Oneness aka Modalist Verses

Isaiah 9:6

First, shared titles, like shared functions, even imagery does not mean the same person! Pagan kings like Artaxerxes (Ezra 7.12), Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 26.7; Dan 2.37) are called “King of kings." But no one would argue they are the one God as well.

That the Hebrew does not properly signify eternal or everlasting is shown by the LXX translation "father of the age to come," another title for the Messiah. Like Abraham before him, the Messiah will become father to a new people of God. Jesus himself acknowledges the title father for Abraham (John 8.39, 56; cp. Luke 16.24 when the rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity!')

All characteristics and functions the Messiah possesses in the messianic age belong exclusively to God and Him alone (Daniel 7:13-15, Daniel 7:27, Isaiah 9:b, Zechariah 14:4, Zechariah 12:10, etc...) Yet, visions like Dan 7 once again shows two different persons (the son of man is not the Ancient of Days). Also note, worship and service by the subjugated nations is also given to the saints of the Most High.

Lastly, Isa 9.6 was applied to Messianic figures like Hezekiah and never as a reference to God!

Matthew 1:23

This title does not of course mean that the Son of God is God, making two GODS! It describes the function of Jesus as God’s unique agent and revealer of God’s will for humankind.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

“God was in Christ,” not “God was Christ.”

A lady in Proverbs 30:1 named her son Ithiel, which is Hebrew for “God is with me.” No one imagined the child was actually God! It was descriptive of the mother’s conviction that God had given her a son. No one in NT times imagined that God could be born, much less that He could die or be tempted!

John 10:30

“My Father and I are one” (en, neuter in Greek), i.e., one thing in purpose, not one Person. The Father and His Son are in perfect agreement, hand in glove. The relationship of "one in person" is predicated of true believers in John 17:11, 22 and 1 Cor. 3:8 shows that those who “plant” and those who “water” for the Gospel are "one." Jesus endorsed the unitary monotheism of his Jewish heritage (Mk. 12:29; Jn. 17:3, etc.).

John 14:8-10

Jesus alludes to the well known Hebrew principle of agency, i.e., the messenger represents the one who has sent or authorized him. Not literally “see” because no one has literally seen the Father. The Father is “seen” in a different sense, in Jesus. For example, a Christian who continually sins, is not genuinely converted, has not “seen Him or known Him” (1 John 3:6). This is a spiritual “seeing” with the mind. This is the sequel to and resolution of John 20:28 where Philip and Thomas realized how God the Father is seen in the Son. So that Thomas addresses Jesus as “my lord” and “my God,” seeing the Father in Jesus.

Matthew 11:27

In this passage we find Jesus Christ explaining a mystery concerning the identity of The Father and the Son which can only be revealed by The Holy Spirit to whomsoever he chooses to reveal.

The verse appears in a passage where the Son is praying to the Father, showing once again they are two distinct, separate persons. Later, in Mat 16, the revelation or "mystery" is that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God. Which by definition means the Son is not the Father! If they are one and the same Person that would be a spectacular "mystery" indeed!

Jesus is never called the Father in the NT but the Son of the Father. Hence, Paul, 2 John 1.3 greets the churches saying: "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father." 2 John 1.3

Again, two different persons.

1 Timothy 3:16

The KJV is based on a corrupted manuscript here, reading “God was manifested…” The Greek has “he who was manifested…” referring to Jesus as the Son of God, defined by Luke 1:35.

That the reading theos cannot be original is shown both by the character of the manuscript attestation—the earliest and superior manuscripts all support the relative [os, “who”]—and by the fact that ancient creedal fragments typically begin precisely in this way, that is, with a relative pronoun.

Of all the witnesses attesting either variant, only Origen antedates the fourth century; and his witness is found only in the fourth-century translation of his works.