Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

[Paul E. Michael]

"I believe that <the Father in flesh> is <the Father in flesh>."

Since the Father is not in flesh, why would you use such an asinine, oxymoronic, un-Biblical phrase like "the Father in flesh" to refer the Father? Would you use the word "cat" to refer to a dog, or any other non-cat?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Father, as He exists in human flesh, is distinct from who He is as He exists apart from flesh.

By your phrases, "the Father, as He exists in human flesh"/"who He is as He exists apart from flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If No, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by them?
If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us:

"[The Father], is distinct from [the Father]."​

So, you're right back where you started, again.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh, while <the Father in flesh; or, the Son> is the same Spirit come in flesh."

By your phrases, "the Father in flesh"/"the Son"/"the same Spirit come in flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If you're referring to the Father, then this is what you've just handed us:

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh, while <[the Father]; or, [the Father]> is [the Father]."

So, you've gotten nowhere.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

2Ti 2:24, A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people.

Or, more precisely, according to your shennanigans,

Why call my observations "shennanigans"? Is your doing so an example of you being kind to everyone? Are my observations difficult for you?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So, the name of the Father is Jesus Christ.

False. The name of the Father is "the Father", not "Jesus Christ". "Jesus Christ" is the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God the Son, and is not the name of the Father.

In light of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, do you confess that Jesus Christ (i.e. the Father) is come in the flesh?

Since by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", you are not referring to Jesus Christ, but instead are referring to the Father, here is what you have just handed us:

"In light of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, do you confess that [the Father] (i.e. the Father) is come in the flesh?"​

Seeing as how neither of those verses (nor any other Bible verse) says that the Father is come in the flesh, why should anyone confess that the Father is come in the flesh?

But you, justbyfaith, since by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", you are not referring to Jesus Christ, but are instead referring to the Father, then when you say "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", you, justbyfaith, confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...​

 

[JLB]

Here, we can algebraically determine the true meaning of John 1:1...

Jhn 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with <the Father>, and the Word was <the Father>.

No sir.

The Word refers to the Son.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


Here is what you are trying to convince us to believe…


For there are three two that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, Father and the Holy Spirit; and these three two are one.


Unfortunately we see that your understanding reduces three to two.




JLB

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I think that you are dangerously close to committing the unpardonable sin; if you haven't crossed the line.

Be careful.

I'm happy to burst your bubble by pointing out that questioning, criticizing, and rejecting justbyfaith's irrational, self-demolishing, Satanic, anti-Bible, anti-Christ heresy is not a sin. Not in the least.

My doctrine is straight from the mouth of the Holy Ghost.

No, obviously it's not. You, yourself, already admitted that it's not:

I developed this doctrine as an emphasis on the Oneness of God in the Trinity

the doctrine that I developed is the result of that reading.

The Holy Ghost did not develop the Bible-despising, Holy Ghost-despising mumbo jumbo you've been trying to hand us in this thread.

Besides, by your phrase, "the Holy Ghost", you're not even referring to the Holy Ghost anyway, but are instead referring to the Father; the doctrine you say you developed is a blasphemous denial of the Holy Ghost.

 

[justbyfaith]

Since the Father is not in flesh,

That is true; but He is also in flesh in the Person of the Son.

By your phrases, "the Father, as He exists in human flesh"/"who He is as He exists apart from flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If No, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by them?
If Yes, then this is what you've just handed us:

"[The Father], is distinct from [the Father]."​

So be it.

However, what I am really saying is that the Father is distinct from the Son; who is "the Father in flesh"

By your phrases, "the Father in flesh"/"the Son"/"the same Spirit come in flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

Yes.

If you're referring to the Father, then this is what you've just handed us:

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh, while <[the Father]; or, [the Father]> is [the Father]."

Which is not an untrue statement.

Since by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", you are not referring to Jesus Christ, but instead are referring to the Father, here is what you have just handed us:

"In light of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, do you confess that [the Father] (i.e. the Father) is come in the flesh?"​

Yep.

Do you?

Seeing as how neither of those verses (nor any other Bible verse) says that the Father is come in the flesh, why should anyone confess that the Father is come in the flesh?

Since no Bible verse speaks the word "Trinity" either, why should anyone confess, or even discuss, the Trinity?

The Bible does teach that the Father is come in the flesh; in Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:7-11: also if you compare Matthew 28:19 to Acts 2:38 and then compare the conclusion to 1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 1:7.

But you, @justbyfaith, since by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", you are not referring to Jesus Christ, but are instead referring to the Father,

I am referring to Jesus Christ who is <the Father come in flesh>.

then when you say "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", you, @justbyfaith, confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

I confess that Jesus Christ (i.e. the Father in flesh) is come in flesh.

Here is what you are trying to convince us to believe…


For there are three two that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, Father and the Holy Spirit; and these three two are one.

What I am trying to convince you of is this:

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (Person)."

I'm happy to burst your bubble by pointing out that questioning, criticizing, and rejecting @justbyfaith's irrational, self-demolishing, Satanic, anti-Bible, anti-Christ heresy is not a sin. Not in the least.

You are walking on thin ice with God. I wouldn't want to be you on the day of judgment. Because it may even be the unpardonable sin. Since "my" doctrine is from the Holy Ghost and you are telling people that what is of the Holy Ghost is of satan. If I'm not mistaken (and I hope for your sake that I am), that is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

If you had simply rejected it on some other grounds you might have been okay.

As it is, I fear for your soul.

No, obviously it's not. You, yourself, already admitted that it's not:

Let me rephrase. I developed this doctrine, in dependence on the Holy Ghost to teach me, as an emphasis on the Oneness of God in the Trinity; in order to combat the heresy of Tritheism as it exists in the mormon church and among some so-called Trinitarians.

 

[justbyfaith]

False. The name of the Father is "the Father", not "Jesus Christ". "Jesus Christ" is the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God the Son, and is not the name of the Father.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of the Son is also the name of the Father.

The title of the Father is "Father". That is not His name.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Since no Bible verse speaks of the Trinity either, why should anyone confess, or even discuss, the Trinity?

That's what you Trinity-despising, anti-Trinitarian heretics always say.

I developed this doctrine, in dependence on the Holy Ghost

False. The Holy Ghost has nothing to do with your self-demolishing ravings.

 

[justbyfaith]

That's what you Trinity-despising, anti-Trinitarian heretics always say.

I am neither Trinity-despising nor anti-Trinitarian.

I affirm the Trinity in all of its creeds; except in instances where the Bible contradicts their statements.

False. The Holy Ghost has nothing to do with your self-demolishing ravings.

He does. And because you rejected it as being of satan, you may have even committed the unpardonable sin.

And what I am saying doesn't self-demolish except in your natural mind.

1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I would ask other readers to ask the Lord for illumination from the Holy Ghost as concerning what I am saying.

Because I fear that my opponent in this debate may be too far gone.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of the Son is also the name of the Father.

Since by your phrase "the Son" you are not referring to the Son, but instead to the Father; and since by your phrase "the Holy Ghost" you are not referring to the Holy Ghost, but instead to the Father, what you've just handed us is this:

"The Father, [the Father], and [the Father] have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of [the Father] is also the name of the Father."​

You're right back where you started. You've gotten nowhere with your language game.

The title of the Father is "Father". That is not His name.

Of course "the Father" is the name of the Father. Why would you say that it is not?

 

[justbyfaith]

But you, @justbyfaith, since by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", you are not referring to Jesus Christ, but are instead referring to the Father, then when you say "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", you, @justbyfaith, confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Unless "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father; which I have proven to be the case from holy scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Since by your phrase "the Son" you are not referring to the Son, but instead to the Father; and since by your phrase "the Holy Ghost" you are not referring to the Holy Ghost, but instead to the Father, what you've just handed us is this:

"The Father, [the Father], and [the Father] have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of [the Father] is also the name of the Father."​

You're right back where you started. You've gotten nowhere with your language game.

Please re-read the OP.

I declare there how the members of the Trinity are distinct.

It is not true that "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

Nevertheless they are distinct from one another.

Yet they are the same Spirit (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4)

Of course "the Father" is the name of the Father. Why would you say that it is not?

My earthly father's name is Stan.

He holds the title with me of "father" but his name is Stan.

 

[justbyfaith]

"The Father, [the Father], and [the Father] have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of [the Father] is also the name of the Father."

Not an untrue statement.

Except that I would correct it so that it aligns more with my doctrine.

"The Father, <the Father in flesh>, and <the Father as He was released from the body of the Son at the crucifixion> have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of <the Father in flesh> is also the name of the Father."

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I am neither Trinity-despising nor anti-Trinitarian.

You're both. Tell it to someone who is dumb enough to believe you.

He does.

No, He doesn't. Tell it to someone who is dumb enough to believe you.

And because you rejected it as being of satan, you may have even committed the unpardonable sin.

You don't even have a clue about what you're saying. But your teeth-gnashing hatred of my guts comes through loud and clear. I can tell you love the thought of me burning in hell.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

He holds the title with me of "father" but his name is Stan.

Obviously he has more than one name. Do you disagree that a name is "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to"?

You refer to/address him by the word "father", so "father" is his name.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Not an untrue statement.

Except that I would correct it so that it aligns more with my doctrine.

"The Father, <the Father in flesh>, and <the Father as He was released from the body of the Son at the crucifixion> have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of <the Father in flesh> is also the name of the Father."

But since, by your ridiculous, un-Biblical phrases "the Father in flesh" and "the Father as He was released from the body of the Son at the crucifixion" you are referring to the Father, what you have just handed us is the same thing you had already handed us before:

"The Father, [the Father], and [the Father] have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of [the Father] is also the name of the Father."
​

So, despite your "correction", you yet again are right back where you started, merely handing us your Bible-mocking foolishness.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Unless "Jesus Christ" is the name of the Father

It's not.

; which I have proven to be the case from holy scripture.

You haven't.

 

[justbyfaith]

You're both. Tell it to someone who is dumb enough to believe you.

No, He doesn't. Tell it to someone who is dumb enough to believe you.

Apparently, you don't believe me because of your lack of intelligence.

Maybe you will have an excuse on your day of judgment.

You don't even have a clue about what you're saying. But your teeth-gnashing hatred of my guts comes through loud and clear. I can tell you love the thought of me burning in hell.

It is written,

Psa 139:19, Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
Psa 139:20, For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
Psa 139:21, Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
Psa 139:22, I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

Nevertheless, I find no pleasure in the knowledge that you are headed straight for hell.

If there was any way that I could stop you in your tracks, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

so "father" is his name.

"father" is his title.

But since, by your ridiculous, un-Biblical phrases "the Father in flesh" and "the Father as He was released from the body of the Son at the crucifixion" you are referring to the Father, what you have just handed us is the same thing you had already handed us before:

"The Father, [the Father], and [the Father] have one name according to Matthew 28:19. So, the name of [the Father] is also the name of the Father."​

Which is not a self-contradictory statement.

So, despite your "correction", you yet again are right back where you started, merely handing us your Bible-mocking foolishness.

The foolishness of God is wiser than men (1 Corinthians 1:25). And it certainly isn't "Bible-mocking". Everything that I have preached is based in scripture; and nothing in scripture contradicts it.

It's not.

It is.

You haven't.

I have; and will do so again.

According to Matthew 28:19, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost have the same name.

So, if the name of the Son is Jesus Christ, then the name of the Father (and the name of the Holy Ghost) is also Jesus Christ.