Modalism

[UntoHim]

Question one: When Jesus Christ calls himself "the Son of Man", and Paul refers to him as "the Son of his love" and "the Son of God who loved me", is the Bible talking about 3 different persons? Or are these three different titles to the same person?

StG!: Same

Ok, then why is it that you don't apply the very same logic to the various titles of the Holy Spirit given in your post #206? (the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, etc)

Question two: When Jesus Christ said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father" (John 14:9) was he saying that he was literally God the Father standing there in front of Phillip? If that was so, then why did did he tell the disciples in the very same chapter: "I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I"?

StG!: Same as when it says Christ is in us, yet also on the throne. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

Interesting answer! But there is a logical/theological disconnect in your answer again. My question was addressing the relationship of the Father and the Son, (two individuals) but your answer addresses the omnipresence of Christ (one individual) Although there is an intrinsic, essential dynamic of oneness within the Godhead (cf: I am in the Father and the Father is in me), this dynamic does not confuse, much less obliterate, the relationship between the Father and the Son. A good illustration would be found in John 8: "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (vrs 16-18)

Question three:.(put in the form of a statement) To say that the Holy Spirit is representing the Father and the Son is perfectly biblical. Yes, there are deeper and fuller understandings of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but at the very least, the Holy Spirit is representing the Father and Son.

StG!: Agreed. Representation is one aspect, but as you point out there's a deeper, organic aspect too, and this is the real significance - it's this deeper, intrinsic aspect that's key, right? It's like saying my son looks like me. Well of course, but why? Because he shares my DNA.

I disagree that one "aspect" of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Father and the Son, and indeed with us as believers, has any more significance than the other. For example, the judicial/legal aspect of our "adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5) and "the Spirit of adoption as sons" (Rom 8:15) and "predestined us for adoption to himself as sons" (Eph 1:5) is just as significant as the "organic" aspect in John 14:19 "Because I live, you also will live". and 1 Pet 1:4 "you may become partakers of the divine nature". Witness Lee created a false dichotomy of sorts with his emphasis of the "organic" relationship over the judicial/legal aspect. As a matter of fact, Lee and his followers have implied that his teachings, and his particular emphasis of one aspect over the over other, was "recovered, high peak truth". It should go without saying by now, but I'm here to tell you that Lee's teachings, and Lee's emphases, are neither recovered truth nor high peak. In the end, my dear friend Sons to Glory!, I believe that we will find that the "many sons" will have been "brought to glory" because of, and through, the judicial AND organic aspects. All man-made aspects, emphases, significances, terms, creeds and doctrines will fade away in abject insignificance and utter worthlessness "compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us"(Rom 8:18)
-