Artificial Intelligence: AI Wars trinity V Oneneess

 AI Wars Trinity V Oneness.

 I knew this day was coming—artificial intelligence is everywhere, and I used it to pen this piece. Tech giants and startups are locked in an AI war, racing to build machines that outsmart us all. Now, AI’s crashing into theology, spotlighting ancient questions about God and the Word. It’s digging into *Logos*—the divine Word in John 1:1-3—and how it shapes our view of Jesus as God. Was *Logos* a separate person facing off with God, or God’s own eternal plan, always before His face? John 1:1-3 lays it out: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” In Greek, *Logos* means “word,” “reason,” or “plan,” echoing the Hebrew *dabar* in Psalm 33:6, where God’s word creates without being a person. Early English Bibles, like Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament, called *Logos* “it”: “All things were made by it, without it nothing was made.” Coverdale and the Great Bible followed, treating *Logos* as God’s power or plan. But the Geneva Bible and King James Version shifted to “he,” tying *Logos* to Christ, the Word made flesh in John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Why the switch? Greek grammar allows “it”—*Logos* is neuter. But post-Reformation theology leaned into “he,” seeing *Logos* as the pre-incarnate Christ, a distinct person sharing God’s essence. Modern Bibles, like the NIV and ESV, stick with “he,” emphasizing John’s context over grammar. Are translators hiding something? Probably not. Translation balances text and intent. Early “it” translations suggest *Logos* as God’s expression, not a person. AI’s diving in, crunching Greek texts and comparing *Logos* to *dabar*. It’s fueling X debates over whether “he” pushes dogma or “it” misses the mark. Revelation 13:8 adds weight: the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world.” This shows God’s plan—His *Logos*—always included Jesus’ sacrifice. So, *Logos* isn’t a separate person but God’s eternal purpose, embodied in Jesus when “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). John 3:34 says Jesus, sent by God, gets the Spirit without measure, meaning he fully embodies God’s essence, not a distinct person facing God. Then there’s 2 Peter 1:4: believers can be “partakers of the divine nature.” This essence—God’s core being, like holiness—ties to *Logos*. Jesus, as *Logos* incarnate, is God’s plan and essence in human form, not a second person in an eternal standoff. AI’s amplifying this, analyzing terms like *physis* (nature) in 2 Peter and *Logos* in John, stirring up whether Jesus is God’s singular expression or part of a complex Godhead. X users clash: some say “he” reflects John 1:14’s incarnation; others argue “it” keeps *Logos* as God’s unified will. AI doesn’t pick sides—it churns out data, from manuscripts to posts. This isn’t just theology. AI’s role in parsing *Logos* shows tech’s power to reshape faith debates. Truth lies in the wrestle—ancient texts versus modern tools, one God versus complex distinctions. As AI digs deeper, *Logos* proves old questions burn bright, and tech’s fanning the flames. ---

Prototokos and Firstborn.

 Trinitarian's tend to believe" Oneness Pentecostals deny the  teaching that Jesus was creator", simply because we do not believe Jesus was another God person known as "the Son of God" and that Jesus pre-existed his birth and was at creation with God the Father before the earth and man existed. That is simply not the case as far as creation goes, however we do deny the doctrine of the trinity and  that Jesus was a co-creator , but rather his divinity that of God the Father was the creator and that he Jesus was actually born of a virgin like scripture teaches. Here is one of  the passages that has Jesus as creator Colossians 1:16 states, “ all things were made by him".. Here is the entire creation passage in question:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Note the phrase firstborn of every created creature. 

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: "Through "  the preposition, as in the phrase: "Through" Him.

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Jesus is not a man only, he is  also God in flesh, and a genuine man at the same time. 

"By Him" works for me! Jesus the man was given the Spirit of his God and Father, the Only true God, by no measure.(John 3:34) Making him the Only True God the Father in flesh/man/Son. He the man both pre-existed and did not pre-exist. Jesus both died and did not die, as both God and man at the same time. To take creation away from him is measuring, to take away the only true God the Father in flesh is measuring.(John 17;3) Jesus said the only true God is the Father. Jesus was made the Only true God in the incarnation. He Jesus the man had to be made such, because his humanity did not pre-exist.  That is the "through" or "by him" and "for him" inclusion in genesis 1. This is no problem for Oneness Pentecostals.

Jesus was made the Only true God in the incarnation because the man and Son of God was born of his mother and did not pre-exist his birth. Read Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 1:8 is exactly because of the incarnation. Read also Romans 5:14? Adam who was the figure of him (Jesus) that was to come. Even though Adam was made in the perfect man's image, he was not back there, but the man Jesus was included when God said: "Let Us make Man in our Image, after our Likeness." Jesus the man is the image of the Invisible God. Col. 1:15. God is not the image of God. The man Jesus is the Seen of the Not seen God. The Only Image of God in flesh.

The Greek word and "Prototokos the Firstborn of all creation." Trinitarian's will say: in reference to Col. 1:15 and Jesus being "the firstborn" has a greater meaning than it actually has, and some special meaning in reference to their doctrine of the Trinity,  of three person's of God and especially "God the Son."  but prototokos has to do with birth whether spiritual or natural. Note the following passages where prototokos is used: Luke 2:7 , Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:6 , Hebrews 11:28 , Hebrews 12:23 , Revelation 1:5 . Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are "the offspring of God", we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. The Only Son Born of a virgin. (Unique) but still a  virgin birth, no other Son can make that claim."Adam was also the Son of God." Luke 3:38. But he was not born of a virgin.  Nor was Adam a created angel. Adam was begotten of the dust of the ground by God himself and breathing life, man became a living soul.Genesis 2:7-9. Jesus was the first thought of God before creation(A thought brought forth birthed) and was the perfect man Adam was figured in.  As Paul said before : Adam was the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:14  In every sense. Adam was the first in creation, but Jesus was the perfect pattern. Note the word figure or  "type" and recall Genesis 1:26? the other meanings for that word: the mark of a stroke or blow; print,a figure formed by a blow or impression;Image, pattern example. Which goes perfectly with what Oneness Pentecostals are saying about creation.

Now recall the many uses for the word "prototokos" It is a great stretch to mean  or to insert into the dogma of the Trinity concerning a pre-existent person of God.  This is not a denial He is Sovereign but it is a denial he is is pre-existent and the word usage is inconsistent to prove  Jesus as a  pre-existent God  person. There is simply no proof of a pre-existent God person in the word itself.
 

Pauline Doctrine of "Faith Alone" Does Not Exist.

 

The following article excerpt comes from  a reformed, that attempts multiple critiques concerning Oneness Pentecostals view of New Testament Soteriology, particularly water baptism in Jesus name being orally invoked over those being baptized. The writer then makes the assertion that Oneness Pentecostals deny salvation is by "faith alone" or  as he calls it: "Sola Fide". I will attempt to say a little about most of every thing he says,  but I am not worried that I don't touch on everything. The Reformed writer says the follwing:

Over and over again, Oneness writers proclaim ‘Acts 2:38 is the gospel,’[39] without tempering such a claim with the balance of the NT. If Oneness Pentecostals tempered their interpretation of Acts 2:38 with the balance of NT teaching on soteriology, their legalistic insistence upon baptism with the oral invocation of Jesus’ name would evaporate. Instead of the sufficiency of Scripture as it relates to soteriology, Oneness Pentecostals affirm the sufficiency and exclusivity of Acts 2:38. The Oneness hermeneutic effectively obliterates the Pauline doctrine of sola fide, and puts Pauline anthropology on its head. How can justification be by faith “without works” (Rom. 4:6) if obedience to Christ’s command of baptism is required? Bernard’s soteriology negates Paul’s claim that “Those in the flesh do not have the ability to please God” (Rom. 8:6). If unbelievers are incapable of pleasing God, then how might they engage in obedience to the command of Christ prior to the regenerative work of the Spirit of God? I will now proceed to work backwards with what the Reformed writer claims, to the beginning of his points, taking each point. 


  Point 1.)
Bernard’s soteriology negates Paul’s claim that “Those in the flesh do not have the ability to please God” (Rom. 8:6). If unbelievers are incapable of pleasing God, then how might they engage in obedience to the command of Christ prior to the regenerative work of the Spirit of God?
1.) My reasons for this writing has nothing to do with the defense of David Bernard. You can take that up with him, but I do not believe any of what you have stated is true of Bernard because of reading many of his works myself that state the opposite. What you mean more than likely,is "all Oneness Pentecostals. "  This is not true. We believe in Justification by faith but we reject your views of it and I will attempt to show what the scriptures say and teach on the subject.

I will let Jesus  himself tell you, since he commissioned the Apostles. John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. God allows everyone to be saved although that had not yet come to the gentiles until Acts 10.

Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear, is that you do not belong to God."John 8:48 later everyone is included and I believe Jesus is setting the order of things. Jesus was saying the Jews did not belong to God for a specific reason and it had nothing to do with the Calvin dogma of inability. The Jews in Jesus time, all they had to do was repent and turn back to God. When they recognized the words Jesus was speaking, but they were blinded in part.
 
 Again Jews only at this point, please keep in mind gentiles were not included yet. This was only to the Jews. Also know that God had to open their (the disciples) Understanding that they might understand the Scriptures in Luke 24:45-53. The power of the Spirit also did not come upon them until Acts chapter 2:4. The preaching of the word of God in conjunction with the Spirit of God together gets the job done. The Letter kills, but the Spirit makes Alive. 2 Cor. 3:6

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is ( Hidden) , it is (Hidden) to those who are perishing. (Lost)
in whom the god of this age has BLINDED THE MINDS of the unbelieving, so as for not to beam forth the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. That can be remedied by the preaching of the gospel.

The following was a promise they had not yet received. the Spirit gave them the power in  Acts 2? Notice they had power to remit sins? This is left out when anyone talks about baptism for the remission of sins. The name Jesus is  what Oneness Pentecostals claim is the reason and power to remit the sins. James 5:14  this is to the already established church body.
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Which takes us right to Luke 24:45-48.

I will now insert the Apostle Paul. 

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.14 How then (A negation of the former Until the following is done) shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?17 So then FAITH  COMETH BY HEARING , and hearing by the WORD OF GOD. (You are not saved apart from hearing the preaching of the word)

Can you imagine God telling us all this and it is not true and we are not even able to believe?  Also make note of the verb "sent" from the phrase "a preacher sent of God."  John 17:18 as you have sent me into the world, or the same exact way you have sent me, even so have I sent these into the world. The Disciples or later Apostles.

1 John 2:2  and he is the propitiation for our sins and NOT OURS ONLY, but the sins of the whole world.
Without interjecting of my beliefs, but quoting the scripture. We see that God has given for us the ability to believe or reject the gospel when we hear the gospel message, the same way the Jews did in Acts 2. The dead are already Lost and do not believe, but Jesus tells us there will come a time and now is that time when they will be able to do just that with in the time frame of his ministry going forward. The claim is not being made that belief in Jesus alone or on Jesus alone as some make claim, is what saves. because the scriptures make the following claim: And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him. Acts 5:32.

 Point 2. writes:"The Oneness hermeneutic effectively obliterates the Pauline doctrine of sola fide, and puts Pauline anthropology on its head. How can justification be by faith “without works” (Rom. 4:6) if obedience to Christ’s command of baptism is required?"  First of all, there is no Pauline doctrine of "Sola Fide." That is a Reformed dogma that does not exist anywhere in scripture. "Without the works of the Law"  The scripture itself destroys the doctrine... "Alone" is inserted anytime they the Reformed see the word "faith." It has been inserted so much, they cannot see anything else.  Obedience to God's word puts Faith in action. it is what we do and have. There is only one passage in all of scripture that talks about "faith alone" and it is not on the side of Reformed dogma.
James 2: 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? faith is imperfect (dead faith or disobedience) without obedience to the word of God.

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only. Paul is talking about obedience to the word of God apart from the works of the Law.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should OBEY it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Note that the "works" Paul is speaking of in Eph. 2:8:9 are the works of the Law. Particular work not obedient faith.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that To WHOM YOU YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of OBEDIENCE unto righteousness? (There is no getting out of this it is about obedience to the word or your flesh)

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Acts 2:38. The Roman church.
Notice what Peter says in  the following passage? 1 Peter 5:12 

12 With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the TRUE GRACE of God. Stand fast in it. 13 She who is in(or the church at) Babylon,(Jerusalem) chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Peter preached Acts 2:38 to be saved. Was it the true grace or not?

I most certainly have not forgotten Romans 6 although I have only posted the last half of the passage as the first half agrees with the Oneness Pentecostal view fully.
Romans 6;1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:(water baptism in Jesus name) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(Spirit baptism) The One Baptism is a Unity of One water and Spirit baptism. being born of the water and of the Spirit.(John 3:3-8)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, (Buried with him In  water baptism) we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. <Baptism of the Spirit> Acts 2:38 is the grace given everyone as the promise is unto you and to your Jews  Children ,  and to all that are afar off,even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39

Acts 2:38. "Remission of Sins Comes From Repentance And Not Baptism In Jesus name." Claims a Facebook Debater.

 I have been dealing with a poster on  Facebook debate groups  who makes the following argument: 

 Manuel Culwell "in the Greek there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so

Acts 2: 38.

Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and plural in number, but baptized is the 3rd person and singular in number, so we can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, but we can build a doctrine on repent for the remission of sins.

Lk 24: 47.

This is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter.

Repent for the remission of sins, then you can be baptized by the authority of Jesus. (Not in Jesus name).

The poster further writes:"you have to believe erroneous scholars, because you know if the believe Christian scholars, then you will have to admit that you are wrong, (Which you are).

What has the collective noun of people got to do with either Repent remission of sins and baptized?? apart from the fact it's talking about people who need to repent for the remission of sins."

My Comments:
The poster never gives the identity of the scholar he is using, but  that does not deter me, as I have given other scholars who deal with the subject in our discussion. The reason for baptism being in the" third person singular" the collective noun is because it is a group.(According to Gingrich from a PDF on the subject) It still agrees because a group is both plural and singular. The argument actually does not prove what the poster says. But there are many other arguments that can be used to show he is wrong.  John 20:23 for instance: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Men were Not just given the power to remit sins, but through obedience to the word of God in water Baptism in Jesus name Like Acts 2;38 says.  Admittedly Jesus did not give any exhaustive detail in the passage. God alone has power to forgive sins but has given it to us water baptism in Jesus name. The name Jesus is both the power and authority to forgive men of their sins and not the water in baptism. The poster then makes the claim  concerning John 20:23 that the disciples would simply be informing those who repent  that they have had their sins remitted in the act of repentance and if they did not repent, they would not have their sins remitted. This however ignores the fact this was told to the disciples to do. A verb it's what you do. And it was given to them from Jesus to do through baptism in Jesus name being orally invoked over them. Read James 2:7,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45-48.  from the following Greek to English analysis.

David Bernard on Calvinism  

"Paul Never says By Faith Alone." By Jason staples Article. Interesting read.

 Jason Staples a Trinitarian, is the Only One of few people teaching about this subject, who seems to get this right. Be sure to go to the comments section and read 
the objections to Professor Staples arguments before leaving this article? You can read the Article Here

 Philippians 2:5-6 the difference between Eidos (pronounced aay- daws) and Morphe ( pronounced More-Fey). The words used for Form.

I am the LORD; I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

Eidos and Morphe differences...... Morphe is a Philosophical term that does not necessarily have to do with what you see although I have had trinitarain's tell me that it meant God had a form all along especially using the word from Philippians 2.

Philippians 2:5-6 which is different from Isaiah 53:2 he had no form(Shape or what you see, but the two terms are closely related) or comeliness. Meaning his form(What was seen, was beaten beyond recognition.

It is the Greek morphe, for which English has no exact equivalent. Unlike "form" in English, morphe does not mean "shape."

It is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence." It does have to do with what you see

concerning Jesus, but not at all how alot folks believe it ..

Interesting view of What the Bible says about Morphe

(From Forerunner Commentary) Points to consider? this is trinitarain writing commentary and View, to which I do not agree with pre-existence of the Son of God as another God person with a God person or persons.

Philippians 2:5-6

"These verses provide the background for Christ's incarnation. The first word we need to consider is form in verse 6. It is the Greek morphe, for which English has no exact equivalent. Unlike "form" in English, morphe does not mean "shape." It is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence." We can derive an illustration of this definition from figure skating. One might say, "I went to the Winter Olympics, and the figure skater's form was outstanding." What is meant is that skater's swift, rhythmic grace, and coordinated movements were an outward expression of his inward ability to skate expertly.

Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God. The word being indicates a condition that began in the past and continues into the present. Therefore, while on earth, the outward expression of His inmost being was the expression of the divine essence, deity."

John W. Ritenbaugh

Fully Man and Fully God?"

The very example is given of an Ice skater's impeccable ability to perform that which comes from the inside. (What we see) the same is true with Jesus. He was a man for all intents and purposes to look upon his form(Shape)he looked like any other man, but inwardly he possessed more ( Form eidos). All power In heaven and earth is given ( the manpossessed) unot me. Matthew 28:18. Jesus was given the Spirit by no measure John 3:34. he was made Both Lord and Christ Acts 2:36. He was made the Life giving Spirit. 1 Cor. 15:45.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Do Oneness have a problem with this analysis? No, we should Not!Not even in reading the entire commentary. The key is the words: "retained and clutched" which fits perfectly with the view: God nor the man Changes and it is a matter of what he the man possesses( Once more The words "clutched" and "retained" in the trinitarian analysis) that makes Jesus God and man without some view of a hybrid Hercules Jesus ( ridiculous Godman) to which there can be no such thing. Jesus is Both God(The Only true God the Father) and man(The Son of God) at the same time: Unmixed, not just one or the other.

you can read the original commentary here .

 How does God become a man, without the man becoming God? Which God became man?  The Trinity is not One God. it should not be debated as such.

I John 1:1 Proves John 1 Cannot Mean "Face To Face" In Some Eternal Staring Contest between Two God Persons.

The passage in question: 1 John 1:1-2

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;(The phrase  the word of life is broken off or compounded from the single phrase to attempt to prove The word was Jesus and then of life is something else disconnected from the phrase.The next verse will not allow it.

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that *eternal life,(*Accusative feminine singular  Adjective) which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) Eternal Life and the word of life are the same things.

The word of Life eternal life was with the Father.  It is not some compound: the word .... of life. It is one phrase:" the word of life." The Oneness view contends that the preposition* with* is concerning  the Life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus was in view as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world  and was God's intention all along for mankind's redemption.

Para meaning from Bill Mounce.

Gloss:

(gen.) from; (dat.) with, before, *in the sight of;* (acc.) beside, along side, by, at.

The Cross was in the sight of God from the foundation of the world. Which is my view of para! Revelation 13:8 fits perfectly

https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/para

The following is an argument from a Trinitatian and is connected  with the above  point.

"Hebrews 10:5 says Christ says these words AS he is coming into the world, not when he was already in it. He says the body was prepared FOR HIM, not that he IS himself that body. Also he clearly says, "A body YOU have prepared for ME," not "A body have I prepared for myself." There's those clear-as-day distinguishing indicators so present in the text, which must be ignored to adhere to your view."

Manuel Culwell

This is about coming into his ministry, it has nothing to do with coming from pre-existence. his body/person was prepared as a redemptive sacrifice from the foundation of the world, as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world Rev. 5:6,13:8. 

Jesus said "Father the same exact way "you sent me into the world even so have I sent them" into the world. John 17:18 Did they pre-exist since that was your point?

 The Spirit of the Son was there at the time of creation. That Spirit was the Spirit Oneness cry (as the only true God) ABBA Father. Gal. 4:6 The Bible and Paul said The Son was a man Hebrews 10;12 and 1 Tim. 2:5. the man is the mediator to God. God is not the mediator to God.
Galatians 4:6 
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. The Son possessed the Spirit by no measure.John 3:34 he was not possessed.

Phillipians 2:5-6 ,  Truth tellers know who the Son is according to his divinity. Jesus is both God and man.