Boxjobox on modalism

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

O StG, you make me laugh.

We all need a laugh - which part did you find funny?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

We all need a laugh - which part did you find funny?

The actor playing Jesus was the European Jesus. That cracked me up, and only proves we don't know the human Jesus.

And that Matthew was standing back taking notes. That cracked me up too, because whoever wrote the gospel that came to be attributed to Matthew, in the 2nd c., wrote it 4 decades after Jesus ; much of it taken from the gospel that was later in the 2nd c. attributed to Mark. The gospels were written anonymously. We don't know who wrote them. The authors didn't sign them.

Here's the thing on this matter. If Jesus was 100% human and God, so is the scripture divine and human. And again, it's God God God, but the human side of the scripture is dismissed.

But thanks for the laughs. As you said, we all need a good laugh, especially these days. You're a real peach.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

The actor playing Jesus was the European Jesus. That cracked me up, and only proves we don't know the human Jesus.

And that Matthew was standing back taking notes. That cracked me up too, because whoever wrote the gospel that came to be attributed to Matthew, in the 2nd c., wrote it 4 decades after Jesus ; much of it taken from the gospel that was later in the 2nd c. attributed to Mark. The gospels were written anonymously. We don't know who wrote them. The authors didn't sign them.

Here's the thing on this matter. If Jesus was 100% human and God, so is the scripture divine and human. And again, it's God God God, but the human side of the scripture is dismissed.

But thanks for the laughs. As you said, we all need a good laugh, especially these days. You're a real peach.

Yes, I just physically dismiss whoever is playing Jesus, because we always want to pretty them up way too much I think. (kinda like the Caucasians that used to play all the native Americans in old cowboy/Indian movies, right?) If I didn't do that, there would be no "suspension of disbelief" and I couldn't enjoy it at all! Most anything concerning scripture which is presented by a big production has man's "fingerprints" all over it, so it must be taken with a tablespoon of salt (rather than a grain) to enjoy . . .

A brother and I were briefly talking yesterday about Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and how he doesn't go see any movie depicting Christ, because He (and his wife) doesn't want to get any image in their head, other than from scripture. He said people told him the movie would change his life, and he thought, "Why would I want that - I only want Christ to change my life!" I really respected that! (I actually didn't care all that much for the Gibson movie, as I didn't think it went far enough, and was a little too "dark" for me - He did it for the JOY set before Him after all! That's why I like acting brother Bruce's depiction so much - and that they didn't take as much licence as most depictions do)

BTW - Gibson is supposedly working on a sequel to "The Passion" about the resurrection of Christ. If this is done right, it could be really, really good. But again, I am usually quite disappointed when Hollywood does anything concerning the Good News.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I just physically dismiss whoever is playing Jesus, because we always want to pretty them up way too much I think. (kinda like the Caucasians that used to play all the native Americans in old cowboy/Indian movies, right?) If I didn't do that, there would be no "suspension of disbelief" and I couldn't enjoy it at all! Most anything concerning scripture which is presented by a big production has man's "fingerprints" all over it, so it must be taken with a tablespoon of salt (rather than a grain) to enjoy . . .

A brother and I were briefly talking yesterday about Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and how he doesn't go see any movie depicting Christ, because He (and his wife) doesn't want to get any image in their head, other than from scripture. He said people told him the movie would change his life, and he thought, "Why would I want that - I only want Christ to change my life!" I really respected that! (I actually didn't care all that much for the Gibson movie, as I didn't think it went far enough, and was a little too "dark" for me - He did it for the JOY set before Him after all! That's why I like acting brother Bruce's depiction so much - and that they didn't take as much licence as most depictions do)

BTW - Gibson is supposedly working on a sequel to "The Passion" about the resurrection of Christ. If this is done right, it could be really, really good. But again, I am usually quite disappointed when Hollywood does anything concerning the Good News.

Something ain't right in Gibson's head. That aside, after watching his movie I was angry as hell. First of all, the slasher movie fanatics loved his movie, because of all the blood and gore ... not because of anything to do with Jesus.

The reason I was angry : Somewhat on thread topic, perhaps, I was angry because God had to put on a human sacrifice -- like that depicted in the movie -- to forgive us. Couldn't God come up with some other way? a loving way perchance, hopefully? Killing a son is not a loving act, and is, was, against the law ... and God did it, even knowingly against His own law.

The 'very human sacrifice' of his Son, on the altar of the cross, was beastly, and forbidden in the law of Moses ; God forbade human sacrifice in the OT -- example Isaac. Is the 'human' -- maybe -- we've determined out here so far, divine? maybe, maybe not -- the human sacrifice of his son wasn't right, and not living up to godly or OT scripture standards.

That's why Gibson's movie made me angry ; it depicted an image of God that I don't agree with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Something ain't right in Gibson's head. That aside, after watching his movie I was angry as hell. First of all, the slasher movie fanatics loved his movie, because of all the blood and gore ... not because of anything to do with Jesus.

The reason I was angry : Somewhat on thread topic, perhaps, I was angry because God had to put on a human sacrifice -- like that depicted in the movie -- to forgive us. Couldn't God come up with some other way? a loving way perchance, hopefully? Killing a son is not a loving act, and is, was, against the law ... and God did it, even knowingly against His own law.

The 'very human sacrifice' of his Son, on the altar of the cross, was beastly, and forbidden in the law of Moses ; God forbade human sacrifice in the OT -- example Isaac. Is the 'human' -- maybe -- we've determined out here so far, divine? maybe, maybe not -- the human sacrifice of his son wasn't right, and not living up to godly or OT scripture standards.

That's why Gibson's movie made me angry ; it depicted an image of God that I don't agree with.

So ... You have trouble with a movie about the cross and passion of Christ. You have trouble with Jesus dying as the Lamb of God for our sins. You have problems with a righteous God who supposedly "killed" His own Son. And you think that God broke His own Law in all these matters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... You have trouble with a movie about the cross and passion of Christ. You have trouble with Jesus dying as the Lamb of God for our sins. You have problems with a righteous God who supposedly "killed" His own Son. And you think that God broke His own Law in all these matters.

Yeah! bro Ohio, you got it pretty much spot on. That's pretty much what I said, with minor spins to make it look bad. Yes, God broke His own law. Maybe it's a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of thing. Who knows? But God being God He most certainly could have forgiven us in a better way.

Take King Manasseh for example, he was mighty bad. If I remember correctly, he participated in Moloch's sacrifice of children on the fire, led Judah off into idolatry, and polytheistic worship of Ball and Asherah, was captured and led off into captivity, suffered, and God put him back up on his throne, because Manasseh repented, and restored Judah back to Yahweh.

He forgave King Manasseh in a humane way. What happened to that God? I thought He became a better God when He became a Christian. I guess it didn't stick.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah! bro Ohio, you got it pretty much spot on. That's pretty much what I said, with minor spins to make it look bad. Yes, God broke His own law. Maybe it's a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of thing. Who knows? But God being God He most certainly could have forgiven us in a better way.

Take King Manasseh for example, he was mighty bad. If I remember correctly, he participated in Moloch's sacrifice of children on the fire, led Judah off into idolatry, and polytheistic worship of Ball and Asherah, was captured and led off into captivity, suffered, and God put him back up on his throne, because Manasseh repented, and restored Judah back to Yahweh.

He forgave King Manasseh in a humane way. What happened to that God? I thought He became a better God when He became a Christian. I guess it didn't stick.

How long will you reprimand God for His ways?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Something ain't right in Gibson's head. That aside, after watching his movie I was angry as hell. First of all, the slasher movie fanatics loved his movie, because of all the blood and gore ... not because of anything to do with Jesus.

The reason I was angry : Somewhat on thread topic, perhaps, I was angry because God had to put on a human sacrifice -- like that depicted in the movie -- to forgive us. Couldn't God come up with some other way? a loving way perchance, hopefully? Killing a son is not a loving act, and is, was, against the law ... and God did it, even knowingly against His own law.

The 'very human sacrifice' of his Son, on the altar of the cross, was beastly, and forbidden in the law of Moses ; God forbade human sacrifice in the OT -- example Isaac. Is the 'human' -- maybe -- we've determined out here so far, divine? maybe, maybe not -- the human sacrifice of his son wasn't right, and not living up to godly or OT scripture standards.

That's why Gibson's movie made me angry ; it depicted an image of God that I don't agree with.

Not sure if Gibson is regenerated, as he's a RC. But you make some interesting points - I have wondered some of the same things. But here's the long view I think: In the end, there must be no accusation that can stand against us, because He died in our place. In other words, the very highest price was paid, and all mouths will be shut. When the devil and his followers are thrown into the fiery lake, no one will be able to accuse God and say, "What about all those ones!? They did so many bad things too, but You aren't punishing them!" Again, He can say, "Yes, but the ultimate price was paid for them, and they have accepted that gift. Now full righteousness is imputed to them because of their belief in the Lamb."

And in this is love on full display. Plus Christ said he laid down His own life - no one took it from Him. It was an act of free will, born out of His love for mankind. For "the joy set before Him" He willingly sacrificed Himself for us that we might be the righteousness of God in Christ, and that He could become our supplied life! Oh hallelujah what an awesome love mystery this all is!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not sure if Gibson is regenerated, as he's a RC. But you make some interesting points - I have wondered some of the same things. But here's the long view I think: In the end, there must be no accusation that can stand against us, because He died in our place. In other words, the very highest price was paid, and all mouths will be shut. When the devil and his followers are thrown into the fiery lake, no one will be able to accuse God and say, "What about all those ones!? They did so many bad things too, but You aren't punishing them!" Again, He can say, "Yes, but the ultimate price was paid for them, and they have accepted that gift. Now full righteousness is imputed to them because of their belief in the Lamb."

And in this is love on full display. Plus Christ said he laid down His own life - no one took it from Him. It was an act of free will, born out of His love for mankind. For "the joy set before Him" He willingly sacrificed Himself for us that we might be the righteousness of God in Christ, and that He could become our supplied life! Oh hallelujah what an awesome love mystery this all is!!!

Bro StG, I was just explaining my reaction to Mel's movie.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro StG, I was just explaining my reaction to Mel's movie.

Oh, maybe I misread this. So you were saying that this is what you thought was conveyed in that movie then, right? Not your own beliefs . . . (correct?)

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And in this is love on full display. Plus Christ said he laid down His own life - no one took it from Him. It was an act of free will, born out of His love for mankind. For "the joy set before Him" He willingly sacrificed Himself for us that we might be the righteousness of God in Christ, and that He could become our supplied life! Oh hallelujah what an awesome love mystery this all is!!!

“that He could become our supplied life!” This concept was so abused in the LC. Life, life life, makes you want to shout hallelujah praise the Lord. The concept developed by WL about life was all wrapped up in a processed triune god. It was used to tether the saints to LSM. If you didn’t “know “ life” which really meant if you didn’t give your “ whole being” to the LSM way, you were in death. It was a great psychological tool to corral the troops- who wanted to be labeled DEATH , so you better get into LIFE- by going to all the trainings, buying all the books and messages, pray reading all the foot notes, being one with Bro Lee, participating in the new way, etc, etc. in the meetings, everyone was supposed to be in Life.

But Jesus said, I am the way, the life and the truth- no one comes to the Father but by me. Why was it then that the Life thing did not bring us to the Father? Why was the LC so devoid of a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Life? We in the LC were totally misled by the LSM version of life. Modalism was definitely the practice- the processed triune god became our life to bring us into the LSM. Jesus mission was to bring us back to the Father, the One True God, that we could worship Him. WL/LSM brought us to a cultish dependency using the word Life as a hypnotic trigger. From what I read on various discussions, they are more into that hypnotic trance than ever, only now they are really lost in a time warp of continuing the selling and consuming the “messages” of a dead man.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“that He could become our supplied life!” This concept was so abused in the LC. Life, life life, makes you want to shout hallelujah praise the Lord. The concept developed by WL about life was all wrapped up in a processed triune god. It was used to tether the saints to LSM. If you didn’t “know “ life” which really meant if you didn’t give your “ whole being” to the LSM way, you were in death. It was a great psychological tool to corral the troops- who wanted to be labeled DEATH , so you better get into LIFE- by going to all the trainings, buying all the books and messages, pray reading all the foot notes, being one with Bro Lee, participating in the new way, etc, etc. in the meetings, everyone was supposed to be in Life.

But Jesus said, I am the way, the life and the truth- no one comes to the Father but by me. Why was it then that the Life thing did not bring us to the Father? Why was the LC so devoid of a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Life? We in the LC were totally misled by the LSM version of life. Modalism was definitely the practice- the processed triune god became our life to bring us into the LSM. Jesus mission was to bring us back to the Father, the One True God, that we could worship Him. WL/LSM brought us to a cultish dependency using the word Life as a hypnotic trigger. From what I read on various discussions, they are more into that hypnotic trance than ever, only now they are really lost in a time warp of continuing the selling and consuming the “messages” of a dead man.

What Life actually meant in the LC was : A life sentence in their cult.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So what do we do when someone like Witness Lee comes along and says the Lord "illuminated him" to teach that the Son is the Father, and the Son became the Holy Spirit? Should we throw up our hands and just say "It's all a big mystery! Who knows! Lee's approach is as good as anyone else's!". Sorry my brother, but I don't trust man's personal "illuminations" any further than I could throw em.(and that includes mine) This is why our theology should be based in and upon the historical, orthodox teachings/interpretations. God is more than capable and willing to "illuminate" us within the bounds of the historical orthodoxy established since beginning.

It should go without saying that Witness Lee decided that he was never going to be restricted or bound to anything or anyone. He even went far beyond his mentor and guru Watchman Nee. For all his faults, Nee did not teach modalism. Nee did not teach that the Son is called the Father, or that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit.


But you're perfectly willing to be beholden to what Witness Lee's thinking was, right? What gives bro? Why the discrepancy?
-

I just had to bring this one over from the main site to the dungeon. Poor Untohim, he is caught up in man’s 4 th century teachings, which Awareness eloquently explained of the participants “voting” on truth, and wants to argue that WL was invalid for his opinions? To talk about modalism and WL without having a good debate about trinitarianism, which is the root and stalk of modalism, is just plain silly! Trinitarianism, God the Son, the 2nd person of the trinity were never the discussion of the foundational church. One only has to read through Acts and the gospels presented there to realize what the apostles thought about the resurrected Jesus. For Untohim, to grasp at his orthodoxy as his truth and not accept the beseeching of Paul to hold to One God, the Father is such a deviation in itself. If WL would have been the ministry to recover the church, this is the first item that should have been recovered. Muddling in the tar pit of tri theism and throwing the gooey stuff at each other in the name of truth will never clean up the 4th century errors; thus the recovery of the church will not occur. I would think Untohim would probably do best sitting in a Catholic mass and pondering trans substantiation. This too was the teaching of orthodoxy, and didn’t Jesus say “ this is my body”?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“that He could become our supplied life!” This concept was so abused in the LC. Life, life life, makes you want to shout hallelujah praise the Lord. The concept developed by WL about life was all wrapped up in a processed triune god. It was used to tether the saints to LSM. If you didn’t “know “ life” which really meant if you didn’t give your “ whole being” to the LSM way, you were in death. It was a great psychological tool to corral the troops- who wanted to be labeled DEATH , so you better get into LIFE- by going to all the trainings, buying all the books and messages, pray reading all the foot notes, being one with Bro Lee, participating in the new way, etc, etc. in the meetings, everyone was supposed to be in Life.

But Jesus said, I am the way, the life and the truth- no one comes to the Father but by me. Why was it then that the Life thing did not bring us to the Father? Why was the LC so devoid of a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Life? We in the LC were totally misled by the LSM version of life. Modalism was definitely the practice- the processed triune god became our life to bring us into the LSM. Jesus mission was to bring us back to the Father, the One True God, that we could worship Him. WL/LSM brought us to a cultish dependency using the word Life as a hypnotic trigger. From what I read on various discussions, they are more into that hypnotic trance than ever, only now they are really lost in a time warp of continuing the selling and consuming the “messages” of a dead man.

Well, this may be. However, let's not swing the pendulum to the other extreme. That is, let's not throw out the importance of "life" then, right? "I am come that they might have life . . ." I'm not saying you are doing that exactly, but I've perceived an apparent tendency on this forum to get rid of "life" along with the proverbial "dirty bath water" of LC shenanigans.

"For me to live is Christ & to die is gain." "My life is hidden with God in Christ."

[Sons to Glory!]

Please delete - duplicate. Thanks!