Two Distinct Persons Within God / One Verse.

Towerwatchman

Towerwatchman

Well-known member
Two Distinct Persons Within God / One Verse.



Oneness: What do they believe?

  • We acknowledge "Sola Scriptura" seriously.
  • There is One God with no distinction of persons.
  • Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the one true God manifested in the flesh. He is the One God incarnate. Jesus is the human personification of God.
  • We believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost but do not hold that these are three distinct persons,
  • The OT establishes that there is One God without distinction of persons. (Isaiah 45)

Central to Oneness is the concept of the Oneness of God. Just like Christianity rises and falls on the Resurrection, Oneness rises and falls on the Oneness of God. We can logically conclude from the above that just as I am one being / one person, God is one being/ one person.

We need to define person.

“Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire. Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God should be one being with one center of self-consciousness who identifies as “I”.

Since it the Oneness position that the OT establishes that there is One God without distinction of persons, we should not find any contradiction to this claim.

I submit the following.

Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be an “I”, both claiming to be the First and Last and both claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original language “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.

The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red] establishes a relationship between YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH Lord of Host.

We have two distinct individuals [suffix ‘his’ establishes], identifying themselves as YHWH, also identifying themselves as individuals {‘I’}, therefore each a center of self-consciousness. Here we have two centers of self-consciousness’ therefore two distinct persons within God claiming to be a singularity “Me”.



כה thus --- אמר he said -- יהוה: Yahweh -- מלך king of-- ישׂראל: Israel-- ו: and-- גאל redeemer

הוא his/him-- יהוה: Yahweh of-- צבא hosts-- אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—

ו: and--- מן from--- בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים: God



Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

כה thus אמר he said יהוה: Yahweh מלך king of ישׂראל : Israel

And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

ו: and הוא his/him גאל redeemer יהוה : Yahweh of-- צבא hosts


‘I am the First and I am the Last;

אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—


Besides Me there is no God

בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים : God
 
Towerwatchman said:
The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red] establishes a relationship between YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH Lord of Host.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I believe the relationship is between YHWH transcendent of the universe and YHWH incarnate within the universe.


Towerwatchman said:
We have two distinct individuals [suffix ‘his’ establishes], identifying themselves as YHWH, also identifying themselves as individuals {‘I’}, therefore each a center of self-consciousness. Here we have two centers of self-consciousness’ therefore two distinct persons within God claiming to be a singularity “Me”.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity…

Which individual (center of consciousness) said “Me”?
 
Towerwatchman said:
And? What does that prove?
Click to expand...

Well for starters…

Trinitarians do NOT know WHO came up with the idea to redeem us.

But they will one day…

Jeremiah 31:34… And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Trinitarians will eventually know WHO said “I” and “me”.
 
Yahchristian said:
Well for starters…

Trinitarians do NOT know WHO came up with the idea to redeem us.

But they will one day…

Jeremiah 31:34… And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Trinitarians will eventually know WHO said “I” and “me”.
Click to expand...
And how does that prove there is no Trinity
 
Towerwatchman said:
Two Distinct Persons Within God / One Verse.



Oneness: What do they believe?

  • We acknowledge "Sola Scriptura" seriously.
  • There is One God with no distinction of persons.
  • Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the one true God manifested in the flesh. He is the One God incarnate. Jesus is the human personification of God.
  • We believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost but do not hold that these are three distinct persons,
  • The OT establishes that there is One God without distinction of persons. (Isaiah 45)

Central to Oneness is the concept of the Oneness of God. Just like Christianity rises and falls on the Resurrection, Oneness rises and falls on the Oneness of God. We can logically conclude from the above that just as I am one being / one person, God is one being/ one person.

We need to define person.

“Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire. Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God should be one being with one center of self-consciousness who identifies as “I”. This is the sort of empty nonsense Colossians 2:8 is talking about.

Since it the Oneness position that the OT establishes that there is One God without distinction of persons, we should not find any contradiction to this claim.

I submit the following.

Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be an “I”, both claiming to be the First and Last and both claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original language “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.

The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red] establishes a relationship between YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH Lord of Host.

We have two distinct individuals [suffix ‘his’ establishes], identifying themselves as YHWH, also identifying themselves as individuals {‘I’}, therefore each a center of self-consciousness. Here we have two centers of self-consciousness’ therefore two distinct persons within God claiming to be a singularity “Me”.



כה thus --- אמר he said -- יהוה: Yahweh -- מלך king of-- ישׂראל: Israel-- ו: and-- גאל redeemer

הוא his/him-- יהוה: Yahweh of-- צבא hosts-- אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—

ו: and--- מן from--- בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים: God



Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

כה thus אמר he said יהוה: Yahweh מלך king of ישׂראל : Israel

And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

ו: and הוא his/him גאל redeemer יהוה : Yahweh of-- צבא hosts


‘I am the First and I am the Last;

אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—


Besides Me there is no God

בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים : God
Click to expand...


Again, you are reading into this what is not there. It's simply two titles for the same person because in the same verse it uses very strong singular personal pronouns to identify who the singular subject is. "I AM". "BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD".

You want to have you cake and eat it too... if you are going to suppose three persons in the Godhead, then each person would be properly identified as "I", otherwise you don't have "persons" according to your own definition. You can't say three "persons" or two "persons and then neglect their pronouns. You want to strain at finding hidden shades of meaning while ignoring the plain and obvious.

What part of "BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD" are you not accepting?

You have a cognitive dissonance problem with PRONOUNS. It bears a striking resemblance in this way to the Wokeism philosophy in that both belief systems need to be inconsistent with their use of pronouns.

It is nonsensical for you to uphold three different persons in the Godhead who each objectively know themselves and one another other and love one another in a substantial manner and then propose that their pronoun is "I".

With your logic Satan would be two persons (Rev 12:9): "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Many English translations render the plain meaning of Isaiah 44 with clearer equivalent English grammar because an "I am" can only be one person in this verse.

This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies: “I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.
 
Last edited:
Andreas said:
Again, you are reading into this what is not there. It's simply two titles for the same person because in the same verse it uses very strong singular personal pronouns to identify who the singular subject is. "I AM". "BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD".

You want to have you cake and eat it too... if you are going to suppose three persons in the Godhead, then each person would be properly identified as "I", otherwise you don't have "persons" according to your own definition. You can't say three "persons" or two "persons and then neglect their pronouns. You want to strain at finding hidden shades of meaning while ignoring the plain and obvious.

What part of "BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD" are you not accepting?

You have a cognitive dissonance problem with PRONOUNS. It bears a striking resemblance in this way to the Wokeism philosophy in that both belief systems need to be inconsistent with their use of pronouns.

It is nonsensical for you to uphold three different persons in the Godhead who each objectively know themselves and one another other and love one another in a substantial manner and then propose that their pronoun is "I".

With your logic Satan would be two persons (Rev 12:9): "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Many English translations render the plain meaning of Isaiah 44 with clearer equivalent English grammar because an "I am" can only be one person in this verse.

This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies: “I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.
Click to expand...
Still writing theology from the translations vs the original text.
Notice you are missing one key item. The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red]

Redeemer carries a pronominal suffix?

PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
In Hebrew, pronominal suffixes are possessive and objective pronouns that are suffixes on
nouns, prepositions, and the definite direct object marker.
When appearing on nouns, they are possessive, as in .'her locker.'

The pronominal suffix modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel".
 
Towerwatchman said:
Still writing theology from the translations vs the original text.
Notice you are missing one key item. The suffix ‘his’ is found in the word redeemer “וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ” (in red]

Redeemer carries a pronominal suffix?

PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES
In Hebrew, pronominal suffixes are possessive and objective pronouns that are suffixes on
nouns, prepositions, and the definite direct object marker.
When appearing on nouns, they are possessive, as in .'her locker.'

The pronominal suffix modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel".
Click to expand...

You are to the Hebrew language what a toddler is to a loaded gun.

Or, a 5th grader who finds fools gold in a river and thinks he is on his way to be a millionaire.

God doesn't need a redeemer, Israel needs a redeemer. You haven't addressed the pronoun problem you have with this sentence. You've gone off the rails with pronoun confusion.
 
Andreas said:
You are to the Hebrew language what a toddler is to a loaded gun.

Or, a 5th grader who finds fools gold in a river and thinks he is on his way to be a millionaire.

God doesn't need a redeemer, Israel needs a redeemer. You haven't addressed the pronoun problem you have with this sentence. You've gone off the rails with pronoun confusion.
Click to expand...
More insults . Keep it up you are doing a great job of representing oneness.

"His Redeemer" does not imply that God is in need of a Redeemer. What it implies is that there is a relationship between the two.
Does the term "his cardiologist' imply that X is in need of a cardiologist? No.
One can simply conclude from scripture that the since the redeemer was sent by God, that its His redeemer.
 
Towerwatchman said:
More insults . Keep it up you are doing a great job of representing oneness.

"His Redeemer" does not imply that God is in need of a Redeemer. What it implies is that there is a relationship between the two.
Does the term "his cardiologist' imply that X is in need of a cardiologist? No.
One can simply conclude from scripture that the since the redeemer was sent by God, that its His redeemer.
Click to expand...

This is what the Doctor says—Bob's Physican and Cardiologist, the Doctor of Cardiology: “I am Bob's only doctor and besides me Bob has no doctor"

Thus says the Doctor, the Physican of Bob, And His Cardiologist, the Doctor of Cardiology: “I am Bob's only doctor and besides me Bob has no doctor"
 
Andreas said:
This is what the Doctor says—Bob's Physican and Cardiologist, the Doctor of Cardiology: “I am Bob's only doctor and besides me Bob has no doctor"

Thus says the Doctor, the Physican of Bob, And His Cardiologist, the Doctor of Cardiology: “I am Bob's only doctor and besides me Bob has no doctor"
Click to expand...
??? I am not 100% sure where you are going with this. So please apply the same analogy to the verse.
 
Andreas said:
Bob. To clarify, do you see how Bob is two persons? There is the Doctor and Bob. In Isaiah there is YHWH (I AM) and Israel.
Click to expand...
If I am correct you are stating, by the use of this example, that in the verse 'his' is modifying Israel.
The pronominal suffix modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.

But let's test it.

Thus says Biden the president of the United States and his vice president Kamala Harris.

Based on the above 'vice president Kamala Harris' is a possession of 'Biden the president of the United States' or 'United States'?
 
Towerwatchman said:
If I am correct you are stating, by the use of this example, that in the verse 'his' is modifying Israel.
The pronominal suffix modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.

But let's test it.

Thus says Biden the president of the United States and his vice president Kamala Harris.

Based on the above 'vice president Kamala Harris' is a possession of 'Biden the president of the United States' or 'United States'?
Click to expand...


Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

This is a bit closer test with same word count:

Thus says the Biden, the President of America, and his Head, the Biden of Armies: I'm first and I'm last; besides me there is no President.

If one is predisposed to assume multiple persons in the Godhead, then reading into that verse two persons becomes a way of interpreting a phrase that supports that. However, a reference to just one person is justified and the best rendering given the strong declarative at the end of the sentence as to who is speaking... a singular I AM.

How many is "I"?
How man can be "The First"? Not a first, but THE FIRST?

"I" means one person. To leave that basic and accurate understanding of this simple pronoun is nonsensical.

When Jesus said he was before Abraham, I AM (JOHN 8:58), he was referring to Himself as that One true God. But, due to this genuine humanity, He is that one true God in the form of man, perceiving Himself as a man. Calling this distinction something between two persons in the Godhead doesn't work because there can only be one God person who is I AM and one FIRST. Calling Jesus a different person than the Father is too much of a distinction.
 
Andreas said:
Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

This is a bit closer test with same word count:

Thus says the Biden, the President of America, and his Head, the Biden of Armies: I'm first and I'm last; besides me there is no President.

If one is predisposed to assume multiple persons in the Godhead, then reading into that verse two persons becomes a way of interpreting a phrase that supports that. However, a reference to just one person is justified and the best rendering given the strong declarative at the end of the sentence as to who is speaking... a singular I AM.

How many is "I"?
How man can be "The First"? Not a first, but THE FIRST?
Click to expand...
How many YHWH? 2
Again, if this was the only verse, then it would be a very weak argument. This alongside the other verses, where we find plurality and singularity of nouns and verbs makes it a very strong argument for plurality.
And this also makes the oneness idea hard to reconcile.

 
1 TIMOTHY 2:5 "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

This verse is very instructive as to the relationship between the Father and the Son of God. The role of a mediator does take two, but in the unique case of God and the incarnation you can't assume to distinct "persons". God is unique and the incarnation is unique. There is nothing like it on earth to compare it to. I believe you run into the Colossians 2:8 problem if you do.


Carefully notice that the mediator is the MAN Christ Jesus, and it doesn't say "God the Son" or "2nd Person in the Godhead". If it had, and it would have been a great place to include that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The humanity of Christ was real, and so it is not hard to see that God existing, functioning, and perceiving as an authentic man can be this mediator communicating to God the Father, who is over all. The one person of God existing in two distinct ways simultaneously.

Do you believe the man Jesus Christ had trouble going to sleep at night because He was too busy listening to prayers of people in India and Africa?
Do you believe that the baby Jesus cut his own umbilical cord and jumped down and went out preaching in Chinese to the traveling Chinese merchants from the east?
When the Bible says that as a young man he grew in wisdom, was this really a true and authentic statement or was God the Son playing mind games like he didn't really know all things and had to pretend to grow in wisdom?

I ask these questions to get you to think about the authentic humanity of Christ. Christ's human psychology was not what you think it was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top