Oneness Theology: Overview

First, it is not an assumption- For nowhere did Jesus ever state that He was the same person as the Father, nor did anyone in the NT ever call him Father.

Your confusing Jesus’ perfectly representing the Father with His identity. And you are pretexting the passage with no consideration of the context of chap. 14 and John’s theology. Also, throughout chap 14 Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father. So, you appeal to v. 9, to assume Jesus is the person of the Father, but a verses later (v. 23), Jesus clearly affirms His deity as Son in distinction from the Father:

“Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and MY FATHER will love him, and pros auton eleusometha [‘to him WE will come’] and monēn par’ autw poiēsometha [‘at home with him, WE will Make’].”

Against the Oneness notion (and v. 9), – Jesus specifically used two first person PLURAL indicative verbs (eleusometha, “We will come” and poiēsometha, “We will make Our”) abode with him.” This is part of chap. 14. Oneness folks like yourself typically cherry-pick passages (esp. with v. 9) out and then pretext into them a modalistic understanding—we call this eisegesis.

Exegetically:

John 14:9 Oneness people routinely quote this passage (usually in the same breath with John 10:30), as though it was part of the passage.

But again Only by removing this passage from the document and immediate context can Oneness teachers posit a modalistic Oneness understanding. There are four exegetical features, which provide a cogent refutation to the Oneness handling of this passage.

Note the Context: In verse 6 Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In verse 7, He explains to His disciples that if they “had known” Him they would “have known” the Father also. Jesus then says to His disciples, “From now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Thus, by knowing Him they “have known” and “have seen” the Father (note the parallel: “have known,” “have seen”). Still not understanding (i.e., by knowing Jesus they know and see the Father), Philip says to Jesus, “Show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus then reiterates (as a corrective) that by seeing Him they can see, that is, “know” or recognize the invisible Father (v. 9). The context is obvious: by knowing and seeing Jesus (as the only way to the Father; cf. v. 6), they could really see (i.e., know/recognize, cf. John 9:39) the invisible Father (cf. John 1:18; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:16).

The Son is and has been eternally subsisting as the perfect and “exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very nature (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou, “of Him,” not “as Him”; Heb. 1:3).

Therefore, when they see Jesus, they “see” the only way to, and an exact representation of, the invisible unseen Father, for Jesus makes Him known, He explains or exegetes Him. In John 1:18, we read: “No one has seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (lit. “He has exēgēsato [“lead out, unfold, declare,” Thayer, 1996: 223] Him” (the Father).

Hence, it is God the Son who is the very image of the invisible Father (cf. Col. 1:15) who brings out, that is, exegetes the Father: “He [Jesus] has made known or brought news of (the invisible God)” (Bauer, 2000: 349). One cannot have the Father except through the Son, Jesus Christ: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23; see also John 17:3).

Note also that in 14:10, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father when He declares: “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” To reiterate, the undisputable fact is this: not one time in the New Testament does Jesus (or any other person) state that He Himself is the Father.

Further, the Father is spirit. Hence When Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” the only thing His disciples literally saw was Jesus’ physical body. Both Oneness believers and Trinitarians agree that the Father is invisible and does not have a physical body. Hence, Jesus could not have meant that by seeing Him they were literally seeing the Father.

First and third person personal pronouns and verb references: Throughout John 14 and 16 Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father. He does so by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) and verb references to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) and verb references to refer to His Father. Notice John 14:16: I will ask [kagō erōtēsō, first person] the Father, and He will give [dōsei, third person] you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also cf. 14:7, 10, 16; etc.). As marked out below, Jesus also differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, There has never been a recognized biblical scholar, commentator, NT Greek grammar, nor Lexical source that has ever interpreted John 14:9 in a Oneness-unitarian way as you do.- – because neither this text, nor John’s entire theology supports the Oneness idea that Jesus is the same person as the Father.

If you have a friend who is trying to understand the Trinity, first the worst thing you can you is to confuse him with unclear and erroneous information. Instead, you should focus on the biblical teachings within the text and not use non-biblical philosophy.

I always say at the onset to one like yourself, who make the incorrect uninformed assertion regarding the triquetra symbol being derived from Wicca, paganism, etc. that that calendar in your office and/or house and/or in the rooms of your children, — are filled with symbols of pagan gods (all days and names of months were named after pagan gods). Thus, any objection to the triquetra as use by Christians would be inconsistent and historically ignorant lacking any meaningful basic research on the triquetra and its origins in religious and non-religious usage.

In terms of the triquetra (Trinitarian symbol), you should not base an argument on ignorance, and unaccredited internet articles. Primarily, KJV Onlyists and anti-Trinitarian groups (esp. JWs, and unstudied Oneness advocates) chiefly utilize the pagan-triquetra arguments against it. So Christians should strive to do the objective research, in order that they not provide bad untruthful arguments and appear unread.

In point of fact, The triquetra is a very old symbol and dates back perhaps to around 500 BC. But its actual origins are unknown. Some scholars believe it to be Celtic in origin, and it is sometimes called the Irish Trinity Knot.

The triquetra symbol is also found in Norse Viking artifacts such as combs and saddles; found on a Norwegian coin from around the 11th cent.; and there is a Japanese form, again with no religious significance. Further, the triquetra has been found on Indian heritage sites that are over 5,000 years old; found on carved stones in Northern Europe dating from A.D. 8th cent. as well as found on early Germanic coins-with no religious significance at all. It is certainly possible that various cultures developed the basic design arrangement independently. But in spite of where or when it first appeared, it has been associated to a vast number of meanings through time.

However, to early Christians (and many today), the triquetra symbolized the Trinity (one God, three persons). For example in the late 8th cent. Book of Kells was an exemplified manuscript book in Latin containing all four Gospels together with various prefatory texts contained also figures of triquetras. The triquetra symbol has been found in Norwegian churches dating to the 11th century.

In conclusion, the Triquetra has been used historically by all kinds of groups to mean different things. As with other Christian symbols and Christian holidays (e.g., Christmas, Easter, cross, etc.), we embrace the Christian significance—not its origin. In spite of the (unclear) origins, the Triquetra has a rich meaning that has been used by the early church to signify the Trinity. No Christian used it as a pagan symbol, in the same way no Christian uses a calendar today on their wall to exalt the pagan gods of the days and months it represents—thus, calendars were factually derived from pagan in origins.

Historically, for Christians, the Triquetra represents the Trinity, not its supposedly pagan origins. And those (like yourself) who object (due to a mass of misinformation) to the Trinitarian symbol, since they do not have a problem with pagan-origins calendars in their homes, do they have a problem with the Apostle Paul’s quotations of pagans writers to make a biblical point—namely, Epimenides of Crete in Titus 1:12 and Acts 17:28 (referring to Zeus); Aratus of Cilicia in Acts 17:28 (also referring to Zeus); and Menander in 1 Cor. 15:33?

In point of fact, for hundreds of years Christians have been using the triquetra a symbol that proclaims the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes, the Jesus of Oneness theology is a false Jesus.

Assertions is not an arguments. Obviously, you did not read the article here on Isa. 9:6, or perhaps you would have responded to it in a meaningful way, instead of like a junior high kid. Isaiah 9:6, does not indicate that the Messiah is the Father (Heb. ăḇîaḏ, “father eternal” – denoting the character of the Messiah- “He who owns eternity,” or as in the Targums: “He who lives forever.” You got that erroneous view from a Oneness pastor or church, and not any standard biblical commentary – because no recognized Christian scholarly source sees a Modalistic view at Isa. 9:6. You merely pretext your own personal unitarian view into the mouth of the prophet Isaiah.

You are biblically unread, and attempt to make passages contradict other passages – which tells us, you do not believe in the Bible, but rather you believe in yourself. I am sure you would complain about the apostle John telling yo that “Jesus Christ, [is] the SON of the Father” (2 John 1:3).

You still have have no response to my article on exegesis of Isa. 9:6- you merely deny it and complain- and instead, you go to other passages.

By appealing to Rev. 1.8 et al., and read into it unitarianism (viz., only the Father is God) – tells us you do not have not have a basic understanding of Trinitarian doctrine. Rev 1.8 does not indicate that Jesus IS the person of the person of the Father- that is your conclusion you are wishing to reach. The Son is God, not the Father. The Son is identified as God / YHWH but distinct from the Father (and Holy Spirit), esp., in John’s literature. In Rev.5:13, for example, Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ (“To The One sitting on the throne”) καὶ (“AND”) τῷ Ἀρνίῳ (“To The Lamb”). The Father and the Lamb are grammatically distinct from each other (Article – substantive – KAI – article – substantive; as in Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 1:3 et al.).

Or John 3:13; 6:38; 17:5; 2 John 1:3 et al. – over and over the Father and Jesus are clearly denoted as district persons. You reject the God of the Scripture, due to you being controlled by unitarianism. Again, 2 John 1.3: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός. “Jesus Christ the Son of the Father” – thus, not the Father.

You neither understand trinitarianism nor unitarianism. You are incorrect- unitarianism (unipersonalism) is a broad theological system that embraces a unipersonal God. Oneness advocates are as theologically unitarian; fundamentally, the same as Muslims and JWs. You believing that “Jesus is God” is irrelevant. In Oneness doctrine, Jesus is the unipersonal God- thus rejecting the God of biblical revelation – as triune. Jesus is presented as only Son, never the Father. “Jesus Christ [is] the Son of the Father” (2 John 1:3). Jesus is constantly distinguished from the Father, plainly throughout the Bible-as in the passages that I presented: Esp. in John,

E.g., John 6:38: “For I [Jesus] have come down [καταβέβηκα -perf. Indic.] ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ [from the heaven], not in order that I should do the θέλημα [will] of Me [me, ἐμὸν- the neuter pronoun used used only of persons], but the θέλημα [will] of the One ‘having sent’ [πέμψαντός – aorist part.] Me.” – Syntactically, the action of the Son submitting to the Father’s will (not My will but your will) was antecedent to the time of the perfect verb (coming down from heaven to to earth), thus- before the incarnation- preexistence. Many more teach the same.
Again, you hold to a unitarian, thus, technically a Oneness-unitarian God- not the Biblical one.

Lastly, regarding 6:38- the Son “coming down from heaven.” In John 6, the person of the Son is said to have come down from heaven (preexisting) 8 times (about 40 times in John’s Gospel).

– ek tou ouranou (“out of, from, the heaven”)- vv. 32, 33, 41, 42, 50, 51.
– apo tou ouranou – (“from the heaven)- v. 38
– ex ouranou (“from heaven”)- v. 58.

I see you are not interested at all in interacting with the text in a meaningful way. My authority is the biblical authors’ intended meaning. Your authority is yourself. For so far, you have NOT responded to any of the biblical passages I presented – you merely deny and complain- that shows, you do not have the Bible as your ultimate authority- rather your final authority is how you feel,

Your argument is not with me, rather it is with the biblical authors:

“Jesus Christ [is] the Son of the Father”- 2 John 1:3- You go around and around asserting your personal Oneness-unitarian philosophy and ignore all passages that controvert that. I do not have the time to read countless empty textual assertions- there are plenty of articles you can read on the nature of the biblical God, and why Oneness theology embraces a false Christ and false gospel- other than that – I have nothing more.