Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

[justbyfaith]

Remember, you're not Jesus.

Right. I'm quoting Him as Him saying that to you.

 

[justbyfaith]

A: the Father
B: a Spirit
C: in flesh
D: the Son.

A is B. D is (the same) B and also C. Therefore, D is also A; inasmuch as D is B. And A is C inasmuch as A is D.

However, for the most part, A is not C and is therefore not D. For they are distinct Persons.

To help you understand try to understand the difference between the words "distinct" and "separate"

 

[Paul E. Michael]

A: the Father
B: without flesh
C: the Son

While all of A is B, not everything that is B is necessarily A. C is A; and A is B inasmuch as A is C.

So, according to you:

While all of [the Father] is [without flesh], not everything that is [without flesh] is necessarily [the Father]. [The Son] is [the Father]; and [the Father] is [without flesh] inasmuch as [the Father] is [the Son].

There, you say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

 

[justbyfaith]

So, according to you:

There, you say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

The Son is a distinct Person from the 1st Person of the Trinity (the Father without flesh); and the Son is all of the Father come in flesh.

If there were no distinction in the Persons you might have a case. But there is one.

 

[justbyfaith]

So, according to you:

There, you say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

I also changed my post since you posted, so you should go back and answer according to the changes. Because I wasn't thinking clearly when I posted the first time.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So, according to you:

There, you say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

You say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

You say that ALL of the Father is without flesh. Is the Son ALL of the Father? Yes or No?

Look again. I answered you (post #84 (https://christianforums.net/threads/coexistent-modalism-the-true-trinity.97351/post-1772676)).

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I also changed my post since you posted, so you should go back and answer according to the changes. Because I wasn't thinking clearly when I posted the first time.

That's your problem. Feel free to quote what you "posted the first time", and alongside it quote your "changes".

 

[justbyfaith]

That's your problem. Feel free to quote what you posted the first time, and alongside it quote your changes.

I don't remember what I posted the first time; and besides that, it was wrong. Why would I want for there to be a record of it?

 

[justbyfaith]

That's your problem. Feel free to quote what you "posted the first time", and alongside it quote your "changes".

I simply was thinking that B indicated "in flesh" instead of "without flesh" and posted accordingly; therefore I did not post the reality.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

To help you understand try to understand the difference between the words "distinct" and "separate"

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "distinct" that you do not mean by your word "separate"?

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "separate" that you do not mean by your word "distinct"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I simply was thinking that B indicated "in flesh" instead of "without flesh" and posted accordingly; therefore I did not post the reality.

They were your own terms, and you didn't even know what you were saying!

 

[justbyfaith]

They were your own terms, and you didn't even know what you were saying!

Yes, that is so funny, isn't it?

I'm getting older (just made it to 50 in January).

It can be expected that I would have a "brain fart" from time to time.

 

[justbyfaith]

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "distinct" that you do not mean by your word "separate"?

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "separate" that you do not mean by your word "distinct"?

Look at the OP. There I define Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being distinct rather than separate.

The diagram that I am contending against defines them as being separate rather than distinct;

i.e. "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

The creeds say specifically that they are distinct and not separate.

In my view, seeing them as distinct, I hold them as being the same Spirit; but distinct in a certain sense; which I have explained in the OP so I don't feel the need to repeat it here.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Son is a distinct Person from the 1st Person of the Trinity (the Father without flesh); and the Son is all of the Father come in flesh.

The Bible never uses your term "the Father come in flesh".

Since the Father is without flesh, your term "the Father without flesh" is redundant.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "distinct" that you do not mean by your word "separate"

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

What (if anything) do you mean by your word "separate" that you do not mean by your word "distinct"?

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I hold them as being the same Spirit

By your phrase, "the same Spirit", are you denoting a person? If so, then which person are you denoting by it: the Father or the Son? If not, then what (if anything) are you denoting by it?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Father, who is a distinct Person from the Son

The diagram that I am contending against defines them as being separate rather than distinct;

i.e. "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

So, when you say the Father "is distinct from" the Son, which do you mean: that 1) the Father is NOT the Son, or that 2) the Father IS the Son?

And, when you say the Son "is distinct from" the Father, which do you mean: that 1) the Son is NOT the Father, or that 2) the Son IS the Father?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The diagram that I am contending against defines them as being separate rather than distinct;

i.e. "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

Here, again, is the diagram you say you are "contending against":

The top side of the triangle shows a two-way street. Left to right, we read the proposition, 'The Father is not the Son'; and right to left, we read the proposition, 'The Son is not the Father'.

It's interesting that we can see you out of the one side of your mouth saying you are "contending against" the truth that the Father is not the Son, while, out of the other side of your mouth you pretend to agree with the truth that the Father is not the Son:

No, the Father is not the Son

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No, the Father is not the Son (in that the Father is not in flesh except in the Person of the Son).

Why can't you put a period immediately after "No, the Father is not the Son"? Are you trying to leave some sort of weasel loophole for yourself in case you later wish to say, "Yes, the Father is the Son (in that [blah blah blah])"?