Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

[Free]

None of that is a problem.

It's all a significant problem, as I have shown.

You separate the persons with the words "is not."

No, I do not, because the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity does not. "Is not" speaks only to their distinction.

All the persons are joined one to another, which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

The separate leaves makes them separate or different persons, not distinct. That is dividing God.

God is One. You say no, which to my mind is heresy. Wrongly dividing scripture. The Bible says many times God is One.

Please pay close attention to what I say, which is what I have been saying consistently the whole time: There is one God and that is what the Bible means when it says that "God is one." It does not mean that "God is one person." It is a statement of monotheism, not the nature of God. Such verses say absolutely nothing about whether God is one person or three.

Jesus left heaven's glory (detached). You detach them by saying one "is not" the other.

What do you mean by "detach"? The Bible clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly teaches that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son. The Father is ungenerated, the Son generated, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They are all of the same substance, undivisible, each being truly and fully God.

And what is wrong with teaching God is tripartite? You are a Trinitarian are you not.
.

That would be heresy. Trinitarianism does not believe that God is tripartite. If God is tripartite, then he would cease to be God if one of those parts was missing. Each person of the Trinity is truly and fully God, so that it one of them was missing (for the sake of argument only), God would still not cease to be God.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

the Son is a distinct Person who is the Father come in human flesh

Since by your phrase "the Son", you mean the Father, and not the Son, this is what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is a distinct Person who is the Father come in human flesh"​

---

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?

Both.

OK, thanks.

So, what you handed us is this:

"I hold them as being [both the Father and the Son]"​

---

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?

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

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?

justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

---

The Father is a Spirit without flesh; while the Son is the same Spirit come in flesh.

Since you've already made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but instead mean the Father, here is what you've just handed us:

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh; while [the Father] is the same Spirit come in flesh."​

---

I said that the Father is not the Son

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"I said that the Father is not [the Father]"​

---

the Son is in flesh and the Father is not in flesh except in the Person of the Son

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is in flesh and the Father is not in flesh except in [the Father]"​

---

For the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while the Son is the same Person come in flesh.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"For the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while [the Father] is [the Father] come in flesh."​

---

the Father and the Son are distinct Persons.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"the Father and [the Father] are distinct Persons."​

---

The Son is "the Father in flesh".

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"[The Father] is "the Father in flesh".​

The Father has "not yet" taken on an added nature of human flesh; except in the Person of the Son.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"The Father has "not yet" taken on an added nature of human flesh; except in [the Father]."​

---

What does it mean that Jesus is God the Son, except that He is the Father come in human flesh?

Since you've made it clear that by your word, "Jesus", and your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"What does it mean that [the Father] is God [the Father], except that He is the Father come in human flesh?"​

---

I say to you truly that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", and your phrase, "the Son of God", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"I say to you truly that I believe that [the Father] is [the Father]."​

---

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>.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Word", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, we can algebraically determine what you mean by what you've just handed us:

"In the beginning was [the Father], and [the Father] was with <the Father>, and [the Father] was <the Father>."​

---

The Word, being the Father, existed with the Father in the beginning, in that He also descended into time and then ascended back into eternity; so that there are (at least) two Persons dwelling in eternity who are, in fact, the same Person.

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Word", and by your phrase, "the same Person", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, we can algebraically determine what you mean by what you've just handed us:

"[The Father], being the Father, existed with the Father in the beginning, in that He also descended into time and then ascended back into eternity; so that there are (at least) two Persons dwelling in eternity who are, in fact, [the Father]."​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

if believing that Jesus is the Father come in flesh be an essential for salvation, then I am sorry about your ultimate fate. I tried.

Since, by your word, "Jesus", you've made it clear that you're not referring to Jesus, but instead are referring to the Father--and that by your phrase, "the Father come in the flesh", you are also referring to the Father--here is what you've just handed us:

"if believing that [the Father] is [the Father] be an essential for salvation, then I am sorry about your ultimate fate. I tried."

Do you imagine that many people have difficulty believing the essential proposition of your theology, the tautology that the Father is the Father?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

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

Why would Jesus say that to me for questioning, criticizing, and rejecting your ridiculous, irrational, self-destroying, Satanic, anti-Christ heresy? He wouldn't/isn't.

 

[justbyfaith]

In all that you have said below, you say it with the preconceived notion that I am saying that "Jesus is the Father".

However, I am not saying this exactly, but that Jesus is <the Father in flesh>.

So, I make the following corrections:

Since by your phrase "the Son", you mean the Father, and not the Son, this is what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is a distinct Person who is the Father come in human flesh"​

Or, more precisely.

"<the Father come in flesh> is a distinct Person who is the Father come in human flesh.

OK, thanks.

So, what you handed us is this:

"I hold them as being [both the Father and the Son]"​

Yes, the Father and the Son are the same Spirit (John 4:23-24, John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4).

Since you've already made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but instead mean the Father, here is what you've just handed us:

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh; while [the Father] is the same Spirit come in flesh."​

Or, more precisely,

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

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"I said that the Father is not [the Father]"​

Or, more precisely,

"I said that the Father is, in a sense, not <the Father in flesh>."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is in flesh and the Father is not in flesh except in [the Father]"​

Or, more precisely,

"<The Father in flesh> is in flesh and the Father is not in flesh except in <the Father in flesh>."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"For the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while [the Father] is [the Father] come in flesh."​

Or, more precisely,

"For the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while <the Father in flesh> is the Father come in flesh."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"the Father and [the Father] are distinct Persons."​

Or, more precisely,

"The Father and <the Father in flesh> are distinct Persons"

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"[The Father] is "the Father in flesh".​

Or, more precisely,

"<the Father in flesh> is "the Father in flesh."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"The Father has "not yet" taken on an added nature of human flesh; except in [the Father]."​

Or, more precisely,'

"The Father has "not yet" taken on an added nature of human flesh; except in <the Father in flesh>."

Since you've made it clear that by your word, "Jesus", and your phrase, "the Son", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"What does it mean that [the Father] is God [the Father], except that He is the Father come in human flesh?"​

Or, more precisely,

"What does it mean that <the Father in flesh> is God <the Father in flesh> except that He is the Father come in human flesh?"

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "Jesus Christ", and your phrase, "the Son of God", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, here's what you've just handed us:

"I say to you truly that I believe that [the Father] is [the Father]."​

That wouldn't be too far off base.

Nevertheless what I actually said was, that "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Word", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, we can algebraically determine what you mean by what you've just handed us:

"In the beginning was [the Father], and [the Father] was with <the Father>, and [the Father] was <the Father>."​

Also, not too far off-base; nevertheless I offer this correction:

"In the beginning was <the Father> and the <the Father> was with <the Father in flesh> and <the Father> was <the Father>."

Since you've made it clear that by your phrase, "the Word", and by your phrase, "the same Person", you do not mean the Son, but mean the Father, instead, we can algebraically determine what you mean by what you've just handed us:

"[The Father], being the Father, existed with the Father in the beginning, in that He also descended into time and then ascended back into eternity; so that there are (at least) two Persons dwelling in eternity who are, in fact, [the Father]."​

Yep.

More precisely,

"<the Father in flesh>, being the Father, existed with the Father in the beginning, in that He also descended into time and then ascended back into eternity; so that there are (at least) two Persons dwelling in eternity who are, in fact, <the Father>."

 

[justbyfaith]

Since, by your word, "Jesus", you've made it clear that you're not referring to Jesus, but instead are referring to the Father--and that by your phrase, "the Father come in the flesh", you are also referring to the Father--here is what you've just handed us:

"if believing that [the Father] is [the Father] be an essential for salvation, then I am sorry about your ultimate fate. I tried."

Do you imagine that many people have difficulty believing the essential proposition of your theology, the tautology that the Father is the Father?

(Why would they have trouble with such a proposition?)

Or, more precisely,

"If believing that <the Father in flesh> is <the Father in flesh> be an essential for salvation, then I am sorry about your ultimate fate. I tried."

Again, it is a sin for you to substitute "the Father" every time I speak of Jesus Christ.

He is more exactly, "the Father in flesh".

 

[justbyfaith]

Why would Jesus say that to me for questioning, criticizing, and rejecting your ridiculous, irrational, self-destroying, Satanic, anti-Christ heresy? He wouldn't/isn't.

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

Be careful.

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

 

[Paul E. Michael]

<the Father come in flesh> is a distinct Person who is the Father come in human flesh.

By your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", either you are referring to the Father, or you are not.

So, by your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If, by your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", you are not referring to the Father, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by it.

If, by your phrase, "the Father come in flesh", you are referring to the Father, then this is what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is a distinct Person who is [the Father]."​

 

[justbyfaith]

By your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", either you are referring to the Father, or you are not.

So, by your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If, by your phrases, "the Father come in flesh"/"the Father come in human flesh", you are not referring to the Father, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by it.

If, by your phrase, "the Father come in flesh", you are referring to the Father, then this is what you've just handed us:

"[the Father] is a distinct Person who is [the Father]."​

By "the Father in flesh" I am referring most distinctly to the Son; who is <the Father in flesh>.

Let me just add a little tidbit here.

In Matthew 28:19, we find that there is one name for the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

In Acts 2:38, we discover that that name is Jesus Christ (see also Colossians 2:9 (kjv)).

So, the name of the Father is Jesus Christ.

Consider then how this colors the following verses.

1Jo 4:1, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2, Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3, And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

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?

Think wisely before you answer.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Or, more precisely,

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

By your phrase, "the Father in flesh", either you are referring to the Father, or you are not.
If by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are referring to the Father, then by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are not referring to the Son. So, by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If, by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are referring to the Father, then this is what you have just handed us:

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh, while [the Father] is the same Spirit come in flesh."​

So, you're right back where you started. Your little word games are getting you nowhere.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

By "the Father in flesh" I am referring most distinctly to the Son

Then by "the Father in flesh" you are not referring to the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

If by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are referring to the Father, then by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are not referring to the Son.

You are assuming the mistake of your heretical diagram; that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

I reject those premises.

 

[justbyfaith]

Then by "the Father in flesh" you are not referring to the Father.

See post #132 (https://christianforums.net/threads/coexistent-modalism-the-true-trinity.97351/post-1772934).

 

[justbyfaith]

"The Father is a Spirit without flesh, while [the Father] is the same Spirit come in flesh."

More precisely,

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

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Nevertheless what I actually said was, that "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

But since by your phrases "Jesus Christ" and "the Son of God" you do not mean Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but instead mean the Father, what you actually meant was:

"I believe that [the Father] is [the Father]."​

 

[justbyfaith]

But since by your phrases "Jesus Christ" and "the Son of God" you do not mean Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but instead mean the Father, what you actually meant was:

"I believe that [the Father] is [the Father]."​

Which is not an untrue statement.

Nevertheless, what I am really saying is that "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

Or, more precisely, according to your shennanigans,

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

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"I said that the Father is, in a sense, not <the Father in flesh>."

By your phrase, "the Father in flesh", either you are referring to the Father, or you are not. If you are referring to the Father by it, then this is what you've just handed us:

"I said that the Father is, in a sense, not [the Father]."
​

If by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are not referring to the Father, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by it?

 

[justbyfaith]

@justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>
@justbyfaith: <NO ANSWER>

I have answered you.

 

[justbyfaith]

By your phrase, "the Father in flesh", either you are referring to the Father, or you are not. If you are referring to the Father by it, then this is what you've just handed us:

"I said that the Father is, in a sense, not [the Father]."
​

If by your phrase, "the Father in flesh", you are not referring to the Father, then to whom or what (if anyone or anything) are you referring by it?

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

 

[justbyfaith]

2Ti 2:23, Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights.
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.
2Ti 2:25, Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth.
2Ti 2:26, Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

Just a little exhortation to myself.