The Father’s Holy Spirit Became The Son

There is a definite distinction between God as the Father and God who later manifested Himself in the flesh as God with us as a true man. Hence, the Father and Son relationship never actually occurred in time until after the Father became incarnate as a true man. For the scriptures teach that the Father alone is the only true God who also became incarnate as a true human “child born” and “son given” who is called “the Mighty God” and “the Everlasting Father” as to his true divine identity (Isaiah 9:6 KJV- “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”) but a Son as to his true human identity

Although the scriptures clearly call the Son the “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father,” the Trinity doctrine alleges that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. Therefore, if the scriptures prove that the Son is the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit of the Father became incarnate as the Son, then the entire Trinity Doctrine collapses.


Oneness theologian Jason Dulle summed up the similarities and the differences between the Oneness view of God incarnate and the Trinitarian view in his online response to a Trinitarian: “The Scripture never distinguishes between the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, but all distinctions are between God as He exists omnipresent and transcendent and God as He exists as a genuine human being. The distinction is not in the Godhead, but in the humanity of Jesus Christ … Oneness believers and Trinitarians are similar in that 1. both believe in one God; 2. both believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God; 3. both confess that the Scripture makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit; 4. both believe that the Son of God died on the cross, and not the Father; 5. both believe that Jesus was praying to the Father, and not to Himself (Jason Dulle’s response to “A Trinitarian’s Struggle With the Oneness Doctrine” –”

It has been my observation over the years that many Trinitarians are often confused about what Oneness Pentecostals actually believe. Many falsely allege that we are saying that there is no ontological distinction between the Father and the Son whatsoever. Thus, they often mock us by pretending that we believe that the Father as the Father actually died on the cross or that the man Christ Jesus actually prayed to himself as the Father. All knowledgeable Oneness adherents believe that God became a true man in the incarnation through the virgin with “a (distinct human) life in himself” (John 5:26; Heb. 2:17 NIV - “he was made fully human in every way”)” in order to suffer, pray, and die for our sins. Thus, many Trinitarians are erroneously alleging that we are denying any distinction between God as God (the Father) and God with us as a man (the Son) who was “made fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17 NIV).

Knowledgeable Oneness believers affirm that God as God cannot be “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17 NIV) without violating such passages as Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man”) and Malachi 3:6 (“I am Yahweh, I change not”). What we are actually affirming is that the man Christ Jesus as the son of the living God is not “God with us” ontologically as God, but rather, “God with us” as a true human son (a man) who could pray (Luke 5:16), be led by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 4:1 “Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness”), and “grow in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men (Luke 2:52).” For God as God the Father is not ontologically a man who could “pray” or be “tempted of evil” (James 1:13, “God cannot be tempted of evil”). Nor can God as the Father ontologically suffer and die on the cross for our sins (Numbers 23:19 – “God is not a man”).

Jason Dulle went on to spell out the major differences between the Oneness and Trinitarian positions: “Oneness (O) believers and Trinitarians (T) differ in that 1. T (Trinitarians) believe that the one God consists of three eternal persons while O (Oneness) believes that the one God is one person; 2. T (Trinitarians) believe that the second person of the Trinity became incarnated while O (Oneness) believes that the Father, who is one person, became incarnated as the Son of God; 3. T (Trinitarians) believe that the Son is eternal while O (Oneness) believes that the Son did not exist until the incarnation, because the term refers to God as He exists as a man, and not as He exists in His essential deity; 4. T (Trinitarians) see the Biblical distinctions between the Father and the Son to be a distinction in both personality and flesh while O (Oneness) believes that all distinctions are a result of the relationship of the Spirit of God to the incarnate God-man. As it pertains to Christology, then, the difference between Trinitarians (T) and Oneness (O) believers is that they say it was the second person of the Trinity, not the Father, who became man, while we maintain that the one God, known as the Father, became man. Jesus' testimony was that the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21), and that those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:7-11). Jesus is the express image of the Father's person (Hebrew 1:3). Trinitarians have a hard time explaining these verses because they maintain that the second person became flesh. If that is the case, and the Father is not embodied, why did Jesus always say the Father was in Him, and never say the second person was in Him (Jason Dulle’s response to “A Trinitarian’s Struggle with the Oneness Doctrine” –”

Oneness theologian Jason Dulle correctly outlined the major areas of agreement and disagreement between the Oneness and the Trinitarian positions which backs up everything I have been teaching all along. I challenge all who read this book to honestly examine all of the scriptural evidence with true and noble hearts to see if the Oneness theological position we are sharing actually matches the Bible or not. For all true followers of Jesus Christ must be willing to “examine the scriptures” and be “noble-minded” like the Berean Jews did when they examined the scriptures to see whether the things that the apostles taught were true or not (“Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. As a result, many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men.”- Acts 17:11-12 BSB).

The scriptural evidence proves that the Son is the man who had a beginning by his virgin conception and begetting while the Father’s Holy Spirit is the Divine Identity who became incarnate as the Christ child.

Luke 1:35 “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

Matthew 1:20 “… do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is OF (of is translated from “ek” = “out of”) THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

Christ Jesus claimed to have “came down from heaven” (John 6:38, “I came down from heaven”), but the only Spirit Person we find coming down from heaven to become the Christ child is the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20). Matthew 1:20 proves that the Christ child was not conceived “OUT OF” an alleged God the Son, but “OUT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” of the omnipresent Heavenly Father Himself (“the child who has been conceived in her is out of the Holy Spirit”- Matt 1:20). This explains why Jesus always spoke of his divinity as the Father’s rather than as an alleged coequally distinct divine Son (“Lord, show us the Father and it will be sufficient for us … Have I been so long a time with you and have you not know me Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father” - John 14:7-9 / “He who believes in me, does not believe in me but in Him who sent me. He who sees me sees the One who sent me.” - John 12:44-45). It is hard to imagine a coequally distinct true God the Son Person saying, “He that has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9) and “He who sees me sees the One who sent me” (John 12:45) if he was actually a coequally distinct true God the Son Person incarnate rather than God the Father incarnate as a man. For an alleged distinct true God the Son Person should have said, “he that has seen me has seen the eternally distinct God the Son” and “he who believes in me believes in the coequal Divine Son.” Instead, Jesus clearly said that to see him and to believe on him is to believe on the Divine Identity of the Father. Where then is the divine dignity and believability of the alleged second divine God the Son Person and the alleged third divine God the Holy Spirit Person of the Trinitarian concept of the Deity?


“He (the son) is the brightness (apaugasma = “reflected brightness”) of His glory (the Father’s glory) and the express image (charakter = a “reproduction,” “imprint” or “copy” made from an original to be the “representation” of that original) of His Person (of the Father’s original Person - hypostasis = “subtance of being”- Hebrews 1:3 KJV).

Here we find the scriptural evidence proving that the Father Himself supplied His miraculous Divine substance of Being in the incarnation to produce the Christ child by “reproducing” Himself as an “imprinted copy” of His own original “Substance of Being” (see Charakter and Hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3) as a fully complete human being in the virgin. For if the Son of God was conceived as the incarnation of an alleged God the Son, how is it that the presence of the Holy Spirit’s Person came upon Mary (Luke 1:35) to conceive the Christ child and not the presence of an alleged God the Son Person? Luke 1:35 plainly states that “the Holy Spirit will come upon you” (the virgin) and “for that reason the child shall be called the Son of God.” Although we find numerous references to the omnipresent Holy Spirit existing throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, we never find a pre-existent living Son anywhere from Genesis to Malachi. This fact alone should serve as a red flag to all those who have been duped into believing in an alleged timeless, eternally distinct Heavenly God the Son.

The angel spoke to Joseph, “...the child who has been conceived in her is OF (lit. ek, “OUT OF” or “OUT FROM”) THE HOLY SPIRIT (Matthew 1:20).” The context of Hebrews 1:3 provides irrefutable evidence to show that the Son is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His Person (the Father's Person or “Essence of Being”) who became a human person in the virgin from out of the Holy Spirit’s Being or Person. Since Matthew 1:20 plainly informs us that the Christ child was produced [ek = “OUT OF” or “OUT FROM”] the “Essence of Being” of “THE HOLY SPIRIT” (“...the child who has been conceived in her is OF (lit. ek, “OUT OF” or “OUT FROM”) THE HOLY SPIRIT”- Matthew 1:20), we know that the Holy Spirit must be the Father’s Holy Spirit who descended upon the virgin (“Father … I came out from You” - John 17:8; “I came out from God. I came forth from the Father”-John 16:27-28-KJV). This is very problematic for the Trinitarian doctrine which asserts that a distinct God the Son became incarnate and not the Holy Spirit of the Father.

Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son was reproduced from the Father’s Essence of Being while Matthew 1:20 states that the Son was reproduced from the Holy Spirit’s Essence of Being (“…the child who has been conceived in her is [ek] OUT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” – Matt. 1:20). The only way to harmonize the scriptural data is to believe that the Holy Spirit’s Essence of Being is the same divine Person as the Father who became incarnate which proves Oneness Modalism while refuting Trinitarianism, Arianism, and Unitarian Socinianism. Therefore the weight of the scriptural evidence shows that the divinity of the Holy Spirit of the only true God the Father was united with humanity through Mary’s egg (“God sent forth His Son made [ek] out of a woman”- Gal. 4:4) to become a distinct man as the Son of the living God.

Luke 1:35 informs us why the Son is called the Son in the first place (“the Holy Spirit will come upon you … for that reason the child which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God” – Luke 1:35). The Son is called the Son of God because of his miraculous virgin conception [ek] “out of a woman” [“out of” Mary – Gal. 4:4] and [ek] “out of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). No scripture in the entire Bible ever gives us another reason why the Son of God is called the Son other than the New Testament reason given in Luke 1:35 which relates to Christ’s humanity. In fact, no scripture in the entire Bible ever states that the Son as a Son has always existed as an alleged timeless God the Son Person throughout eternity past (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5; John 5:26) which completely demolishes the Trinitarian doctrine.

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26-NIV).”

Here we can clearly see that the son is the man and the man is the son who was granted a distinct human life by the Divine Life of God the Father who descended upon the virgin (“the Holy Spirit will come upon you”- Luke 1:35). Notice that there are only two distinct lives listed in scripture: the Divine Life of God the Father and the human life of the Son of God the Father which was “granted” in time rather than the Trinitarian idea of Three alleged Divine Lives of Three Coequal and Coeternally Distinct God Persons. We ask our Trinitarian friends, “How can God as God be Three Distinct Divine Persons without each alleged Divine Person having a Distinct Divine Life in Himself?” For no Trinitarian has ever been able to point to a single passage of scripture to show where God as God is said to have a Divine “Life” for each alleged member of a so called Trinity.

God the Father clearly granted a distinct life to the human son by supernaturally supplying His own male chromosomes from His own “Substance of Being” (Hypostasis-Heb. 1:3) which was “reproduced” or “imprinted” within the human egg of the virgin (Heb. 1:3; Heb. 2:14-17). Since God the Father is a Spirit who has not flesh and blood (John 4:23:24), we know that the Father’s Essence of Being miraculously supplied male chromosomes and DNA within the virgin to produce the Christ child. For if the Father did not contribute male chromosomes into the virgin then Jesus could not have been conceived and born as a male child, otherwise, Mary would have given birth to a female clone of herself.


Acts 20:28 actually says, “... the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood ...” Although there are variant readings of Acts 20:28, the weight of the evidence points to God's own blood as the phrase "Church of God" is used throughout the New Testament, but never the “Church of the Lord.”

Ellicott's Commentary says, “The fact that elsewhere St. Paul invariably speaks of ‘the Church of God’ (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:14, et al.), and never ‘the Church of the Lord’” is very convincing evidence to show that the correct reading should be, “the Church of God which He has purchased with His own blood” rather than “the Church of the Lord.” Clement of Alexandria provides the earliest Christian witness that the text is about “the blood of God” (late 2nd Century, Quis dives, c. 34) rather than the blood of “the Lord.”