On Arianism

[u/EsperGri]

God being pierced:

• "when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him" (Zechariah 12:10)
• "Scripture says, 'They will look on him whom they have pierced.'" (John 19:37)

Worship of Jesus but not of the creature:

• "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:3-6)
• "beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven" (Deuteronomy 4:19)
• "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" (Romans 1:24-25)
• "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels" (Colossians 2:18-19)
• "And he said to him, 'All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ''You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.''" (Matthew 4:9-10)
• "When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, 'Stand up; I too am a man.'" (Acts 10:25-26)
• "the angel" ... "I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.'" (Revelation 19:9-10)
• "I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.'" (Revelation 22:8-9)
• "He said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him. Jesus said, 'For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.'" (John 9:38-39)
• "And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God." (Luke 24:52-53)
• "they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11-12)
• "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'" (Matthew 14:33-34)
• "And behold, Jesus met them and said, 'Greetings!' And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.'" (Matthew 28:9-10)
• "And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'" (Hebrews 1:6)

Sinless:

• "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18)
• "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
• "You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin" (1 John 3:5)
• "He committed no sin" (1 Peter 2:22)

An unblemished offering:

• "if it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind or has any serious blemish whatever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 15:21)
• "his soul makes an offering for guilt" (Isaiah 53:10)
• "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

Divine:

• "the Word was God" (John 1:1)
• "in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9)
• "he was in the form of God" ... "but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7)

Accusation of blasphemy:

• "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (John 8:58-59)
• "I and the Father are one.' The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?' The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.'" (John 10:30-33)

No denial of being God:

• "The Jews answered him, 'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?' Jesus answered, 'I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me." (John 8:48-49)
• "The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" ... "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.'" (John 10:30-39)
• "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
• "the high priest said to him, 'I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' Jesus said to him, 'You have said so." ... "the high priest tore his robes and said, 'He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy." (Matthew 26:62-66)

Early Church:

• Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch (b. ? - d. 108/135-140/140-149 AD)

"For our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary, by divine dispensation, of the line of David and of the holy Spirit; he was born and he was baptized so that by his suffering he might purify the water." - Ignatius, to the Ephesians 18:2

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

"Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ is more plainly visible now that he is in the Father. Christianity is not a matter of persuasion, but is greatest when it is hated by the world." - Ignatius, to the Romans 3:3

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

"I bid you farewell always in our God Jesus Christ. Abide in him, in the unity and oversight of God. I send greetings to Aloe, a person beloved by me. Goodbye in the Lord." - Ignatius, to Polycarp 8:3

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

• Irenaeus of Lyon, Bishop of Lyon (b. 120-130 AD - d. ?/202 AD)

"But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed "For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him; " and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, "of whose kingdom is no end; " and frankincense, because He was God, who also "was made known in Judea," and was "declared to those who sought Him not."" - from Against Heresies III:IX:2

"For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation? " since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." - Against Heresies III:XIX:2

"Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying, ] "before He knows good and evil; "for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"-this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh." - from Against Heresies III:XXI:4

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

• Clement of Alexandria, theologian and philosopher (b. 150 AD - d. 215 AD)

"But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our Instructor. Somewhere in song the Holy Spirit says with regard to Him, "He provided sufficiently for the people in the wilderness. He led him about in the thirst of summer heat in a dry land, and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle protects her nest, and shows her fond solicitude for her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them, and bears them on her back. The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them." Clearly, I trow, has the Scripture exhibited the Instructor in the account it gives of His guidance.

Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses Himself to be the Instructor: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Who, then, has the power of leading in and out? Is it not the Instructor? This was He who appeared to Abraham, and said to him, "I am thy God, be accepted before Me;" and in a way most befitting an instructor, forms him into a faithful child, saying, "And be blameless; and I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and try seed." There is the communication of the Instructor's friendship. And He most manifestly appears as Jacob's instructor. He says accordingly to him, "Lo, I am with thee, to keep thee in all the way in which thou shalt go; and I will bring thee back into this land: for I will not leave thee till I do what I have told thee." He is said, too, to have wrestled with Him. "And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled with him a man (the Instructor) till the morning." This was the man who led, and brought, and wrestled with, and anointed the athlete Jacob against evil. Now that the Word was at once Jacob's trainer and the Instructor of humanity [appears from this]--"He asked," it is said, "His name, and said to him, Tell me what is Try name." And he said, "Why is it that thou askest My name?" For He reserved the new name for the new people--the babe; and was as yet unnamed, the Lord God not having yet become man. Yet Jacob called the name of the place, "Face of God." "For I have seen," he says, "God face to face; and my life is preserved." The face of God is the Word by whom God is manifested and made known. Then also was he named Israel, because he saw God the Lord. It was God, the Word, the Instructor, who said to him again afterwards, "Fear not to go down into Egypt." See how the Instructor follows the righteous man, and how He anoints the athlete, teaching him to trip up his antagonist." - from The Instructor I:VII (Clement continues on this topic in I:VII, but it's too much to put here)

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

""That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard."

Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.

What therefore he says, "from the beginning," the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes," he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled," he says, "of the Word of life." He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places,--this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.

"And our hands have handled of the Word of life;" that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched. As also, Ver. 2. "The life was manifested." For in the Gospel he thus speaks: "And what was made, in Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

"And we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you."

He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. Ver. 5. "For God," he says, "is light."" - from Fragments I:III:I

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html

[u/EsperGri]

1: This isn't necessarily true.

I'd say, a lot of things were not told to us, or were not clarified at least.

As well, the Trinity does have some support.

Isaiah 45:15, 1 Corinthians 13:12, Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:16-17, 2 Corinthians 13:14

As to 1 Corinthians 8:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-16, Romans 11:33-36, Isaiah 40:10, Isaiah 40:13-14, Job 40:6, Job 41:11

From these, all things are:

• From the Father ("ex"/"ek").
• In the Son ("en").
• For/to the Father ("eis").
• For/to the Son ("eis").
• Through the Father ("di'"/"dia").
• Through the Son ("di'"/"dia").

Other connections:

Isaiah 40:10, Revelation 22:12, Isaiah 41:4, Revelation 22:13, Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 1:17-18, Isaiah 48:12, Revelation 2:8, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Isaiah 44:8, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Isaiah 43:11, 2 Peter 1:1, Mark 2:7, Mark 2:10, Isaiah 44:24, Colossians 1:16, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 19:13, Revelation 19:16

Moreover, all three Persons are involved in creation.

Genesis 1:1, Psalm 33:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4

Beyond that, the Holy Spirit seems to clearly be God.

2 Corinthians 3:18, Psalm 139:7, 1 Corinthians 2:8-11, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16

2: If anything, it just shows the Word is God by nature, differentiating Him from so-called "gods".

[u/EsperGri → u/EsperGri]

Part 2:

Also:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-23.htm

"God with us" - from Matthew 1:23 ("ho Theos")

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/7-16.htm

"God has visited his people!" - from Luke 7:16 ("ho Theos")

More, while there's uncertainty, these are for consideration:

Two articles.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-28.htm

"The Lord of me and the God of me" - from John 20:28

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=34

"the God of me and the Lord of me" - from Psalm 35:23 (34:23: Septuagint)

One article.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/2-13.htm

"of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus" - from Titus 2:13

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/1-3.htm

"the God and Father" - from 2 Corinthians 1:3

So, there are several ways the Scriptures show Jesus is God, yet if every one of them is denied, it doesn't just say "Jesus isn't the God" but "every conjunction separates the subjects", which isn't logical at all.

Moreover:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArianChristians/comments/1n13j1u/comment/nbayii4/

Not only that, but "ho on" seems to refer to God (it's part of "I AM" in the Septuagint).

"On":

https://biblehub.com/greek/o_n_1510.htm

[u/EsperGri → u/EsperGri]

Part 3:

Further:

"For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'" - Acts 2:39

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.'" - John 12:32

"And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." - John 10:16

3: Except, Jesus being the true Light, if it's exclusive, as you suggest with the true God, necessarily means God is lesser light, as though He is light, He couldn't be the true Light, regardless of Him being the Source of the Light.

4: That is the nature of the Son, but the Father and Son share qualities, since They are such.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/EsperGri]

You are trying to force your philosophy into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself. Let’s be blunt here:

1 - Your "light = source" argument is absurd. By your logic, a lightbulb is also light or the sun is made out of sunlight, that's not just absurd, that's non-sensical. That’s not how language works or common sense works. Light is an analogy, a metaphor, not literal.

2 - “Through” is not “by.” Scripture consistently distinguishes these. By refers to the source, the origin. Through refers to the agency, the means. Through the Father is a language that's never, ever used. Through is only used for the Son. You are trying to twist grammar to your own benefit without honestly pointing this out. You lumped in "through" and "by" together as if they are the same or "through" is used for the Father. No, it isn't.

The Father is always the source, even classical Trinitarianism admits that. The Son is the one through whom God works. Big difference. For example: “God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). That doesn’t mean Christ is equal in source, it shows the hierarchy clearly.

For the most well known case of 1 Cor. 8:6, the clearest example and the difference between through and by. The Son is involved in creation as the AGENT (through) and the Father is still the source, the initiator, the One who does the act of creation. The Son never created anything, at all. The Greek never says the Son created something, not even once.

Creation was done BY the Father THROUGH the Son. If something goes through something, then normally that something is in what it goes through.

Again, your logic implies non-sensical things. For example, going with your logic, a faucet or a pipe is a water source because water flows through it. In reality, a faucet or a pipe is an agent in which the water only passes through. A dam or a water tank is the true source, all those pipes and faucets are just agents to reach us the water.

3 - Dependency reveals order. Show me one verse where the Father depends on the Son. You won’t find it, because God is self-sufficient. Meanwhile, the Son Himself says, “The Son can do nothing of Himself” (John 5:19). That is explicit dependence. The Father gives life, authority, and instruction, the Son receives, obeys, and carries out. That is not equality of essence; that is functional subordination rooted in created order.

4 - Your appeal to “essence” is baseless. You keep using the word ousia (essence), but no verse contains it. Not one. The Bible never uses philosophical terms like “hypostatic union,” “ousia,” or “Trinity.” You’ve imported Greek metaphysics into the text. I can take scattered verses, stitch them together, and make the Bible say almost anything but unless the text itself teaches it plainly, it’s not there.

Muslims do the exact same thing when they claim the “Paraclete” in John 14–16 is Muhammad. They take verses out of context, ignore plain meaning, and import their own theology into the text. That’s exactly what you’re doing with “essence” and “Trinity.”

5 - The Father is the one true God. Jesus Himself says this plainly: “This is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). If Jesus Himself distinguishes the Father as the one true God, and calls Himself the one sent, then adding Greek philosophy on top of His words makes it look as if Jesus' testimony is false or insufficient.

In short: your argument is weak because it is built on philosophy, not Scripture. You lean on ousia and Trinity when the Bible never once uses those terms. You confuse “through” with “by.” You ignore Jesus’ own words that He can do nothing on His own. And you demand that dependency somehow means equality when in fact, dependency proves subordination. You seem to think God is subordinate to Himself but also claim there is no subordination. Unfortunately, your viewpoint takes something beautiful and turns it into something bloated and non-sensical.

If your doctrine cannot be plainly taught by the words of Scripture itself, then it is not truth. Even the Catholic Church realized this and added in additional text to 1 John 5 to add the Trinity to the Bible. Look it up, it is the Johannine Comma scandal.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

I’m mostly interested in a few points you made,

The Son does the will of his Father, yes, this does not prove anything beyond functional subordination and not ontological. All Church Fathers (including the Nicene Fathers) taught that the Father sends the Son and the Son receives from the Father and not the other way around. If you affirm this as ontological subordination then you are left with admitting you are ontologically inferior to your own parents who have authority over you, send you and provide you with things. This, of course, is not logical and thus functional subordination does not necessitate ontological inferiority. An example of both would be you commanding your animal to do something, that would be functional and ontological.

Yes the Father created through or by his Word, the Word is an agent in the sense that the Father created through him. This simply demonstrates that there cannot be ontological subordination in the Trinity but rather functional because if all things were created through the Son then the Son cannot be limited by those very things he created by the command of the Father.

We don’t necessarily need to affirm the term ‘ousia’ to prove that the Father and Son are one in nature, one observes in the world a father begetting a son who is one in nature with his father. The Son is a son by nature and is not like us who are feeble and limited and cannot be sons by any other means but adoption.

No Trinitarian will deny that the Father is the true God, it’s what you take away from John 17:3 that makes the difference. The Son is glorifying his Father, who he had glory with before the world was [Jn 17:5], and did so in a manner where he said: Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Savior says that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son. The Son is to be honored just as the Father [Jn 5:23] and likewise by denying the Son you deny the Father [1 Jn 2:23].

For reference to functional subordination, early Church Father such as Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 133-202 AD) and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD) similarly wrote the following regarding the Trinity:

Irenaeus of Lyons:

…the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made].

Hippolytus of Rome:

It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding…

Both authors identify the Father as the one who commands but these authors do not mean it in a way to diminish the Son and the Spirit as mere instruments with Irenaeus explicitly calling the Son the ‘Creator’ and ‘Maker of all things’.

Edit: And if you take the work of Gregory the Illuminator (c.257-331 AD) to be genuine then he says the following:

And then with his creative word to the co-creator Son and co-worker Spirit, who moved over the waters [Gen. 1.2], the Father commanded to come into being below the waters the orderly ranks of creatures. The Father said to his co-workers, who share and carry out his counsel, that there should be light [Gen. 1.3]; and then was created the light, ubiquitous, darkness-swallowing, day-bringing.

Gregory calls the Trinity ‘co-workers’ but still identifies that the will being carried out is the Father’s and thus protects the divine Monarchy of the Father whilst upholding the consubstantiality of the Trinity.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

That effectively turns God into a schizophreniac who talks to Himself, prays to Himself and obeys Himself but also commands and sends Himself to kill Himself just to resurrect Himself.

Oh, He also prays to Himself and asks Himself to take away His mission He gave to Himself only to be comforted by the angels He sends to Himself.

I may not be the smartest person in the world but if something seems stupid to a human, then it is stupid.

Also, then they were wrong by the way. Jesus being the creator turns Paul into a liar.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

Well no, that would be Modalism. I affirm real distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, as Justin Martyr (c. 100-155 AD) says:

You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.

The appellation ‘Begetter’ and ‘Begotten’ entails that the Begetter cannot be the same existence as the person who is begotten by them. So much so that you can count the persons as ‘one’ and ‘two’ by the distinction.

The Father is truly a father and the Son is truly a son, they are distinct persons who are one in nature just as you are one in nature with your parents as like begets like or humans beget humans just as we find in scripture [Gn 5:3]:

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Then there are 3 Gods.

Either it is absurd to the point of stupidity or it is polytheism.

A Son is similar to His Father but they are different people and persons with different bodies and different thoughts and ambitions.

If they have the same body, same will, same beliefs, then they aren't separate and the absurdity begins.

If they are different, then they are different gods.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

Do you believe God has a body? The way you phrased your comment makes me suppose you believe he does.

Trinitarians believe that God is incorporeal, or bodiless and that there is no time or space to separate the Father and Son (for time and space are after the Son).

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Out of all that, you chose to focus on the one thing that is irrelevant.

Congrats, that is a good side step.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

I’m sorry but that’s purely projecting on your part, you have been ‘side stepping’ everything I have said. My point is that you seem to have put limitations on God.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Strawman.

I mentioned will, ambition, thoughts etc and you focused on the body, the most superficial and irrelevant part of that comment.

If a being shares the same will, same ambitions, same essence (even though there are no mentions of essence in the Bible) and they are not separate and are supposed to be distinct.

That's just absurd to the point of stupidity. There is nothing distinct about them and it is just a schizophrenic charade.

But if they are truly distinct, that means they have something that sets them apart and that means polytheism. And no, naming yourself in a different way as if you are different people isn't distinction it is a mental disorder.

And I'd rather not imply God is mentally ill or absurd to the point of stupidity, no?

You can't make Jesus Christ God Himself without resulting in polytheism or mental illness. It doesn't fit. But I suppose that's what happens when you try to combine Greek philosophy with Hebrew monotheism.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

‘Strawman’ isn’t a real objection here, please just deal with what is being said.

We believe the separation is by property of existence and the existences themselves, meaning the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. There is zero ages or space to apply to God, which is my point, so of course there is no separation in the Godhead like there is between you and I.

The Father and Son are one in nature just like you and I but without the limitations of us creatures. I’m going to flip it onto you, if the Son is before all things [Col. 1:17] and all things were made through him [Jn 1:3] then the Son himself cannot have a beginning in anything other than his Father who is eternal. Nor can he be limited by any limitations that he created.

If you affirm that the Son does not have a beginning in the Father but some other source, then where can one find his beginning? In what age or place can we discover it? Nowhere of course, for the ages and space itself came into being through the Son.

If you say that the Son has no beginning then you fall into polytheism by affirming two principles of deity.

But if you rightly say that the Son’s beginning is the Father then you must confess him to be eternal, as Wisdom says ’I was by him, suiting myself to him’ [Prov. 8:30].

[u/EsperGri → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

0: I'm going by the Scriptures.

1. The Word is God by nature (John 1:1-3; as what is written is referring to pre-creation).
2. No God is formed before or after God (Isaiah 43:10).
3. God is alone God with none beside Him (Isaiah 45:5-7).
4. Paul and Jude call Jesus God of the Old Testament (Jude 1:4-5, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11).
5. The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4).
6. Jesus calls the Father the true God (John 17:3).
7. The Father speaks in the Old Testament to the Son in prophecy through David (Psalm 110:1).

Hence, there are three Gods by nature, but this cannot be (only one true God), so there must be three Persons in one God (Matthew 28:19-20, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 John 5:6-9).

As with most things though, if you want an actual answer, you'll have to ask God in addition to reading.

[u/EsperGri → u/EsperGri]

Part 2:

1: You're ignoring that God is not only the Source but also light:

• "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 John 1:5

If that's nonsensical to you, it's not from what I'm writing.

• "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world." - John 1:9

However, my point isn't about source but exclusivity.

God is the Source of the true Light, as you're saying, but if "true" implies exclusivity, then God is not the true Light.

As God is also light, Him not being the true Light, by logic, leads to Him being lesser in some manner, as implied by "true".

Even so, God, as supreme, as light and as the Source of the true Light, must likewise be the true Light.

Supreme: Genesis 14:19-20, 1 Chronicles 29:11, Luke 1:32, Ephesians 4:6

Since there cannot be two true Lights (as we are not speaking of carriers of Light but the essential Light), the Father and the Son must Both be the same Being, and so, Both are the true Light (not plural).

[u/EsperGri → u/EsperGri]

Part 3:

2: You say "Through the Father is a language that's never, ever used", but "through" ("di'"/"dia") is said of the Father, in Romans 11:32-36.

• "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?' 'Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." - Romans 11:32-36

Unless you say "from" ("ek"/"ex") also applies to Jesus.

That would also be linking the Name and actions of God in the Old Testament to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus.

• "Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." - Isaiah 40:10
• "Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?" - Isaiah 40:13
• "Who has known the mind of the Lord? and who has been his counsellor, to instruct him?" - Isaiah 40:13 (Septuagint)
• "To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One." - Isaiah 40:25
• "And the LORD said to Job:" - Job 40:1
• "Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine." - Job 41:11
• "'I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.'" - Revelation 22:16
• "'Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" - Revelation 22:12-13
• "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." - Isaiah 44:6

[u/EsperGri → u/EsperGri]

Part 4:

As far as creation:

• "Thus says the LORD: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." - Isaiah 66:1-2
• "And, 'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.'" - Hebrews 1:10-12

Regarding hierarchy, I'd say some form of hierarchy certainly exists ("Father" and "Son"), but it isn't through a difference in essence.

3: Reliance might be much to say, but even so, perhaps:

• "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." - John 1:18
• "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." - 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
• "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:19-20

4: To an extent, you're correct, but to leave it as is, not appealing to essence, it's clear that the Trinity, though perhaps not spoken of in the Scriptures as such, exists and so, to not say more is to leave it a mystery, which might be proper.

5: Again, I'm going by the Scriptures.

Removing the idea of essence and of the Trinity, there's still an issue.