In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

This question may seem strange, but I believe it is valid. It is commonly understood that God cannot create logical contradictions, such as a square circle, or make 1+1=3. However, it seems that the trinity itself is a logical contradiction being three distinct persons but still only one God. Why can God not create logical contradictions when his own nature is a logical contradiction? I am a trinitarian, but I am unsure of how to answer this question.

I previously posted the question: > I understand the word theos may be translated as "God" or as "god." > Bible writers added words (the, true, only, or one) to indicate the > Almighty. For example, in prayer, Jesus described the Father as **the > only true theos** (John 17:3). The Nicene Creed describes the Father > as "one theos" and the Son as "true theos from true theos." Is there > anything in the Greek of this phrase to indicate whether this should > read "God" or "god?" But the moderator closed the question and indicated: > Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. So, let me try to explain why I ask such a question: The ancient Greek word theos is the standard word used by the Greeks for their gods, the pantheon. The modern English word “God” has a very different meaning, for it is used only for one Being, namely the Ultimate Reality; the Almighty. Since no other word was available, the New Testament writers used the same word theos for the God of the Bible. When the context indicates that it refers to the Ultimate Reality, it is translated as “God.” But the New Testament also uses theos for other beings, such as Satan and even certain humans. In such instances, it is translated as “god.” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5-6) The Nicene Creed refers to Jesus as theos in the phrase “theos from theos.” On the assumption of the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is God Almighty, this is translated as “God from God.” However, **the authors of the 325 Nicene Creed did not think of the Son as God Almighty**. This is indicated by the following: 1. The Creed itself makes a distinction between the “one God, the Father almighty” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” 2. Most of the delegates to the council were followers of Origen Frend WHC (The Rise of Christianity) (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Ferickson%2F" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Millard J. Erickson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and Origen, like all pre-Nicene Fathers, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23origen" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hanson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). They did refer to Jesus as theos because they <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23divine" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">did regard Him as divine <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> but, in their theology, there were <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23theos" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">many different types and grades of deity <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>. 3. The concept or phrase “theos from theos” was used by pre-Nicene fathers (Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47, Tertullian <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fanf03.v.ix.xiii.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Against Praxeas 13 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), but they regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. 4. Later Arian Creeds also referred to Christ as theos from theos. For example, the Creed of Sirmium , in the year 358, refers to the Son as “God from God, light from light.” However, that creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father. As a defense against the indications in the Bible that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Council of Chalcedon stated that the Son, during His incarnation, had two natures: a divine and a human nature. Therefore, that council argues, when He said that He is subordinate to the Father, He was speaking from His human nature. However, the 'two natures' proposal only deals with indications of subordination while the Son was on earth in the form of a man. There are also many indications that the Son is subordinate to the Father BEFORE His incarnation and AFTER His resurrection and ascension. To defend against such indications of subordination, Trinitarians argue that the three ontologically equal Persons have a voluntary arrangement amongst themselves – a division of duties, so to speak - in which the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, an eternal voluntary arrangement between three ontologically equal Persons, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, remains real subordination. (Kevin Giles ) Conclusion and Question -------- Therefore, when Irenaeus said that “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47), I understand that Irenaeus simply meant that both the Father and the Son are immortal beings with supernatural powers. And, therefore, when Irenaeus added that “that which is begotten of God is God,” he simply meant that, since the Father is an immortal being with supernatural powers, and since Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, He is also an immortal being with supernatural powers. So, the question remains, on the basis of the conclusion that the Nicene Council regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, how should "theos from theos" in the Nicene Creed be translated? This may be compared to the following quote from Irenaeus: > There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of > all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. (IV, Preface). This quote classifies the Father, the Son, and believers under the category theos, showing the general meaning of the word theos. How should theos in this quote be translated?

This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father? I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God"). Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way? The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

>Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them - Hebrews 7:25 (KJV) How do Trinitarians who believe that the distinct persons of the Trinity share one will, explain how Jesus is making intercession with God? (A previous answer here on Christianity.SE stated that some Trinitarians believe that the Trinity share a single will, while others believe each has a separate but identical will.) I apologize. I thank you all for your answers. But my question wasn't clear enough, so your answers didn't provide the information I am seeking. So I am re-asking my question .

### Introduction The NT presents Jesus of Nazareth as the **unique Son of God** in John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (**μονογενης υιος, monogenēs huios**), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The concept of a single 'son of God' is seemingly not found in the Hebrew bible. The phrase **bene-elohim/בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים** (sons of God) are referenced several times in different contexts. Several named characters such as Satan are called **bene-elohim**, such as in Job 1:6: > "One day the **sons of God** (**בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bene-elohim**) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them." ### Question What is the Old Testament basis for believing that God has a single, unique son?

The verse reads (KJV): > “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” I understand this verse is tied to the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. However, the wording “**his** God” raises questions for me in the context of the Trinity. I am following Chuck Smith's Blue Letter Bible (verse by verse commentary) but he doesn’t address this phrasing. Matthew Henry's touches on it, suggesting that the Messiah “speaks with God’s authority,” referencing Matthew 7:28 (“because he was teaching them as one who had authority”). This seems related to other biblical patterns where God’s people or godly figures are “called by God’s name,” such as Daniel 1:19, Jeremiah 15:16, Jeremiah 14:9, Isaiah 43:6, and Acts 15:17. Another example is Exodus 23:21, where the angel (or Jesus, if seen as a Christophany) “carries God’s name.” I also understand that Jesus can address God as “My God” (Matthew 27:46), but in Micah, the author doesn’t seem concerned about drawing a strong distinction between the Messianic figure and God. I would greatly appreciate insight into this phrasing in Micah 5:4 — why does it say “His God”? What theological or textual reasons might explain it? Thank you in advance.

Encounters with God (the Father) are called *Theophanies*, encounters with Jesus are called *Christophanies*, but what about encounters with the Holy Spirit? Is there a specific term for an encounter with the third person of the Trinity? **Note**: by encounter, I mean any sort of self-authenticating experience through which a supernatural being makes its existence or presence known, obvious and clear (i.e. reveals itself) to a person. _____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422

Philippians 2:6 is "Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ" "Hos en morphe theou hyparchon ouch harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo" In his talk Philippians 2: Jesus is not God , Dr. Tom Gaston says (~3 min. mark) > "Had Paul meant to say that Jesus was God, or was a god, he would have > had a very simple way of doing so. That's not a difficult thing to say > in Greek. So the fact that he doesn't use those words makes it very > unlikely that that's what he means." If St. Paul had wanted to say Jesus was God at Philippians 2:6 straightforwardly, he could have said so. Instead, he adds the word 'form', as in 'form of God'. Similarly, as Gaston continues > "Also, had Paul meant to be talking about Jesus' *nature* - saying > that Jesus had the nature of God - again, he would have used other > words. Look at this passage from Galatians 4:8, where Paul talks about > the nature of gods. [...] He uses the Greek word 'phusis' for > 'nature', and again, when you look at that verse for 2 Peter 1:4, it > talks about participating in the divine nature, and again the Greek > word used is 'phusis'. **So had Paul wanted to say Jesus had divine > nature, there are other words he could have used to say that. Instead, > what Paul says is that Jesus was in the form of God. The word he uses > is 'morphe', which is most commonly used in reference to *outward* > appearance, rather than essence or being** [as is done at Mark 16:12]." Why, according to Trinitarians who believe Philippians 2:6 is saying Jesus was God, did Paul add the word 'form' ('morphe')?

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy, opposing established orthodoxy, and by gaining many followers. The term "Arianism," by itself, implies that it is something developed by Arius: > Britannica defines Arianism as: “A heresy **first proposed by Arius** of > Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created > being.” > > Arianism is “a heresy of the Christian Church, **started by Arius** ... > who taught that the Son is not equivalent to the Father (όμοούστος = > consubstantialis), thereby provoking a serious schism in the Christian > Church” (Jewish Encyclopedia ). (Note that this quote explains "equivalent" as "same substance" (homoousios).) > > “Athanasius' account begins by presenting Arius as **the originator of a > new heresy**” (Ayres, p. 107). In other words, Arianism is something that Arius developed. He developed a new theology or heresy, which caused the Controversy because many people accepted it. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, in a recent book on Arius, described him as a conservative, meaning that he defended the tradition, which would mean that he did not develop a new theology: > “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a > conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175). > > “A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality > has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his > supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured > tradition” (Williams, 21). > > “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” > (Williams, 233). Other authors added: > “Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent > independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with > respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, 97). > > “Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more > adherent of the dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition” (Lienhard ). > > “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius > himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this > term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with > either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or > Eusebius of Caesarea” (Ayres, p. 52). One comment is that those two things can be true at the same time. How would that be possible? Arius either developed a new theology or he did not. If he were a conservative Alexandrian, he was defending the traditional Alexandrian theology. Ken Graham says: "Would be better to quote Christian definitions rather than those of non-christian sources." Ken, if you knew anything about this subject, you would have known that the guys I quote are the world experts in the field, and they are all Catholics in good and regular standing. The problem is that people do not want to accept the revised account of the Arian Controversy: > “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been > like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting > shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer > and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around > the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96). Dottard commented: > Arius initiated the new teaching that was rejected by the council of > Nicaea. The "controversy" arose because many recognized his teaching as > different from that of the NT which Nicaea was called to resolve. (It > did so because it essentially tried to meld Greek philosophy with > Biblical teaching which has always been a disaster. Dottard, you start by saying that Arius developed a new teaching. That is exactly what the experts are saying is not true.

Some Protestants and Catholics believe that the "Angel of the LORD" mentioned in several Old Testament narratives is not merely a created angel but a manifestation of God—specifically understood by many as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is often described using the theological term theophany (meaning an appearance of God), though the term itself does not appear in Scripture. For instance: > It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form….whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God. (Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions.org ) A Catholic “Dictionary” describes the term “theophany” like this: > A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings. Instances: God confronting Adam and Eve after their disobedience (Genesis 3:8); God appearing to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6); Abraham pleading with Yahweh to be merciful to Sodomites (Genesis 18:23). These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity. One such “theophany” in the form of “the angel of the Lord” is found in Zechariah: > Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (Zechariah 3:1 - NKJV) Many Protestant and some Catholic scholars interpret this account as a theophany—an appearance of God in the Old Testament. In particular, some suggest that the figure identified as the Angel of the LORD may be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity, later revealed in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. This is formally referred to as Christology, which represents a more specific theological interpretation within the broader framework of theophany. > This angel was Christ, or the Logos, mentioned Zechariah 1:11, and called the Lord in the following verse (Benson Commentary) > standing before the Angel of the Lord; not any created angel, but Christ the Angel of God's presence, who is called Jehovah, Zechariah 3:2 is the rebuker of Satan, and the advocate of his people; (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) Interesting with this account is the following utterance by this “angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:2 > And the LORD [the Angel of the LORD speaking as the LORD] said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire (Zechariah 3:2 NKJV) Why does GOD in the form of the second person of the Trinity, manifesting Himself as the Angel of the LORD not rebuke Satan, but asks YHWH (the LORD) to do so? The Archangel Michael in Jude 9 uses a phrase closely resembling Zechariah 3:2—“The Lord rebuke you”—when disputing with the devil. While not a word-for-word quote (wording differs slightly across Hebrew and Greek), the parallel strongly echoes the rebuke found in the Old Testament passage: > Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you“ (Jude 9 NKJV) Could it be that the Angel of the LORD similarly “dared not bring against him (Satan) a reviling accusation” in Zechariah 3:2? If so, how could He be GOD? What other reason could there be NOT to rebuke Satan? One possible answer is found in 2 Peter 2:11 > whereas angels, who are greater in power and might [than humans], do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This would suggest that the Angel of the Lord does have the same level of authority granted by GOD YHWH than many other Angels. It would mean that “the Angel of the LORD” is neither God nor the second person of the Trinity. How do those that hold to the position of “the Angel of the Lord” in Zechariah 3:1-2 being Christ pre-incarnate/God reconcile this? Why does the AOTL not rebuke Satan but asks YHWH/the LORD to do so?

**Hebrews 1:6** (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians: ***Why was it necessary for God to give the command to his already perfectly loyal Angels to worship the second person or mode of the Godhead, whom** (one would assume) **they already always included in their worship?*** Quotes from Creeds or scholars of the different views, making sense out of this, are welcome.

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 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**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

There is a [question about praying to Jesus](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62358/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-praying-to-jesus-as-opposed-to-praying-to-god-in) already, but I noticed there is no question about praying to the Holy Spirit. What is the biblical basis for praying to the third person of the trinity?

I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

In trying to understand various trinitarians theologians like Karl Rahner/Karl Barth, the concept of "subsisting" often comes up. I'm really not sure what to make of it, initially I imagined it means (because of the "sub" prefix) what is the substance something is made of, or more likely a quality of an entity that exists within. But I'm really trying to wrap my head around what's the difference between saying: 1. There's one God who subsists in three persons 2. There are three persons who subsist in one God. Does the first affirm that there really is only one God, as in one person, who inside lives as three? And then the second to mean that there really are three distinct persons, but who inside live as one? Because my trinitarian theology is more western, I'd appreciate (and I've tagged this question) for Catholics and Protestants – as, again, that's what I'd wish for – but Eastern-Orthodox are also welcomed to respond as long as they keep my background in mind.

Revelation 1:4&5 >John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before the throne; vs5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.... Obviously there are three personas addressed in this introduction that provide grace and peace to the churches. How do Jehovah Witness explain the seven Spirits (Holy Spirit) as being a non-person if John addressed Him on an equal basis of respect in this introduction?

The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son. How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?