple material where the Logos is one of those examples of God’s physical presence but the Aramaic Targums have similar discussions about the word, Memra. What John did is take that existing concept and explained who the Logos/Memra/Word was, much like Paul used the existing Greek idea of an unknown God to make his case to the Greeks.
To pretend that this wasn’t the historical and cultural context John’s Gospel was written in, is to violate a basic rule in hermeneutics.
For those of you following this thread in silence, I want to clarify something important.
What I’ve shared here is not meant to provoke debate or win arguments. I’m not here to defend a system or attack individuals. I’m simply testifying—of what the Spirit has revealed, of what obedience has cost me, and of what it’s produced.
Some have said that the Logos—God’s own reasoning and will—“can’t be with God” as if it were something separate from Him. But the Scriptures say otherwise:
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” (John 1:1)
Many interpret this to mean: “In the beginning was Yeshua, and Yeshua was with God, and Yeshua was God.” But that’s not what the verse says. Nor is that how the early hearers would have understood it.
Logos (λόγος) in Greek does not mean “Jesus.” It means reasoning, intention, will, expression. What John is declaring is that God’s own reasoning—His inner mind and will—was with Him from the beginning, and it was fully divine, because it was His.
This isn’t describing a second person beside Him. It’s describing the internal logic and will of the Father—expressed, not divided. The Logos is not separate from God. It is God. And when the Logos was made flesh, it wasn’t God turning into a man—it was the will of God being housed in a man who fully submitted to it.
This is not about rejecting Jesus—it’s about walking as He walked, fully submitted to the will of the Father, filled with the Logos, and led by the Spirit.
I agree that the purpose of debate is to win. What I have attempted to do is engage in a dialogue with you and other people commenting about the claims made in your article. John didn’t use “Logos” in a vacuum. There was already a significant debate in 2nd Temple Judaism about the Hebrew Bible presenting YHWH as two distinct persons. One purely spirit and the other physical. The identity of the Logos (Gk) Memra (Ar) was a big part of this debate, along with figures such as The Angel of the LORD and the Captain of the LORD’s host. This debate is well documented by Jewish scholar, Alan Segel in his book “Two Powers In Heaven.”
You refer to what the Spirit has shown you which indicates that you believe your understanding of this subject is the product of divine revelation. I couldn’t possibly offer any argument or present any amount of evidence to overcome a belief that someone feels the Spirit revealed to them so no, I’m not debating this issue with you.
I commented for those quietly reading to alert them to the fact that the idea that you are presenting has always been considered a Christological heresy and it is not compatible with Christianity.
Maybe part of the reason so many believers today struggle with sin, live in cycles of guilt, and never taste true transformation is because of the very theology being defended so forcefully right now.
When Jesus is treated as God in a way that exempts Him from human weakness, then His obedience becomes unreachable. His example becomes a spectacle, not a pattern. And the command—“Be holy as I am holy”—becomes something we recite, not something we believe is possible.
Many are filled with head knowledge. They can define “hypostatic union” and recite the Nicene Creed. But they have no idea that the will of God—the Logos—is supposed to be planted in them. They’ve stopped at admiring Jesus instead of walking through Him to the Father.
They’ve made Jesus the destination, instead of the door.
But Jesus didn’t point to Himself as the end. He said:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
The goal was always the Father. Jesus lived as the perfect example of submission—not because He was God, but because He perfectly obeyed God. And now, as our High Priest, seated at the right hand of the Father, He is interceding for us, cheering us on as we learn to pick up our own cross and walk the same path.
This is not about lowering Jesus.
It’s about exalting the Father to His rightful place—and realizing that Jesus, in all His obedience and suffering, was trying to lead us back to Him.
He wasn’t showing off divine obedience.
He was showing us how to submit our human will.
And He’s still inviting us. Not just to believe in Him, but to follow Him—step by step, voice by voice, into full surrender.
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)
The tragedy of Christological error is that it makes this invitation sound like heresy… when it is actually the narrow road.
I’m happy to see you mention the Hypostatic Union because this doctrine explains that Jesus was complete in His humanity as well as His deity. Therefore, the model of His obedience as a man is not degraded by His divinity.
This is good, because now we can get right to the creed and mechanics of this union. Let’s discuss the heart of the issue—the very foundation on which the institutional church stands: the deity of Jesus.
You say the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union “explains” how Jesus was both fully God and fully man. But it doesn’t actually explain how obedience works within that framework—especially when you consider what the Third Council of Constantinople (681 AD) declared: that Jesus had two wills—one divine and one human. This doctrine is called Dyothelitism, and it was canonized to preserve the idea that Jesus could be fully God and fully man without conflict.
But this creates a serious theological dilemma.
If Jesus had two wills—one divine and one human—then which will was He submitting in the garden when He said:
“Not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42)?
If He was submitting His human will to His divine will, then His obedience was internal—a man submitting to Himself. That makes the act of obedience meaningless, because submission requires another’s will.
On the other hand, if He was submitting His human will to the Father’s will, then which will is the “divine” one in Him? If His divine will was different from the Father's, then we’ve now created two divine wills—which violates the oneness of God.
That’s where I part ways with traditional doctrine.
Yes—Jesus had two wills present in Him. But I don’t believe both belonged to Him. One was His—His human will. The other was the Father’s will, the Logos, placed in Him like a seed, as Isaiah says: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him…” (Isaiah 11:2)
Jesus didn’t obey Himself. He obeyed the Father.
One man. One human will. Fully surrendered to the will of God dwelling within Him.
That’s what makes His obedience meaningful—and repeatable. Not as a divine person pretending to be human, but as a Son showing us how to walk.
In orthodox Christian doctrine, there is no dilemma. Luke 22:42 explains that the man Jesus was praying to the Father. He submitted His will to the will of the Father. Christian doctrine doesn’t teach that Jesus was the Father incarnate so your argument that this submission was internal to Himself is refuted by the very context of the passage you are citing.
I totally see what you say and I agree with your interpretation fully. It is muddy waters when we make words say what we want to understand. You help me often put my mind question marks to rest. Thank you for having the words and for sharing.
Your argument, rooted in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, aligns with Roman logic, not the original church. The first believers were Jews, as Acts reveals—read it. They held to the Hebrew understanding of Holy Spirit: Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש), meaning “the Holy Breath”—God’s own consciousness and presence, not a separate entity. Ruach (breath/wind) is God’s life-giving essence (Genesis 1:2); HaKodesh (the Holy) is His sacred nature. Scripture confirms this: “I will put My Spirit [Ruach] within you” (Ezekiel 36:27) and “Do not take Your Holy Spirit [Ruach Kodshecha] from me” (Psalm 51:11)—it’s God Himself, indivisible (Deuteronomy 6:4), not a third person. Your Trinity reflects Rome’s man-made framework, not the unassailable truth of the early Jewish church in Jerusalem.
I started with the ECFs because i had the quotes handy. I’m sure the RCC appreciates you giving them credit for influencing what 1st and second generation students of the Apostles wrote but that is a huge stretch.
But since the people the Apostles taught aren’t Jewish enough for you, in my send reply I stuck to John, Peter and Paul. Hopefully they will pass your Jewish litmus test.
You leaned on the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) ‘cause their quotes are handy, then jabbed that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) must love me crediting them for what the Apostles’ first- and second-generation students wrote. Nah, I’m no RCC fanboy—Rome gets no props here.
The early church was Jews: Jesus, the Apostles, and their followers, period. The ECFs, Jewish themselves, lived in a Greco-Roman world and wrapped apostolic teaching in that vibe—togas, not tiaras. That’s just culture, not a conspiracy.You’re twisting my take, saying I find their Jewishness lacking—wrong. I’m saying their Jewish core shines through a Greco-Roman lens, and that matters. John, Peter, and Paul? Jewish to the bone, their message pulsing with that DNA. No litmus test—just context.
They’re the real ECFs, brother, and their Jewishness isn’t a footnote; they’re the heartbeat. So, hit me back—stick to them if you want, but that loop’s closed: the early church was Jewish, and it shaped everything.
It is true that Jesus, the Apostles and the very first believers were primarily Jewish. The Samaritan women likely had some Israelite blood but even Jesus said He had sheep not of this fold (Jn 10:16). From Acts 13-14 Paul was actively spreading Christianity among the Gentiles.
By the end of the 1st century, major centers of Christianity included Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, along with other regions like Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaea, with Ephesus both being a major religious center for Pagans and Christianity.
The RCC claims it was started by Peter. Even if we accept that premise as true, Rome was just one of numerous major centers of Christian growth.
We know that Justin Martyr was a Jewish convert but even by the end of the 1st Century the Church was predominantly Gentile. John’s student, Polycarp was a Gentile. Linus and Clement are thought to be students of Peter. While I reject the idea that Luke was a Gentile, because that claim is problematic in the Biblical text, Titus was a Gentile and Timothy was half Jewish.
But anytime I mention an early church father who wasn’t Jewish you smear him as being tainted by Rome. Your rejection of what the primarily Gentile Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote, as being tainted by Rome denies the history of how the church spread and its cultural makeup, before the close of the canon.
We do need to read the Gospels in the 1st century Jewish context they were given in. That is why I have pointed out the Two Powers In Heaven idea that already existed within Judaism in that time. Segel identifies that idea as a heresy among the Jews but the idea was well known. Add to that the heavy use of the LXX (Jesus and the Apostles follow the LXX readings about 70% of the time when quoting the OT) and John’s argument for the deity of Christ in his Gospel fits that historical, cultural context. It is not some perversion introduced by Rome.
D. Papa, you’ve laid out a solid case: Jesus and His first followers were Jewish, rooted in that 1st-century context. The Samaritan woman might’ve had Israelite blood, but Jesus Himself said He had sheep beyond that fold (John 10:16). Paul’s Gentile mission in Acts 13-14, the spread to Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, and beyond by century’s end—it’s history we can’t argue. You note the RCC’s claim about Peter founding it, but rightly point out Rome was just one hub among many. Justin Martyr, Jewish; Polycarp, Gentile; Linus and Clement, tied to Peter; Titus, Gentile; Timothy, half-Jewish—you’ve mapped the shift to a Gentile-majority church by the late 1st century. I’ll even grant you Luke’s Jewishness might hold up under scrutiny; the text doesn’t scream Gentile there. Fair enough.
But here’s where you lose me, and I’m not letting it slide: You say I smear every non-Jewish early church father as “tainted by Rome,” dismissing their Ante-Nicene writings as some Roman conspiracy. That’s not my argument—you’re dodging the real question. I’m not hung up on Rome like it’s the boogeyman; I’m asking about human nature, period. You’re the one who brought up the Two Powers in Heaven, the LXX’s dominance (70% of OT quotes, you claim—bold stat, and I’ll buy it), and John’s Logos fitting that Jewish milieu. I’m with you—those aren’t Roman inventions. They’re baked into the 1st-century Jewish cake. So why do you assume I’m pinning everything on Rome when I question what comes after?
Let’s cut to the chase and wrestle this down: Jesus comes to His people—Israel. He doesn’t trash the Torah; He slices through the legalism choking it, pointing back to God’s heart. Love, mercy, justice—the stuff the prophets begged for. Then He leaves, and hands the keys to—let’s say Paul, the sharpest tool in the shed. Pharisee, Gamaliel’s star pupil, fluent in the Law, yet tasked with taking this to the Gentiles. You’re proud of that spread—Jerusalem to Ephesus, Jewish to Gentile. Fine. But here’s the brain-twister I want you to grapple with: If Jesus corrected human distortion among His own, and Paul knew exactly what that correction looked like, how do you explain what we’ve got now? Christianity today—dogmas, creeds, holidays, the whole package—looks like a kaleidoscope of human hands, not a straight line from Jesus’ mouth.
Don’t dodge with “Rome did it.” That’s too easy, and you know it’s not the full story. The Gentile church was already dominant by the late 1st century—your words. Ephesus was a pagan hotspot before it was Christian; Antioch wasn’t exactly Jerusalem 2.0. Every stop on Paul’s map brought a new filter—Greek philosophy, Roman order, local baggage. Human nature doesn’t wait for a pope to meddle; it starts the second the message lands. So, if Paul’s genius was translating Jesus’ Jewish truth to the nations, why does the result feel so…unrecognizable? Not just to me, but to what Jesus taught on that Galilean hillside?
You want logic? Here’s the gauntlet: If the Savior’s point was to strip away man-made clutter, and Paul nailed that vision, how much of modern Christianity is signal, and how much is noise? The Ante-Nicene Fathers—Gentile or not—didn’t write in a vacuum. They were humans, not robots. Culture seeps in. Power shifts. Ideas bend. I’m not saying throw them out; I’m saying test them. You lean on that Jewish context—good, it’s gold. But if it’s gold, why not judge everything after it by that standard? Not my Judaism versus your Christianity—just reason. Tell me: Is what we’ve got now what Jesus meant, or what humans wanted? Scratch your head, D. Papa. I’m scratching mine.
Sergio, this is the type of reply that caused me to enjoy most of our earlier interactions. I will endeavor to respond in kind and hopefully we can return to the reasoned exchanges we originally had.
I suggested that you were discounting all the ECFs as tainted by Rome, because from my perspective that objection came up regularly. But if we are agreeing that is not the case, we can move beyond that point and onto your more interesting questions.
Just for clarity, I didn’t personally count the OT references and determine the percentage that follow the LXX reading but I’ve seen that 70% figure used often enough that I take it as likely accurate.
I’m not anti-MT or the proto-Masoretic Texts that the MT was later based upon. I just pointed out the number of quotes from the Greek version of the OT to show that Jesus and the Apostles used both versions of the OT. I see no indication that they didn’t consider both versions to be scripture. But again we seem to have some level of agreement on the variety of cultural and interpretive influences in Second Temple Judaism, so I take that as a positive note as well.
I also agree that different cultures come to the scripture with their own unique world-views and baggage as you put it. So what we find in the early church is a divide both East and West and Greco-Roman versus North African. Each segment of the Church saw the scriptures from different perspectives. This is why the debates and rulings (canons) of the early Ecumenical Councils are so informative. Bishops from a variety of perspectives came together to discuss and debate a variety of issues. Did they always get it right? Absolutely not.
There are tons of claims that circle the Internet about what happened at 1st Nicaea and most are baseless but they did make one grievous mistake IMO and that was to disconnect the celebration of the week culminating with the resurrection of Jesus from the Jewish Feasts (specifically Passover was the issue being debated). I use this as an example to show that I don’t think the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are on par with scripture but the debates at those Councils can inform our understanding of scripture.
Oh, here we go again—did I bruise your ego, D Papa? You’re acting like I’ve got some vendetta against non-Jews, when really, it’s you throwing a tantrum over the Jewish roots of your faith. Take a timeout, sip a slushee, and let’s chat like grown-ups talk. Deal?
Interesting that you are trusting your eternity, not to the Eternal Word of God, which you failed to quote at all, but to men who are dead and buried in their sins.
I’m trusting my eternal security to the living Word - Jesus. Not the Jesus of the oneness cults but rather the Jesus of scripture, the early church and the Jesus of every Christian Church (not considered a cult) for more than 2 millennia.
I'm not familiar with the oneness cult..? A reference to..?
My comment to you was prompted only by your quoting many men and their proprietary doctrines, but no Scriptures - which our Lord said -'in them ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'
My original comment was in response to a post that was misquoting and misrepresenting what the Early Church Fathers believed about the Trinity - claiming that they didn’t. Words have meaning and the label “Christian” has been historically applied to those people who believe in the doctrines considered essential to historic Christian orthodoxy. Those doctrines are universally believed whether the Christian is Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, etc. even when the There have always been groups that claimed to be Christians but who deny one or more of those essential doctrines. The Gnostics, Judaizers and other non-Christian sects existed even while the Apostles were still writing the scripture. Other non-Christian cults came up later. Many of the early Ecumenical Councils were convened to refute these false doctrines and deniers of the Trinity. Other non-Christian cults arose centuries later (e.g. the Mormons and JWs). There are still people today (in this thread) who deny the Trinity. Deciding whether they are saved is above my pay grade but Trinity deniers like Oneness teachers are not Christians according to the historical meaning of that word.
You may not consider me a Christian because I reject the Trinity. But I assure you, I didn’t come to that conclusion lightly, or by reading cult material. In fact, it was leaving the teachings of men that brought me to this point.
For years, I believed the Trinity too. I quoted the creeds. I thought the Logos was Jesus, that the Bible was the Word, and that orthodoxy was the gold standard. But then the Holy Spirit began to un-teach me. Slowly. Patiently. He showed me that the "Word" was not a book or a person—but a Voice. A living communication that required full surrender. He showed me the Logos wasn’t a second divine being, but the very will and reasoning of the Father Himself.
The turning point was John 14:12: “Whoever believes in Me will do the works I do—and greater.” I read that, and everything in me cried out: Then why aren’t we?
I bet my life on that promise.
I asked the Father to baptize me with fire, to burn out of me anything that wasn’t pleasing to Him. I told Him I’d undergo whatever Job did if that’s what it took. I would not quit. I would persevere until the testing was over. And He must have loved that prayer—because my life got turned upside down. Asking for patience became a joke. I was undone, stripped down, and remade from the inside out.
What came out the other side wasn’t a man with new theology. It was a bondservant. I came to obedience not through argument, but through fire. And through that fire, the Logos became clear—not as Jesus Himself, but as the divine will of the Father planted like a seed inside me.
I didn’t arrive at that through man-made formulas or centuries-old councils. I didn’t repeat what others said. I went straight to the source.
The Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will teach us all things, and that we don’t need man to teach us. So I trusted that promise. And He delivered.
So you and I came to different conclusions—not because I denied truth, but because I refused to let man define it for me. I chose to let the Spirit lead. And the fruit speaks for itself: casting out demons, healing the sick, walking in the power and fear of God.
Not because I’m special, but because I obeyed the Will and the Voice of Jesus' Father as we are commanded to.
It is not about whether I consider you a Christian. Words have meaning. For 2,000+ years the label Christian has been used of people who believe a core set of doctrines - one of which is that Jesus was God incarnate. Another is that the one and only God exists in 3 persons. People who hold to different beliefs are not considered Christians using that definition. They are typically referred to as heretics or members of non-Christian cults.
Scripture tells you that there are many spirits who aren’t the Holy Spirit. That is why we need to test what they say by the word of God. Any spirit who denies Jesus as God in human flesh teaches a different Jesus and is accursed.
You said that John 14:12 was key in your rejection of the Jesus of Christianity. So now that you are following a different Jesus are you walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead or taking away the sins of mankind? Of course you’re not, so your argument fails right there. But don’t worry, that isn’t even what that passage means.
The ministry of Jesus lasted at most 3.5 years. He performed a limited number of miracles. The number of miracles that have occurred among His followers since dwarfs the number He performed. They are greater in number not scope.
Except sir, that the Holy Scriptures do not teach a trinity. Taken apart at the seams, the trinity would have us believe that:
* Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden of Gesthemane.
* Jesus said 'Not MY will, but MY will be done'
* Jesus raised himself, meaning he was not then 'dead', which means we are all still in our sins, for without the death of the testator, there is no confirmation of a covenant. (Hebrews 9:16)
* Jesus both raised himself, and for his obedience to himself, gave himself a name above every name.
* Jesus awarded himself 'all power on heaven and earth' (Matthew 28:18)
And so on. None of it makes any sense because it is all predicated on a 'mystery' (so love the priests to say) yet Jesus himself gave his disciples the knowledge of all mysteries of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13:36) There are no more 'mysteries' that the Church cannot know and explain. That 3 are 1 is not a mystery, it is the clearly effective tactic of the enemy to rob God of His sole worship, and distribute it to Mary, Jesus, Peter, icons, and so on. Which also makes the hapless perps guilty of breaking the commandment, to have 'no other gods before Me'.
What I ask you to consider carefully, is the reason for the lie to begin with. In the Garden, the first lie was unveiled by satan - ye shall be as gods.,. turning John 14:12 into something that either makes all of us as God, or - as is largely the case - turns all of would-be disciples into powerless purveyors of 'tradition' and 'theology', rather than duplicates of Jesus Christ.
Jesus wants us to imitate him. His last commandment (as a last will and testament) in Acts 1:4,5,8 - was that his disciples would be 'baptized' NOT in water as the Church lives in the Old Testament performing - but in holy spirit and in fire; which baptism fills one with spirit, (seed) makes them 'born of God', (born again), and empowers them to do everything Jesus ever did. As his disciples to this day obey.
If you believe the Scriptures, it is incumbent upon you to obey the Lord's commandment, and be baptized in holy spirit, which according to Jesus own words, is the only way we are witnesses unto him.
All else is religion, that any other religion can compete with. And do. THe only thing they CANNOT do in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc, is evict demons, heal the sick, speak in tongues and the rest of the 9 manifestations of holy spirit.
The scriptures very clearly teach the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is less obvious in the Old Testament but the Two Powers In Heaven are clearly there, while at the same time affirming unconditionally that there is, was and ever will only be one God - who is by nature God (our creator). In John 1:1 we find that the Logos is both with God and is God. In John 1:3 the Logos created everything that has ever been created, affirming that there Logos is the eternal Creator. In John 1:14 the Logos took upon Himself a tent of human flesh (the man Jesus) and tabernacled among us. There are dozens of other passages that teach the Trinity. You are free to deny the doctrine but I have studied the scriptures for more than 50 years and this is something that I’m certain is true.
In John 1:1, the Logos was "with" God. "With" is described as a preposition of direction (not of position). "Being ever more-with."
The Logos "made flesh" is also accommodatingly ambiguous and in motion. "Made - be assembled, grow, be wrought."
I have been meditating for some years on the poetry embedded in these doctrines. Having recently come across the quantum formulation "similar particles are not separate," made the One-or-Three issue pretty much moot.
To focus and prioritize, as Jesus did, The Father, does not require further immovable definition from me. Every question points to an answer of sincere affection, and proper awe / obedience. No guardrails against heresy (the purpose of most credal fancy-dancing) are needed in those territories.
Though theological and textual parsing can be exhilarating, because then we turn our eyes to the Divine
This is a well-researched and passionately argued critique of the historical development of the Trinity doctrine. You’ve traced how theological and political influences shaped Christian doctrine, moving it away from its Jewish roots. Your focus on the apostles’ original monotheistic belief and the later doctrinal shifts is compelling, I must say
That being said, one thing to consider is the role of early Christian worship and devotion to Jesus. Even before the formal Trinity doctrine, believers prayed to, worshipped, and ascribed divine attributes to Jesus (Philippians 2:6-11, Revelation 5:13-14). How do you reconcile that with your argument that the apostles never saw Him as divine?
Thank you for your question, Joshua. It is essential that we question everything we are taught. That said, I hope this doctrine receives the same level of scrutiny—not through the lens of human reasoning, but by seeking the Holy Spirit, for He alone is the true Teacher.
I encourage you to consider the influence of 1,800+ years of doctrinal tradition on our understanding today. We are conditioned to think through theological lenses shaped by councils, creeds, and constant repetition. But if we were to clear the slate and let only Scripture and the Holy Spirit teach us, what would we find?
If the entire Bible is about the fall and restoration of mankind’s relationship with the Father, and if Jesus’ ultimate obedience—even unto death—was to bring us back to the Father, then why has the focus shifted away from the Father to Jesus, whose very life and sacrifice were the ultimate act of worship to the Father?
Below are two forms of worship. The English language uses one term, the Greek uses two:
I appreciate your response and your call to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance in understanding doctrine. That’s something we can both agree on - truth isn’t determined by councils or creeds but by God Himself.
That said, your argument assumes that the Trinity shifts focus away from the Father when, in reality, it magnifies His nature. Jesus didn’t just point to the Father—He revealed Him. He said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). If Jesus were merely a created being or only an anointed man, how could He make such a claim without it being blasphemy?
You emphasize Jesus’ obedience to the Father, and rightly so. But obedience doesn’t negate divinity—Philippians 2:6-8 shows that Jesus, who was in very nature God, humbled Himself. The Son’s submission to the Father isn’t a contradiction to the Trinity; it’s a reflection of how God’s nature includes relationship and love within Himself.
So, the real question isn’t whether Jesus redirects our focus from the Father, but whether He is the perfect image of the Father, making Him worthy of the same worship. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Given the fact that you replied to me so quickly, show you spent no time alone with God offering your questions to Him, rather you reverted to your own intellect.
I appreciate your engagement, Joshua, but I encourage you to take time alone with God on these matters. When I approach these discussions, I don’t just rely on my own thoughts—I pray, wait, and test what I write to ensure it aligns with the Holy Spirit’s leading. There have been times when I’ve written something, only to sense that it wasn’t right, prompting me to delete or rethink it entirely.
I challenge you to do the same—take your questions to the Father, seek His wisdom, and wait on His answer before forming a response. The goal isn’t just debate but discernment. I’d love to hear what He shows you.
Well, it seems to me from my reading of the New Testament that Jesus is presented as more than merely human and the Holy Spirit has his own person hood. So cool, three for the price of one and a lot of fun. I agree that the Spirit and the Son conspire and work together so we grow into being experientially a brother of Jesus as him being the first borne among many brethren and we walk with the Father as Jesus did filled with the Holy Spirit. We are baptized into Jesus, and are one spirit with him He is in us and with us as we pray in the Spirit to the Father who is there in secret. I have no problem with the Trinitarian dance.
What do you do with Phil 2: 5–8? Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
It says Jesus gave up the form of God, which He evidently had before He was born.
First, the Third Council of Constantinople (680 AD) condemned Monothelitism, the belief that Jesus had only one will. This council marked the solidification of the Trinity doctrine in most of the church. They concluded that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. The reasoning was that Jesus needed to be sin-free, and the solution was to attribute to Him two natures—divine and human. This interpretation aligned with John 1 and ten other scriptures, even though sixty-one scriptures state otherwise.
Jesus did not have human sperm DNA, which made Him free from the fall of Adam. He was naturally born as the second Adam, free from the bondage of sin. Consequently, the Logos, understood as the Father's divine will and reasoning, replaces the concept of a divine Jesus spirit. In this understanding, the Logos was and is God, using Jesus' human flesh as His tabernacle. The will of the Father was present in Jesus, directing Him in every instruction to which He submitted. Jesus modeled this relationship as an example for believers: "I will put My spirit (will) in you."
"In the Form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ | morphē theou)
The phrase "form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ, morphē theou) does not indicate that Jesus was God in essence. The Greek word morphē refers to outward appearance, role, or status rather than ontological nature. This is evident when compared to morphē doulou ("form of a servant") in verse 7: Jesus was not literally a slave but took on the status and function of one. Likewise, He was not literally God but bore God's image and authority as the vessel of the Logos. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation (χαρακτὴρ, charaktēr) of His being." A representation is not the original. Jesus reflects God's nature, but that does not make Him God.
"Did Not Consider Equality with God Something to Be Grasped"
The phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν (ouch harpagmon) is crucial to understanding this passage. The word harpagmos means "something to be seized, taken by force, or held onto." Some interpret this as Jesus already possessing equality with God but choosing to relinquish it. However, this contradicts Jesus' clear statements of subordination (John 14:28, John 5:19). The correct interpretation is that Jesus did not attempt to seize or claim divine status. He did not exalt Himself as equal with God but humbled Himself in obedience. This interpretation aligns with John 5:30: "I can do nothing by Myself."
"Emptied Himself" (ἐκένωσεν | ekenōsen)
The Greek verb ekenōsen means "to empty" or "make of no reputation." Some Trinitarians argue that this means Jesus temporarily set aside divine attributes, but that would imply He was not fully God while on earth, contradicting their own doctrine. A better understanding is that Jesus emptied Himself of any claim to earthly status or privilege, not of divine nature. This interpretation aligns with the context of humility and submission to God's will. Jesus' "emptying" was an act of obedience, not an incarnation.
"Being Found in Appearance as a Man"
The phrase "found in appearance as a man" (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος) confirms that Jesus was fully human, not a divine-human hybrid. He did not merely "take on" human flesh—He was entirely human. If Jesus were both fully God and fully man, this phrase would be misleading.
Greek definition: The Logos is the will and reasoning of God—His divine mind, purpose, and expression. It is not a separate being but the eternal, active intelligence of God through which He creates, sustains, and reveals Himself.
I can take that either way. But the question reaimans about John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
This passage speaks about the Logos (God’s reasoning and will), not Jesus as a preexistent being. The trinity teaches Jesus had a pre existing spirit(will), that entered a human “tent”.
The difficulty is answered easily with Paul's revelation in Colossians 1:15, that Jesus was the 'first born of all creation'. That would mean he was there when אֱלֹהִ֑ים ’ĕ-lō-hîm created the heaven and earth.
It stands to reason seeing as he - Jesus - is the 'wisdom and power of God'. How to create without wisdom and power?
That God created Jesus - the Logos - making him in His own image - does not make Jesus God himself, any more than Adam was God, who was also made in God's image.
What I’m about to share is not theory to me—it’s been a fire-walk of unlearning and relearning, a slow and patient process guided by the Holy Spirit alone. Years ago, He began retraining me on something I thought I already understood: the “Word of God.”
At first, it started with a gentle unraveling. I had always believed the Bible was the Word, and the Word was Jesus. Trinity doctrine had indoctrinated me deeply. But the Holy Spirit began showing me that the “Word” in scripture referred not to a book or a being, but to a Voice. A living, present communication I was being invited to hear, follow, and obey.
That was the first crack in the foundation.
Years passed. The Spirit let the subject rest until last year, when He began again—this time opening up the Greek. I studied deeply. I prayed. I wrestled hard. And eventually, something clicked. The Logos wasn’t Jesus. It was the will and reasoning of God the Father Himself—His divine logic, His thought process, His internal blueprint for creation and righteousness.
Here’s the best way I’ve come to define it:
The Logos is the eternal mind, will, and reasoning of God the Father—His purpose and intent, expressed in communication and action. It is not a person, but the divine logic by which all things were made, sustained, and by which He reveals Himself to creation. It is the voice behind every command, the pattern behind every truth, and the seed of life He plants in those who submit to Him.
This Logos is a seed. It gets planted in us when we receive God's will. And as we submit to it—burying our own will under His—that seed grows, matures, and bears fruit. It isn’t academic. It’s transformative. It’s how we become one with Him.
So when I say Jesus isn’t the Logos, I don’t mean that to diminish Jesus at all. What I’m saying is this: Jesus is the perfect vessel of the Logos. He bore it, obeyed it, and fulfilled it. But the Logos existed before Jesus, because it is God’s eternal will—and it continues now in those who walk as He walked.
That’s why I wanted to follow up on your earlier point about Jesus being the “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). If Jesus was created in God’s image (like Adam), then He can’t also be the Logos—because the Logos was never created. It is what created.
Paul uses “firstborn” in the Hebrew sense—not of birth order, but preeminence and inheritance. Just like Israel was called God's “firstborn,” Jesus is first in rank over the new creation—not because He was alive at creation, but because He was the first to perfectly submit to the Logos and embody it fully.
So yes—Jesus is the image of God. Yes, He is the wisdom and power of God manifested. But He is not the Logos itself. He is what happens when a human being is filled with, led by, and fully obedient to the Logos.
That’s what I believe God wants for us too. Not to worship Jesus as God, but to walk as He walked, by the same Spirit and Voice He submitted to.
This isn’t doctrine I learned from anyone. I’ve never read a book about it. What I share is what I’ve heard directly through the Word speaking in me—the Logos of the Father. And my hope is that this brings clarity, not division.
Because we are both of the same Spirit, I hope you can pray and allow the Holy Spirit to take what I’ve shared and reveal to you what I was shown. Let Him confirm it, as only He can.
I like how you ended this, because that’s exactly what I will do. I’ll ask him. Thank you for caring enought to share so much, and for loving the Lord so much that you put the time in to know him, where so many others refuse.
God is wonderful. May He bless you marvelously in the name of the King, Jesus Christ.
We mentioned at least two, and I’m sure there are more verses that indicate that Jesus existed in heaven with the Father before he gave that up to be born a man. What was He before in your thought? He was the original image of God, right? So, he was part of God, right? I don’t understand.
How do you break free from being conditioned as you read those scriptures? They are like a parable that needs wisdom. They’re like the “old woman, young woman” image that needs to have the brain focus from another perspective.
My question is how does this fit with Jesus' prayer in John 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
So, if the Bride is going to be part of the oneness, how does that fit?
Prayer is super powerful when it is spoken from the will of the Father. 1-5, 20-23 are that type of prayer. The oneness prayed about in 20-23 is for future believers to bury their will into the Father's will. If everyone could do that, the Kingdom of Heaven would be on earth. This post explains what is required to be in oneness: https://erikperison.substack.com/p/from-separation-to-union?r=2u3m64
The complete fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 – a fully unified people, operating in perfect alignment with the Father.
A Church that moves as one body, without division, confusion, or disobedience.
A manifestation of God’s kingdom on earth – as the Church would be living proof of God’s power, will, and truth.
A reversal of the corruption in the world – as the people of God would finally be fully functioning as intended, just as Jesus did.
This is not just a theoretical possibility—this is the will of the Father for His people.
Luke 22:42 – “Not My will, but Yours be done.”
If every believer said this with complete surrender, the Church would be unstoppable.
Ephesians 4:13 – “Until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
This would be the ultimate maturity of the Body of Christ—a people perfectly united under God’s will.
If I understand it, this is our position as Yeshua’s Bride. We’re the Father’s special gift to our Messiah, forever, especially after He hands over the Kingly role in the new creation. I don’t have any proof of that, of course.
My understanding is that the church ends when Yeshua picks up His Bride. The kingdom is Israel. I'm still not seeing any explanation about who Jesus was before He laid it down to be born.
I skimmed it… I’ll read it more careful tomorrow. My question: Are We and Jesus unique. Or does the Father develop the same relationships with Israel? It seems like Jesus’ manhood changed Him. The new creation is going to be interesting. I suspect that Israel still keeps reproducing there. But that’s just a guess.
yes, Jesus is unique, but the relationship the Father developed with Him serves as a model for all believers. Jesus fully submitted to the Father's will, showing the ideal relationship between God and humanity. However, Israel was also called to a similar relationship. In the Old Testament, God referred to Israel as His "son" (Exodus 4:22, Hosea 11:1), and He desired a covenant relationship with them where they would reflect His character and follow His will. The difference is that while Israel repeatedly failed, Jesus perfectly fulfilled that role. We are grafted into the same tree as Israel, and both groups will function the same submission to the Father. Jesus then remains our Advocate and High Priest seated at the right hand of the Father.
VErse 5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. This is another one which says He was God before He laid it all down.
This really seems solid to me. Beautifully done. I asked Jesus if this was Truth. The response I got was, "It's quite a bit closer, but parts of Truth will not be seen until you have your spiritual bodies." Or something like that. It seems clean and true to me. Thank you. Lord.
Sage! Huge thanks for diving headfirst into those tough and sometimes controversial topics about how Christian beliefs, especially the Trinity, came to be. Your fearless approach is truly inspiring! By tackling these complex subjects, you’re kicking off some crucial conversations that make us think harder and understand the roots of our faith better.
Your exploration of the theological and political influences that molded early Christianity sheds light on how these beliefs developed over time. It also challenges us to think about what we believe in today, enriching our spiritual journey as we reflect on this.
This kind of fearless questioning shows that truth stands strong under examination. Your work is a powerful reminder that faith and reason can and should go hand in hand. Keep pushing the envelope—your bravery is both essential and uplifting!
Ultimately, the abandonment of Jewish heritage in Christianity was not a natural or scriptural progression but a deliberate restructuring of doctrine and practice to align with Roman imperial interests. Recognizing this allows for a reclamation of the original faith, centered on the covenant, the obedience of Jesus to the Father’s will, and the true role of the Logos.
Love it!
Thanks. And I want your questions that this generates.
"This kind of fearless questioning shows that truth stands strong under examination."
Well said!
A tremendously clear recounting of the descent of the Faith that was first given to the fathers. That we were told to guard.
Interesting that you quoted I Corinthians 8:6..
"For us, there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
Which - verse 7 goes on to point out..
'HOWEVER there is not in every man this knowlege!!" (emphasis mine).
FAR too many Christians seek to curry favor with God doing it however arse-backwards.
HIS favor is curried by FAITH, by a 'SEARCHING OF THE SCRIPTURES DAILY - by casting away the trappings of darkness, not by blindly following the traditions of men - who seek to forward their own doctrines at the cost of truth.
Is it not this 'seeking to curry favor with God' that leads Christians (so called) to support this iteration of ISRAEL in its diabolical slaughter of the innocents..??
Thank you thank you thank you. This Anthology deserves to be shared.. which I now do...
This article is filled with the Water of life John 4:4; Revelation 22:17, Soli Deo gloria!!!!!!!
Ezekiel 47:1
“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar.”
Nice work, great introduction to the most significant deception since Adam and Eve were told, ‘you won’t die!’.
Once again I feel inspired as I read your words. You write quite eloquently and take on subjects most people won't go near. I'm just grateful for God's Holiness and my depravity. Without that simple recognition, I would be wandering aimlessly in pursuit of eternal hell without even considering the most important question we face in our lives.
Thank goodness that the Lord allowed me to get lost only to be found. Pretty raw moments came and went that have begun refining me until the Trinity (as one) is fully satisfied.
Thank you for your kind words, Scott—and I redirect them back to our Father, who encourages me to write whatever He desires for that day. If anything I wrote stirred you, may it be His Spirit drawing both of us deeper into His will.
I noticed something you said—“I’m grateful for God’s holiness and my depravity.” I understand the heart behind it, but I’ve come to see that differently over time.
Yes, we begin depraved—fallen, blind, rebellious. But the refining process isn’t just about exposing our depravity. It’s about burning it out until only His will remains.
The Spirit didn’t come just to forgive us. He came to transform us, to write the Logos—the Father’s own will—on our hearts, until we walk as Jesus walked. That’s not a call to live in our depravity. It’s a call to become holy.
The goal of holiness isn’t unreachable—it’s the reason Jesus came: to show us how to surrender so the Father could dwell fully in us too.
Agreed. Together through sanctification God refines me into who he wants me to be. Out with the old, in with the new!
The disciples did not worship Jesus. They came to finally understand that he was the 'Christ, the Son of the Living God', for which claim the Lord commended Peter.
Nor did they pray to him.
Why ask - 'Lord, teach us to pray', if they thought God were standing before them?
The most insidious lie of the doctrine of the Trinity, is that it nullifies the path to salvation; As, to be saved, a man must believe that GOD raised JESUS from the dead (Romans 10:9 & 10). How to believe that Jesus were dead - if Jesus is God? And if dead, how did he raise himself? Does anyone really think the devil thought he could 'kill God'??
The problems are endless with the false doctrine, which is why the priests make the false claim that it is a 'mystery'. HAH. Yet Jesus told his disciples that they are given the 'mysteries of the Kingdom of God'. How do any 'mysteries remain' for his disciples then? They don't. Only the false 'mysteries' concocted by the antichrists.. to deprive men of their relationship with the Lord., and if possible - eternal life.
There are so many factual and logical errors to address in this post, one comment would not be sufficient. To suggest that the Trinity wasn’t formulated under AD 325 or 361 ignores what the Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote.
Here are just a few of the many quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (church leaders and writers before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) that affirm the concept of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct yet united in the divine nature.
1. **Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-110 AD)**
- From his *Letter to the Magnesians* (Chapter 13):
*"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit."*
- Ignatius frequently connects the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way that suggests their unity and distinction, reflecting an early Trinitarian framework.
2. **Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD)**
- From *First Apology* (Chapter 61):
*"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."*
- Justin links the three in the context of baptism, echoing Matthew 28:19 and showing an early recognition of their roles in Christian worship and salvation.
3. **Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-185 AD)**
- From *To Autolycus* (Book 2, Chapter 15):
*"The three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity: God, and His Word, and His Wisdom."*
- Theophilus is the first known writer to use the term "Trinity" (Greek: *Trias*), identifying God (the Father), His Word (the Son), and His Wisdom (the Holy Spirit) as a unified trio.
4. **Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD)**
- From *Against Heresies* (Book 1, Chapter 10, Section 1):
*"The Church... believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God."*
- Irenaeus consistently presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct yet working together in the plan of salvation, a key Trinitarian idea.
5. **Tertullian (c. 155-220 AD)**
- From *Against Praxeas* (Chapter 2):
*"We do indeed believe that there is only one God; but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, *oikonomia*, there is also a Son of this one only God, His Word, who proceeded from Him, and through whom all things were made... and the Holy Spirit, sent from the Father through the Son."*
- Tertullian coined the Latin term *Trinitas* (Trinity) and articulated the concept of one God in three persons (*una substantia, tres personae*), a foundational step in Trinitarian theology.
6. **Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD)**
- From *The Instructor* (Book 1, Chapter 5):
*"Thank the One only Father and Son, Son and Father; the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One."*
- Clement emphasizes the unity and distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit, pointing to their shared divine nature.
7. **Origen (c. 185-254 AD)**
- From *On First Principles* (Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 7):
*"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His Word and Reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things."*
- Origen speaks of the Trinity as a unity without hierarchy in essence, affirming the eternal coexistence of Father, Son (Word), and Spirit.
These quotes demonstrate that, well before the Council of Nicaea, early Christian writers were grappling with and expressing the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that align with Trinitarian theology. While their formulations vary and sometimes lack the precision of later creeds (like Nicea’s emphasis on *homoousios*—
I'm going to reply to 1 point at a time, otherwise I would have to write a book.:
1) The claim that Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-110 AD) taught the Trinity is a misrepresentation of his actual writings, as it retroactively imposes Nicene Trinitarian theology onto a 1st-century text. While Ignatius acknowledges the Father, Son, and Spirit in his letters, nowhere does he describe them as co-equal persons of the same divine essence, as required by the later doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he emphasizes a clear hierarchy, where the Father is the one supreme God, Jesus is His Son and agent, and the Spirit is God's power at work. The Trinitarian assumption that any mention of Father, Son, and Spirit equals Trinitarian belief is a logical fallacy called eisegesis rather than interpreting it in its original historical and theological context.
First, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians (Chapter 13) is often cited by Trinitarians as proof of early Trinitarian belief.
He writes:
“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit.”
While this passage lists the Father, Son, and Spirit together, this does not mean Ignatius was teaching the later doctrine of the Trinity. Listing three things together does not prove co-equality or a shared divine essence. If that logic were applied consistently, then the Jewish scriptures, which refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could also be called "Trinitarian," which is absurd. The burden of proof is on Trinitarians to show that Ignatius explicitly describes the three as one essence, and they cannot do this because his writings do not support it.
Second, the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist in Ignatius’ time.
* The word “Trinity” (Trinitas) was not even invented until Tertullian (c. 200 AD), nearly 100 years later.
* The doctrine of homoousios was not introduced until Nicaea in 325 AD and was highly controversial.
* Ignatius did not establish the Trinity; otherwise, early church leaders would not have debated and struggled with Christ’s divinity for over 200 years.
* The fact that the Arian controversy (c. 320 AD) divided the church proves that Trinitarian doctrine was not settled in Ignatius’ time.
If Ignatius had clearly taught the Trinity, there would have been no need for later church councils to define and defend it.
Furthermore, Ignatius emphasizes the supremacy of the Father, which contradicts Trinitarian co-equality. In Letter to the Ephesians (Chapter 3), he writes:
“Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the world began and appeared at the end of time for our salvation.”
This passage affirms Jesus' pre-existence, but it does not state that he is co-equal with the Father. Pre-existence does not mean equality; many early Christians believed that Christ was the firstborn of all creation, yet distinct and subordinate to the Father.
Likewise, in Letter to the Smyrnaeans (Chapter 8), Ignatius states:
“I glorify Jesus Christ as God, the Father who raised Him up.”
Here, Jesus is glorified as divine, but the Father is still seen as the one with ultimate authority over Him. If Ignatius believed in the Trinity, why does he continually place the Father above the Son? This hierarchical relationship contradicts the doctrine of co-equality, proving that Ignatius did not hold to later Trinitarian formulations.
Additionally, later theologians invented Trinitarianism—not Ignatius. If Ignatius had clearly taught the Trinity, then why did:
* Tertullian (c. 200 AD) introduce the term “Trinitas” with subordination?
* Origen (c. 250 AD) describe the Son as “a second God” under the Father?
* The Arian controversy (c. 320 AD) divide the church over Jesus’ divinity?
* The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) introduce homoousios to combat Arianism?
* The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) further clarify the Holy Spirit’s role?
The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop proves that Ignatius did not teach it, otherwise, there would have been no need for later councils and debates. Ignatius had not defined the Trinity, the church leaders struggled for 300 years to establish it, and another 200 years to work out its precise terminology, theological implications, and doctrinal conflicts, facing multiple revisions, rejections, and reformulations through a series of church councils and debates until it became the standardized doctrine in the late 7th century.
Finally, Ignatius' writings reflect the same early Christian monotheism:
1. The Father is the one supreme God.
2. Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, distinct from the Father.
3. The Holy Spirit is the power and presence of God.
This is not Trinitarianism, it is subordinationism, which contradicts Nicene theology. The Trinity doctrine was a later philosophical development influenced by Greek metaphysics and Roman political pressures, not an original teaching of the apostles or early church fathers. The Trinity doctrine changed or was debated at least 8–10 times before a final consensus emerged in 680-681 AD.
Thus, the claim that Ignatius taught the Trinity collapses under historical scrutiny. While he affirmed the Father, Son, and Spirit, he never describes them as co-equal persons of one divine essence, as Trinitarian doctrine requires. If Trinitarians insist that Ignatius believed in the Trinity, they must explain why his actual writings fail to explicitly state it and why the doctrine took centuries to formalize. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Trinity is a later doctrinal invention, not the faith of Ignatius or the early church.
Well I’m glad you decided to only address one point at a time since in my first reply I only made one point.
The attempt you made equates references to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are disingenuous. The words “Father” and “Son” have no meaning without relationship, while the same God can be and is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You also dismiss early references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as non-Trinitarian because the writer doesn’t discuss co-eternal status. This is an argument from silence. What is clear is that Early Church Fathers, starting with the student of the Apostles were using language consistent with Trinitarian theology.
By the time we get to The Early Church Father, Gregory Thaumaturgus** (c. 213–270 AD) Known as "the Wonderworker" (from Greek *Thaumaturgus*), in his *Declaration of Faith* he presents Trinitarian Theology as clearly as anything you will find written later.
You are confusing the early church clarifying a doctrine and addressing controversial views that deviate from orthodoxy with the idea that the orthodoxy didn’t exist prior to Tertullian, the Council of Nicaea or whatever other arbitrary date you care to present.
The fact is that the Gospels present a very high Christology of Jesus. I would need to go through the laborious task of showing you how the Synoptic Gospel writers apply OT passages about YHWH to Jesus so for simplicity sake, let’s stick with John. He clearly presents the man Jesus as God in human flesh. Hopefully an Apostle is close enough to the source to dispel this nonsense that the doctrine of the Trinity was created later.
The Bible states in no uncertain terms that YHWH is the Creator but John 1:3 says the Logos created everything that has ever been created. In John 1:1 the Logos is said to both be with God and is God. Then in John 1:14 the Logos takes upon Himself a tent of human flesh and tabernacles among us. so the Logos who in-dwelt the man Jesus is God and the Creator.
There are dozens of other examples like this from scripture where the actions of YHWH are attributed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For example: The Bible indicates that all three Persons of Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. (Gal 1:1) says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. (1Pet 3:18) says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. And in (Jn 2:19) Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also Jn 10:18).
The doctrine of the Trinity is how these passages are resolved. To suggest that John, Paul and Peter didn’t know what they were teaching because the word Trinity wasn’t invented yet, defies logic.
The idea already existed in Second Temple Judaism that somehow the one and only God, YHWH existed as Two Powers In Heaven. Alan F. Segel (not a Christian) has documented this in his book by the same name.
Not only do we find commentary on the physical presence of YHWH in the Greek Second Temple material where the Logos is one of those examples of God’s physical presence but the Aramaic Targums have similar discussions about the word, Memra. What John did is take that existing concept and explained who the Logos/Memra/Word was, much like Paul used the existing Greek idea of an unknown God to make his case to the Greeks.
To pretend that this wasn’t the historical and cultural context John’s Gospel was written in, is to violate a basic rule in hermeneutics.
This is a fantastic summary!
To those quietly reading:
For those of you following this thread in silence, I want to clarify something important.
What I’ve shared here is not meant to provoke debate or win arguments. I’m not here to defend a system or attack individuals. I’m simply testifying—of what the Spirit has revealed, of what obedience has cost me, and of what it’s produced.
Some have said that the Logos—God’s own reasoning and will—“can’t be with God” as if it were something separate from Him. But the Scriptures say otherwise:
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” (John 1:1)
Many interpret this to mean: “In the beginning was Yeshua, and Yeshua was with God, and Yeshua was God.” But that’s not what the verse says. Nor is that how the early hearers would have understood it.
Logos (λόγος) in Greek does not mean “Jesus.” It means reasoning, intention, will, expression. What John is declaring is that God’s own reasoning—His inner mind and will—was with Him from the beginning, and it was fully divine, because it was His.
This isn’t describing a second person beside Him. It’s describing the internal logic and will of the Father—expressed, not divided. The Logos is not separate from God. It is God. And when the Logos was made flesh, it wasn’t God turning into a man—it was the will of God being housed in a man who fully submitted to it.
This is not about rejecting Jesus—it’s about walking as He walked, fully submitted to the will of the Father, filled with the Logos, and led by the Spirit.
Debate seeks victory.
Obedience seeks truth.
—Adir-Dor-Yahu
I agree that the purpose of debate is to win. What I have attempted to do is engage in a dialogue with you and other people commenting about the claims made in your article. John didn’t use “Logos” in a vacuum. There was already a significant debate in 2nd Temple Judaism about the Hebrew Bible presenting YHWH as two distinct persons. One purely spirit and the other physical. The identity of the Logos (Gk) Memra (Ar) was a big part of this debate, along with figures such as The Angel of the LORD and the Captain of the LORD’s host. This debate is well documented by Jewish scholar, Alan Segel in his book “Two Powers In Heaven.”
You refer to what the Spirit has shown you which indicates that you believe your understanding of this subject is the product of divine revelation. I couldn’t possibly offer any argument or present any amount of evidence to overcome a belief that someone feels the Spirit revealed to them so no, I’m not debating this issue with you.
I commented for those quietly reading to alert them to the fact that the idea that you are presenting has always been considered a Christological heresy and it is not compatible with Christianity.
Maybe part of the reason so many believers today struggle with sin, live in cycles of guilt, and never taste true transformation is because of the very theology being defended so forcefully right now.
When Jesus is treated as God in a way that exempts Him from human weakness, then His obedience becomes unreachable. His example becomes a spectacle, not a pattern. And the command—“Be holy as I am holy”—becomes something we recite, not something we believe is possible.
Many are filled with head knowledge. They can define “hypostatic union” and recite the Nicene Creed. But they have no idea that the will of God—the Logos—is supposed to be planted in them. They’ve stopped at admiring Jesus instead of walking through Him to the Father.
They’ve made Jesus the destination, instead of the door.
But Jesus didn’t point to Himself as the end. He said:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
The goal was always the Father. Jesus lived as the perfect example of submission—not because He was God, but because He perfectly obeyed God. And now, as our High Priest, seated at the right hand of the Father, He is interceding for us, cheering us on as we learn to pick up our own cross and walk the same path.
This is not about lowering Jesus.
It’s about exalting the Father to His rightful place—and realizing that Jesus, in all His obedience and suffering, was trying to lead us back to Him.
He wasn’t showing off divine obedience.
He was showing us how to submit our human will.
And He’s still inviting us. Not just to believe in Him, but to follow Him—step by step, voice by voice, into full surrender.
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)
The tragedy of Christological error is that it makes this invitation sound like heresy… when it is actually the narrow road.
I’m happy to see you mention the Hypostatic Union because this doctrine explains that Jesus was complete in His humanity as well as His deity. Therefore, the model of His obedience as a man is not degraded by His divinity.
This is good, because now we can get right to the creed and mechanics of this union. Let’s discuss the heart of the issue—the very foundation on which the institutional church stands: the deity of Jesus.
You say the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union “explains” how Jesus was both fully God and fully man. But it doesn’t actually explain how obedience works within that framework—especially when you consider what the Third Council of Constantinople (681 AD) declared: that Jesus had two wills—one divine and one human. This doctrine is called Dyothelitism, and it was canonized to preserve the idea that Jesus could be fully God and fully man without conflict.
But this creates a serious theological dilemma.
If Jesus had two wills—one divine and one human—then which will was He submitting in the garden when He said:
“Not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42)?
If He was submitting His human will to His divine will, then His obedience was internal—a man submitting to Himself. That makes the act of obedience meaningless, because submission requires another’s will.
On the other hand, if He was submitting His human will to the Father’s will, then which will is the “divine” one in Him? If His divine will was different from the Father's, then we’ve now created two divine wills—which violates the oneness of God.
That’s where I part ways with traditional doctrine.
Yes—Jesus had two wills present in Him. But I don’t believe both belonged to Him. One was His—His human will. The other was the Father’s will, the Logos, placed in Him like a seed, as Isaiah says: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him…” (Isaiah 11:2)
Jesus didn’t obey Himself. He obeyed the Father.
One man. One human will. Fully surrendered to the will of God dwelling within Him.
That’s what makes His obedience meaningful—and repeatable. Not as a divine person pretending to be human, but as a Son showing us how to walk.
In orthodox Christian doctrine, there is no dilemma. Luke 22:42 explains that the man Jesus was praying to the Father. He submitted His will to the will of the Father. Christian doctrine doesn’t teach that Jesus was the Father incarnate so your argument that this submission was internal to Himself is refuted by the very context of the passage you are citing.
I totally see what you say and I agree with your interpretation fully. It is muddy waters when we make words say what we want to understand. You help me often put my mind question marks to rest. Thank you for having the words and for sharing.
Substack makes it hard to identify the threads, especially on a smart phone. To whom are you responding to? DonahuePapa, Sergio, or myself? 🤭
Your argument, rooted in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, aligns with Roman logic, not the original church. The first believers were Jews, as Acts reveals—read it. They held to the Hebrew understanding of Holy Spirit: Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש), meaning “the Holy Breath”—God’s own consciousness and presence, not a separate entity. Ruach (breath/wind) is God’s life-giving essence (Genesis 1:2); HaKodesh (the Holy) is His sacred nature. Scripture confirms this: “I will put My Spirit [Ruach] within you” (Ezekiel 36:27) and “Do not take Your Holy Spirit [Ruach Kodshecha] from me” (Psalm 51:11)—it’s God Himself, indivisible (Deuteronomy 6:4), not a third person. Your Trinity reflects Rome’s man-made framework, not the unassailable truth of the early Jewish church in Jerusalem.
I started with the ECFs because i had the quotes handy. I’m sure the RCC appreciates you giving them credit for influencing what 1st and second generation students of the Apostles wrote but that is a huge stretch.
But since the people the Apostles taught aren’t Jewish enough for you, in my send reply I stuck to John, Peter and Paul. Hopefully they will pass your Jewish litmus test.
One more thing Big D.
You leaned on the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) ‘cause their quotes are handy, then jabbed that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) must love me crediting them for what the Apostles’ first- and second-generation students wrote. Nah, I’m no RCC fanboy—Rome gets no props here.
The early church was Jews: Jesus, the Apostles, and their followers, period. The ECFs, Jewish themselves, lived in a Greco-Roman world and wrapped apostolic teaching in that vibe—togas, not tiaras. That’s just culture, not a conspiracy.You’re twisting my take, saying I find their Jewishness lacking—wrong. I’m saying their Jewish core shines through a Greco-Roman lens, and that matters. John, Peter, and Paul? Jewish to the bone, their message pulsing with that DNA. No litmus test—just context.
They’re the real ECFs, brother, and their Jewishness isn’t a footnote; they’re the heartbeat. So, hit me back—stick to them if you want, but that loop’s closed: the early church was Jewish, and it shaped everything.
It is true that Jesus, the Apostles and the very first believers were primarily Jewish. The Samaritan women likely had some Israelite blood but even Jesus said He had sheep not of this fold (Jn 10:16). From Acts 13-14 Paul was actively spreading Christianity among the Gentiles.
By the end of the 1st century, major centers of Christianity included Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, along with other regions like Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaea, with Ephesus both being a major religious center for Pagans and Christianity.
The RCC claims it was started by Peter. Even if we accept that premise as true, Rome was just one of numerous major centers of Christian growth.
We know that Justin Martyr was a Jewish convert but even by the end of the 1st Century the Church was predominantly Gentile. John’s student, Polycarp was a Gentile. Linus and Clement are thought to be students of Peter. While I reject the idea that Luke was a Gentile, because that claim is problematic in the Biblical text, Titus was a Gentile and Timothy was half Jewish.
But anytime I mention an early church father who wasn’t Jewish you smear him as being tainted by Rome. Your rejection of what the primarily Gentile Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote, as being tainted by Rome denies the history of how the church spread and its cultural makeup, before the close of the canon.
We do need to read the Gospels in the 1st century Jewish context they were given in. That is why I have pointed out the Two Powers In Heaven idea that already existed within Judaism in that time. Segel identifies that idea as a heresy among the Jews but the idea was well known. Add to that the heavy use of the LXX (Jesus and the Apostles follow the LXX readings about 70% of the time when quoting the OT) and John’s argument for the deity of Christ in his Gospel fits that historical, cultural context. It is not some perversion introduced by Rome.
D. Papa, you’ve laid out a solid case: Jesus and His first followers were Jewish, rooted in that 1st-century context. The Samaritan woman might’ve had Israelite blood, but Jesus Himself said He had sheep beyond that fold (John 10:16). Paul’s Gentile mission in Acts 13-14, the spread to Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, and beyond by century’s end—it’s history we can’t argue. You note the RCC’s claim about Peter founding it, but rightly point out Rome was just one hub among many. Justin Martyr, Jewish; Polycarp, Gentile; Linus and Clement, tied to Peter; Titus, Gentile; Timothy, half-Jewish—you’ve mapped the shift to a Gentile-majority church by the late 1st century. I’ll even grant you Luke’s Jewishness might hold up under scrutiny; the text doesn’t scream Gentile there. Fair enough.
But here’s where you lose me, and I’m not letting it slide: You say I smear every non-Jewish early church father as “tainted by Rome,” dismissing their Ante-Nicene writings as some Roman conspiracy. That’s not my argument—you’re dodging the real question. I’m not hung up on Rome like it’s the boogeyman; I’m asking about human nature, period. You’re the one who brought up the Two Powers in Heaven, the LXX’s dominance (70% of OT quotes, you claim—bold stat, and I’ll buy it), and John’s Logos fitting that Jewish milieu. I’m with you—those aren’t Roman inventions. They’re baked into the 1st-century Jewish cake. So why do you assume I’m pinning everything on Rome when I question what comes after?
Let’s cut to the chase and wrestle this down: Jesus comes to His people—Israel. He doesn’t trash the Torah; He slices through the legalism choking it, pointing back to God’s heart. Love, mercy, justice—the stuff the prophets begged for. Then He leaves, and hands the keys to—let’s say Paul, the sharpest tool in the shed. Pharisee, Gamaliel’s star pupil, fluent in the Law, yet tasked with taking this to the Gentiles. You’re proud of that spread—Jerusalem to Ephesus, Jewish to Gentile. Fine. But here’s the brain-twister I want you to grapple with: If Jesus corrected human distortion among His own, and Paul knew exactly what that correction looked like, how do you explain what we’ve got now? Christianity today—dogmas, creeds, holidays, the whole package—looks like a kaleidoscope of human hands, not a straight line from Jesus’ mouth.
Don’t dodge with “Rome did it.” That’s too easy, and you know it’s not the full story. The Gentile church was already dominant by the late 1st century—your words. Ephesus was a pagan hotspot before it was Christian; Antioch wasn’t exactly Jerusalem 2.0. Every stop on Paul’s map brought a new filter—Greek philosophy, Roman order, local baggage. Human nature doesn’t wait for a pope to meddle; it starts the second the message lands. So, if Paul’s genius was translating Jesus’ Jewish truth to the nations, why does the result feel so…unrecognizable? Not just to me, but to what Jesus taught on that Galilean hillside?
You want logic? Here’s the gauntlet: If the Savior’s point was to strip away man-made clutter, and Paul nailed that vision, how much of modern Christianity is signal, and how much is noise? The Ante-Nicene Fathers—Gentile or not—didn’t write in a vacuum. They were humans, not robots. Culture seeps in. Power shifts. Ideas bend. I’m not saying throw them out; I’m saying test them. You lean on that Jewish context—good, it’s gold. But if it’s gold, why not judge everything after it by that standard? Not my Judaism versus your Christianity—just reason. Tell me: Is what we’ve got now what Jesus meant, or what humans wanted? Scratch your head, D. Papa. I’m scratching mine.
Sergio, this is the type of reply that caused me to enjoy most of our earlier interactions. I will endeavor to respond in kind and hopefully we can return to the reasoned exchanges we originally had.
I suggested that you were discounting all the ECFs as tainted by Rome, because from my perspective that objection came up regularly. But if we are agreeing that is not the case, we can move beyond that point and onto your more interesting questions.
Just for clarity, I didn’t personally count the OT references and determine the percentage that follow the LXX reading but I’ve seen that 70% figure used often enough that I take it as likely accurate.
I’m not anti-MT or the proto-Masoretic Texts that the MT was later based upon. I just pointed out the number of quotes from the Greek version of the OT to show that Jesus and the Apostles used both versions of the OT. I see no indication that they didn’t consider both versions to be scripture. But again we seem to have some level of agreement on the variety of cultural and interpretive influences in Second Temple Judaism, so I take that as a positive note as well.
I also agree that different cultures come to the scripture with their own unique world-views and baggage as you put it. So what we find in the early church is a divide both East and West and Greco-Roman versus North African. Each segment of the Church saw the scriptures from different perspectives. This is why the debates and rulings (canons) of the early Ecumenical Councils are so informative. Bishops from a variety of perspectives came together to discuss and debate a variety of issues. Did they always get it right? Absolutely not.
There are tons of claims that circle the Internet about what happened at 1st Nicaea and most are baseless but they did make one grievous mistake IMO and that was to disconnect the celebration of the week culminating with the resurrection of Jesus from the Jewish Feasts (specifically Passover was the issue being debated). I use this as an example to show that I don’t think the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are on par with scripture but the debates at those Councils can inform our understanding of scripture.
Oh, here we go again—did I bruise your ego, D Papa? You’re acting like I’ve got some vendetta against non-Jews, when really, it’s you throwing a tantrum over the Jewish roots of your faith. Take a timeout, sip a slushee, and let’s chat like grown-ups talk. Deal?
Interesting that you are trusting your eternity, not to the Eternal Word of God, which you failed to quote at all, but to men who are dead and buried in their sins.
I’m trusting my eternal security to the living Word - Jesus. Not the Jesus of the oneness cults but rather the Jesus of scripture, the early church and the Jesus of every Christian Church (not considered a cult) for more than 2 millennia.
I'm not familiar with the oneness cult..? A reference to..?
My comment to you was prompted only by your quoting many men and their proprietary doctrines, but no Scriptures - which our Lord said -'in them ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'
My original comment was in response to a post that was misquoting and misrepresenting what the Early Church Fathers believed about the Trinity - claiming that they didn’t. Words have meaning and the label “Christian” has been historically applied to those people who believe in the doctrines considered essential to historic Christian orthodoxy. Those doctrines are universally believed whether the Christian is Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, etc. even when the There have always been groups that claimed to be Christians but who deny one or more of those essential doctrines. The Gnostics, Judaizers and other non-Christian sects existed even while the Apostles were still writing the scripture. Other non-Christian cults came up later. Many of the early Ecumenical Councils were convened to refute these false doctrines and deniers of the Trinity. Other non-Christian cults arose centuries later (e.g. the Mormons and JWs). There are still people today (in this thread) who deny the Trinity. Deciding whether they are saved is above my pay grade but Trinity deniers like Oneness teachers are not Christians according to the historical meaning of that word.
Brother,
You may not consider me a Christian because I reject the Trinity. But I assure you, I didn’t come to that conclusion lightly, or by reading cult material. In fact, it was leaving the teachings of men that brought me to this point.
For years, I believed the Trinity too. I quoted the creeds. I thought the Logos was Jesus, that the Bible was the Word, and that orthodoxy was the gold standard. But then the Holy Spirit began to un-teach me. Slowly. Patiently. He showed me that the "Word" was not a book or a person—but a Voice. A living communication that required full surrender. He showed me the Logos wasn’t a second divine being, but the very will and reasoning of the Father Himself.
The turning point was John 14:12: “Whoever believes in Me will do the works I do—and greater.” I read that, and everything in me cried out: Then why aren’t we?
I bet my life on that promise.
I asked the Father to baptize me with fire, to burn out of me anything that wasn’t pleasing to Him. I told Him I’d undergo whatever Job did if that’s what it took. I would not quit. I would persevere until the testing was over. And He must have loved that prayer—because my life got turned upside down. Asking for patience became a joke. I was undone, stripped down, and remade from the inside out.
What came out the other side wasn’t a man with new theology. It was a bondservant. I came to obedience not through argument, but through fire. And through that fire, the Logos became clear—not as Jesus Himself, but as the divine will of the Father planted like a seed inside me.
I didn’t arrive at that through man-made formulas or centuries-old councils. I didn’t repeat what others said. I went straight to the source.
The Scriptures say the Holy Spirit will teach us all things, and that we don’t need man to teach us. So I trusted that promise. And He delivered.
So you and I came to different conclusions—not because I denied truth, but because I refused to let man define it for me. I chose to let the Spirit lead. And the fruit speaks for itself: casting out demons, healing the sick, walking in the power and fear of God.
Not because I’m special, but because I obeyed the Will and the Voice of Jesus' Father as we are commanded to.
That’s what I follow.
It is not about whether I consider you a Christian. Words have meaning. For 2,000+ years the label Christian has been used of people who believe a core set of doctrines - one of which is that Jesus was God incarnate. Another is that the one and only God exists in 3 persons. People who hold to different beliefs are not considered Christians using that definition. They are typically referred to as heretics or members of non-Christian cults.
Scripture tells you that there are many spirits who aren’t the Holy Spirit. That is why we need to test what they say by the word of God. Any spirit who denies Jesus as God in human flesh teaches a different Jesus and is accursed.
You said that John 14:12 was key in your rejection of the Jesus of Christianity. So now that you are following a different Jesus are you walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead or taking away the sins of mankind? Of course you’re not, so your argument fails right there. But don’t worry, that isn’t even what that passage means.
The ministry of Jesus lasted at most 3.5 years. He performed a limited number of miracles. The number of miracles that have occurred among His followers since dwarfs the number He performed. They are greater in number not scope.
Except sir, that the Holy Scriptures do not teach a trinity. Taken apart at the seams, the trinity would have us believe that:
* Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden of Gesthemane.
* Jesus said 'Not MY will, but MY will be done'
* Jesus raised himself, meaning he was not then 'dead', which means we are all still in our sins, for without the death of the testator, there is no confirmation of a covenant. (Hebrews 9:16)
* Jesus both raised himself, and for his obedience to himself, gave himself a name above every name.
* Jesus awarded himself 'all power on heaven and earth' (Matthew 28:18)
And so on. None of it makes any sense because it is all predicated on a 'mystery' (so love the priests to say) yet Jesus himself gave his disciples the knowledge of all mysteries of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13:36) There are no more 'mysteries' that the Church cannot know and explain. That 3 are 1 is not a mystery, it is the clearly effective tactic of the enemy to rob God of His sole worship, and distribute it to Mary, Jesus, Peter, icons, and so on. Which also makes the hapless perps guilty of breaking the commandment, to have 'no other gods before Me'.
What I ask you to consider carefully, is the reason for the lie to begin with. In the Garden, the first lie was unveiled by satan - ye shall be as gods.,. turning John 14:12 into something that either makes all of us as God, or - as is largely the case - turns all of would-be disciples into powerless purveyors of 'tradition' and 'theology', rather than duplicates of Jesus Christ.
Jesus wants us to imitate him. His last commandment (as a last will and testament) in Acts 1:4,5,8 - was that his disciples would be 'baptized' NOT in water as the Church lives in the Old Testament performing - but in holy spirit and in fire; which baptism fills one with spirit, (seed) makes them 'born of God', (born again), and empowers them to do everything Jesus ever did. As his disciples to this day obey.
If you believe the Scriptures, it is incumbent upon you to obey the Lord's commandment, and be baptized in holy spirit, which according to Jesus own words, is the only way we are witnesses unto him.
All else is religion, that any other religion can compete with. And do. THe only thing they CANNOT do in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc, is evict demons, heal the sick, speak in tongues and the rest of the 9 manifestations of holy spirit.
I do this.
Do you?
The scriptures very clearly teach the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is less obvious in the Old Testament but the Two Powers In Heaven are clearly there, while at the same time affirming unconditionally that there is, was and ever will only be one God - who is by nature God (our creator). In John 1:1 we find that the Logos is both with God and is God. In John 1:3 the Logos created everything that has ever been created, affirming that there Logos is the eternal Creator. In John 1:14 the Logos took upon Himself a tent of human flesh (the man Jesus) and tabernacled among us. There are dozens of other passages that teach the Trinity. You are free to deny the doctrine but I have studied the scriptures for more than 50 years and this is something that I’m certain is true.
In John 1:1, the Logos was "with" God. "With" is described as a preposition of direction (not of position). "Being ever more-with."
The Logos "made flesh" is also accommodatingly ambiguous and in motion. "Made - be assembled, grow, be wrought."
I have been meditating for some years on the poetry embedded in these doctrines. Having recently come across the quantum formulation "similar particles are not separate," made the One-or-Three issue pretty much moot.
To focus and prioritize, as Jesus did, The Father, does not require further immovable definition from me. Every question points to an answer of sincere affection, and proper awe / obedience. No guardrails against heresy (the purpose of most credal fancy-dancing) are needed in those territories.
Though theological and textual parsing can be exhilarating, because then we turn our eyes to the Divine
IMO.
This is a well-researched and passionately argued critique of the historical development of the Trinity doctrine. You’ve traced how theological and political influences shaped Christian doctrine, moving it away from its Jewish roots. Your focus on the apostles’ original monotheistic belief and the later doctrinal shifts is compelling, I must say
That being said, one thing to consider is the role of early Christian worship and devotion to Jesus. Even before the formal Trinity doctrine, believers prayed to, worshipped, and ascribed divine attributes to Jesus (Philippians 2:6-11, Revelation 5:13-14). How do you reconcile that with your argument that the apostles never saw Him as divine?
Thank you for your question, Joshua. It is essential that we question everything we are taught. That said, I hope this doctrine receives the same level of scrutiny—not through the lens of human reasoning, but by seeking the Holy Spirit, for He alone is the true Teacher.
I encourage you to consider the influence of 1,800+ years of doctrinal tradition on our understanding today. We are conditioned to think through theological lenses shaped by councils, creeds, and constant repetition. But if we were to clear the slate and let only Scripture and the Holy Spirit teach us, what would we find?
If the entire Bible is about the fall and restoration of mankind’s relationship with the Father, and if Jesus’ ultimate obedience—even unto death—was to bring us back to the Father, then why has the focus shifted away from the Father to Jesus, whose very life and sacrifice were the ultimate act of worship to the Father?
Below are two forms of worship. The English language uses one term, the Greek uses two:
Worship the Father: https://erikperison.substack.com/p/worship-the-father?r=2u3m64
Worship Jesus: https://erikperison.substack.com/p/worship-jesus?r=2u3m64
I appreciate your response and your call to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance in understanding doctrine. That’s something we can both agree on - truth isn’t determined by councils or creeds but by God Himself.
That said, your argument assumes that the Trinity shifts focus away from the Father when, in reality, it magnifies His nature. Jesus didn’t just point to the Father—He revealed Him. He said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). If Jesus were merely a created being or only an anointed man, how could He make such a claim without it being blasphemy?
You emphasize Jesus’ obedience to the Father, and rightly so. But obedience doesn’t negate divinity—Philippians 2:6-8 shows that Jesus, who was in very nature God, humbled Himself. The Son’s submission to the Father isn’t a contradiction to the Trinity; it’s a reflection of how God’s nature includes relationship and love within Himself.
So, the real question isn’t whether Jesus redirects our focus from the Father, but whether He is the perfect image of the Father, making Him worthy of the same worship. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Given the fact that you replied to me so quickly, show you spent no time alone with God offering your questions to Him, rather you reverted to your own intellect.
I appreciate your engagement, Joshua, but I encourage you to take time alone with God on these matters. When I approach these discussions, I don’t just rely on my own thoughts—I pray, wait, and test what I write to ensure it aligns with the Holy Spirit’s leading. There have been times when I’ve written something, only to sense that it wasn’t right, prompting me to delete or rethink it entirely.
I challenge you to do the same—take your questions to the Father, seek His wisdom, and wait on His answer before forming a response. The goal isn’t just debate but discernment. I’d love to hear what He shows you.
Well, it seems to me from my reading of the New Testament that Jesus is presented as more than merely human and the Holy Spirit has his own person hood. So cool, three for the price of one and a lot of fun. I agree that the Spirit and the Son conspire and work together so we grow into being experientially a brother of Jesus as him being the first borne among many brethren and we walk with the Father as Jesus did filled with the Holy Spirit. We are baptized into Jesus, and are one spirit with him He is in us and with us as we pray in the Spirit to the Father who is there in secret. I have no problem with the Trinitarian dance.
What do you do with Phil 2: 5–8? Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
It says Jesus gave up the form of God, which He evidently had before He was born.
First, the Third Council of Constantinople (680 AD) condemned Monothelitism, the belief that Jesus had only one will. This council marked the solidification of the Trinity doctrine in most of the church. They concluded that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. The reasoning was that Jesus needed to be sin-free, and the solution was to attribute to Him two natures—divine and human. This interpretation aligned with John 1 and ten other scriptures, even though sixty-one scriptures state otherwise.
Jesus did not have human sperm DNA, which made Him free from the fall of Adam. He was naturally born as the second Adam, free from the bondage of sin. Consequently, the Logos, understood as the Father's divine will and reasoning, replaces the concept of a divine Jesus spirit. In this understanding, the Logos was and is God, using Jesus' human flesh as His tabernacle. The will of the Father was present in Jesus, directing Him in every instruction to which He submitted. Jesus modeled this relationship as an example for believers: "I will put My spirit (will) in you."
"In the Form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ | morphē theou)
The phrase "form of God" (μορφῇ Θεοῦ, morphē theou) does not indicate that Jesus was God in essence. The Greek word morphē refers to outward appearance, role, or status rather than ontological nature. This is evident when compared to morphē doulou ("form of a servant") in verse 7: Jesus was not literally a slave but took on the status and function of one. Likewise, He was not literally God but bore God's image and authority as the vessel of the Logos. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation (χαρακτὴρ, charaktēr) of His being." A representation is not the original. Jesus reflects God's nature, but that does not make Him God.
"Did Not Consider Equality with God Something to Be Grasped"
The phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν (ouch harpagmon) is crucial to understanding this passage. The word harpagmos means "something to be seized, taken by force, or held onto." Some interpret this as Jesus already possessing equality with God but choosing to relinquish it. However, this contradicts Jesus' clear statements of subordination (John 14:28, John 5:19). The correct interpretation is that Jesus did not attempt to seize or claim divine status. He did not exalt Himself as equal with God but humbled Himself in obedience. This interpretation aligns with John 5:30: "I can do nothing by Myself."
"Emptied Himself" (ἐκένωσεν | ekenōsen)
The Greek verb ekenōsen means "to empty" or "make of no reputation." Some Trinitarians argue that this means Jesus temporarily set aside divine attributes, but that would imply He was not fully God while on earth, contradicting their own doctrine. A better understanding is that Jesus emptied Himself of any claim to earthly status or privilege, not of divine nature. This interpretation aligns with the context of humility and submission to God's will. Jesus' "emptying" was an act of obedience, not an incarnation.
"Being Found in Appearance as a Man"
The phrase "found in appearance as a man" (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος) confirms that Jesus was fully human, not a divine-human hybrid. He did not merely "take on" human flesh—He was entirely human. If Jesus were both fully God and fully man, this phrase would be misleading.
So what about the part where Jesus was there in the beginning and that all that was made was made through Him? John 1-2
The Logos is not a person but God’s own thoughts and intentions, his will and reasoning, working through those who submit to it.
Greek definition: The Logos is the will and reasoning of God—His divine mind, purpose, and expression. It is not a separate being but the eternal, active intelligence of God through which He creates, sustains, and reveals Himself.
Maybe you should pray and ask the Father, “Holy Father, is the Logos Jesus, or is it you?” However, don’t let your past influence your answer.
I can take that either way. But the question reaimans about John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
This passage speaks about the Logos (God’s reasoning and will), not Jesus as a preexistent being. The trinity teaches Jesus had a pre existing spirit(will), that entered a human “tent”.
The difficulty is answered easily with Paul's revelation in Colossians 1:15, that Jesus was the 'first born of all creation'. That would mean he was there when אֱלֹהִ֑ים ’ĕ-lō-hîm created the heaven and earth.
It stands to reason seeing as he - Jesus - is the 'wisdom and power of God'. How to create without wisdom and power?
That God created Jesus - the Logos - making him in His own image - does not make Jesus God himself, any more than Adam was God, who was also made in God's image.
Victoria,
What I’m about to share is not theory to me—it’s been a fire-walk of unlearning and relearning, a slow and patient process guided by the Holy Spirit alone. Years ago, He began retraining me on something I thought I already understood: the “Word of God.”
At first, it started with a gentle unraveling. I had always believed the Bible was the Word, and the Word was Jesus. Trinity doctrine had indoctrinated me deeply. But the Holy Spirit began showing me that the “Word” in scripture referred not to a book or a being, but to a Voice. A living, present communication I was being invited to hear, follow, and obey.
That was the first crack in the foundation.
Years passed. The Spirit let the subject rest until last year, when He began again—this time opening up the Greek. I studied deeply. I prayed. I wrestled hard. And eventually, something clicked. The Logos wasn’t Jesus. It was the will and reasoning of God the Father Himself—His divine logic, His thought process, His internal blueprint for creation and righteousness.
Here’s the best way I’ve come to define it:
The Logos is the eternal mind, will, and reasoning of God the Father—His purpose and intent, expressed in communication and action. It is not a person, but the divine logic by which all things were made, sustained, and by which He reveals Himself to creation. It is the voice behind every command, the pattern behind every truth, and the seed of life He plants in those who submit to Him.
This Logos is a seed. It gets planted in us when we receive God's will. And as we submit to it—burying our own will under His—that seed grows, matures, and bears fruit. It isn’t academic. It’s transformative. It’s how we become one with Him.
So when I say Jesus isn’t the Logos, I don’t mean that to diminish Jesus at all. What I’m saying is this: Jesus is the perfect vessel of the Logos. He bore it, obeyed it, and fulfilled it. But the Logos existed before Jesus, because it is God’s eternal will—and it continues now in those who walk as He walked.
That’s why I wanted to follow up on your earlier point about Jesus being the “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). If Jesus was created in God’s image (like Adam), then He can’t also be the Logos—because the Logos was never created. It is what created.
Paul uses “firstborn” in the Hebrew sense—not of birth order, but preeminence and inheritance. Just like Israel was called God's “firstborn,” Jesus is first in rank over the new creation—not because He was alive at creation, but because He was the first to perfectly submit to the Logos and embody it fully.
So yes—Jesus is the image of God. Yes, He is the wisdom and power of God manifested. But He is not the Logos itself. He is what happens when a human being is filled with, led by, and fully obedient to the Logos.
That’s what I believe God wants for us too. Not to worship Jesus as God, but to walk as He walked, by the same Spirit and Voice He submitted to.
This isn’t doctrine I learned from anyone. I’ve never read a book about it. What I share is what I’ve heard directly through the Word speaking in me—the Logos of the Father. And my hope is that this brings clarity, not division.
Because we are both of the same Spirit, I hope you can pray and allow the Holy Spirit to take what I’ve shared and reveal to you what I was shown. Let Him confirm it, as only He can.
—Adir-Dor-Yahu
I like how you ended this, because that’s exactly what I will do. I’ll ask him. Thank you for caring enought to share so much, and for loving the Lord so much that you put the time in to know him, where so many others refuse.
God is wonderful. May He bless you marvelously in the name of the King, Jesus Christ.
Victoria
We mentioned at least two, and I’m sure there are more verses that indicate that Jesus existed in heaven with the Father before he gave that up to be born a man. What was He before in your thought? He was the original image of God, right? So, he was part of God, right? I don’t understand.
How do you break free from being conditioned as you read those scriptures? They are like a parable that needs wisdom. They’re like the “old woman, young woman” image that needs to have the brain focus from another perspective.
I can break free, if it is called for. I still have no answer to who Jesus was before He laid it all down.
My question is how does this fit with Jesus' prayer in John 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
So, if the Bride is going to be part of the oneness, how does that fit?
Prayer is super powerful when it is spoken from the will of the Father. 1-5, 20-23 are that type of prayer. The oneness prayed about in 20-23 is for future believers to bury their will into the Father's will. If everyone could do that, the Kingdom of Heaven would be on earth. This post explains what is required to be in oneness: https://erikperison.substack.com/p/from-separation-to-union?r=2u3m64
The complete fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 – a fully unified people, operating in perfect alignment with the Father.
A Church that moves as one body, without division, confusion, or disobedience.
A manifestation of God’s kingdom on earth – as the Church would be living proof of God’s power, will, and truth.
A reversal of the corruption in the world – as the people of God would finally be fully functioning as intended, just as Jesus did.
This is not just a theoretical possibility—this is the will of the Father for His people.
Luke 22:42 – “Not My will, but Yours be done.”
If every believer said this with complete surrender, the Church would be unstoppable.
Ephesians 4:13 – “Until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
This would be the ultimate maturity of the Body of Christ—a people perfectly united under God’s will.
If I understand it, this is our position as Yeshua’s Bride. We’re the Father’s special gift to our Messiah, forever, especially after He hands over the Kingly role in the new creation. I don’t have any proof of that, of course.
I like the sound of that.
My understanding is that the church ends when Yeshua picks up His Bride. The kingdom is Israel. I'm still not seeing any explanation about who Jesus was before He laid it down to be born.
I skimmed it… I’ll read it more careful tomorrow. My question: Are We and Jesus unique. Or does the Father develop the same relationships with Israel? It seems like Jesus’ manhood changed Him. The new creation is going to be interesting. I suspect that Israel still keeps reproducing there. But that’s just a guess.
yes, Jesus is unique, but the relationship the Father developed with Him serves as a model for all believers. Jesus fully submitted to the Father's will, showing the ideal relationship between God and humanity. However, Israel was also called to a similar relationship. In the Old Testament, God referred to Israel as His "son" (Exodus 4:22, Hosea 11:1), and He desired a covenant relationship with them where they would reflect His character and follow His will. The difference is that while Israel repeatedly failed, Jesus perfectly fulfilled that role. We are grafted into the same tree as Israel, and both groups will function the same submission to the Father. Jesus then remains our Advocate and High Priest seated at the right hand of the Father.
I read a scripture not long ago which says that the Messiah gets the Bride and the Father gets Israel. But I can’t remember what it was.
Let's see if you notice something odd about Jesus' prayer by going back to the very beginning of that prayer to verse 1.
I asked about Phil 2 where Paul laid down his position of God to be born.
VErse 5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. This is another one which says He was God before He laid it all down.
What is it? I know the prayer well.
Jesus is praying in 3rd person vocabulary.
By verse five He is asking for is position as God again.
yea, but only for three verses.
This really seems solid to me. Beautifully done. I asked Jesus if this was Truth. The response I got was, "It's quite a bit closer, but parts of Truth will not be seen until you have your spiritual bodies." Or something like that. It seems clean and true to me. Thank you. Lord.