Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Alternative Views - Click Here to Start New Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2020, 09:53 AM   #1
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by HBJ View Post
One of the theological problems with the Local Church is being accused of modalism. A website I found says "Modalism and Monarchianism are two false views of the nature of God and of Jesus Christ that appeared in the second and third centuries AD. A modalist views God as one Person instead of three Persons and believes that the Father, Son, and Spirit are simply different modes or forms of the same divine Person."

Now I did hear Brother Lee say "Jesus became the life - giving Spirit"

"Became" has modalist connotations. But Scripture is plain: God exists in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons. What do you all think?
This subject comes up on this site in periodic cycles. Last time I responded with my views on the “ trinity” issue, it was relegated to the alt site. But, since you asked what I think, I thought I would opine.

It seems absurd to me to speak about the scripture as the word of God, and then to hold to a caveat of trinitarianism doctrine as truth. The scripture does not contain teachings on God being triune, so this is a man made position that will continuously be argued from man made positions, which divide the people of God.

If WL really recovered the local church other than just in name, it would have resulted in the saints speaking similar to the teachings of Paul. In all of Paul’s epistles, he opens with a greeting along the line of Grace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus. Paul speaks often of the God of our Lord Jesus, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, God who raised Christ Jesus from the dead- this is the ministry, the thought of Paul. In other words, the speaking and teaching of the church WL tried to say he recovered would have to be filled with this kind of content. Trinitarianism came centuries after this, and has since been nothing but a source of division, fighting, and mockery- it has gained nothing for the testimony.

The thought of trinitarianism is really that the scripture did an inadequate job of presenting the truth of God and needs outside help. You can see from the various replies on this post that it is a whirlwind of confusion. As if there is something wrong with sticking to the NT presentation of One God, the Father, as Paul so succinctly states to the Corinthians, and that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Father, and that God raised him from the dead, and set him at His right hand as Lord over all. The church should be filled with praises to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and prayers to our God and Father- our language and thought should match that of the apostle Paul, who never included a teaching that God is triune! Is there something wrong with sticking to the NT verbiage? The triune god, processed triune god, fully god fully man, god-man, god-men, god the son, god the Holy Spirit, god became a man so man, etc. are not the words of the NT, so why are they ours? The revelation, the thought given to us in the NT is that Jesus is the son of God, sent to die for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. This is the gospel, and the content of the church. Peter was not given the revelation that Jesus is God, that God is triune and on this rock Jesus would build his church.

A recovery of the church, a return to the truth, would stick to the simple speaking given in scripture- WL in “recovering” the church, brought it back to only the 4th century and then dumped his load of his personal form of trinitarianism refuse, which wholly polluted the whole concept of recovery. A true recovery would have resulted in the saints taking the sweet scriptural revelation of God our Father and Jesus, the anointed son, bringing us into a similar position as sons. There is a reason-from God himself, why this was what was presented in the NT. Trinitarianism has altered the gospel, the understanding of the scripture, appreciation of God our Father, and really, the important relation we have in and through Christ Jesus in our relation to God the Father.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 10:56 AM   #2
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Modalism

I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....then off to the dungeon with ya me lad! And while you're down there you can pray-read "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" until you fall down and worship Jesus Christ as God, just as Thomas did when he proclaimed "MY LORD AND MY GOD!".

Amazing. On one thread we have trinitarians, doubletarians and now a unotarian(aka Unitarian)! Well, we can't all be right, now can we?

Sorry, but I am going to be rather strict on this thread. The topic is modalism as taught by Witness Lee. I'll allow some latitude...but just a little.

-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 11:18 AM   #3
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....
-
Woah ... Untohim ...after reading the recent post by Boxjobox, I never expected this response ... yikes! His post very exactly corresponds with the synoptic Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters. He has hundreds of verses to support him. I thought you would thank him for supporting your position (for the most part anyway. And then you threaten to quarantine him to the basement! God forbid!) Boxjobox definitely emphasizes the relationship of the Father and the Son in God Himself. What's not to like, bro? How is that "Unitarian," unless he does not acknowledge the eternal deity of the Son?

Then I was going to build on my post #132, saying that the N.T. also includes the writings of John, and John presents another view of God which emphasizes His inherent oneness.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 11:50 AM   #4
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Modalism

Ohio, sometimes I wonder how closely you follow our forum. Boxjobox does not believe that Jesus is God. He does not believe that the Holy Spirit is God. He has made his views very clear for years on this forum.

If I let him, Boxjobox would give us hundreds of verses "proving" that Jesus is not God. How would that work for ya?....No? I thought so.

This is simply the wrong forum for our friend Boxjobox. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of Internet Forums that someone like him can sell his wares without any problems. This forum is just not one of them.

-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 02:17 PM   #5
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....then off to the dungeon with ya me lad! And while you're down there you can pray-read "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" until you fall down and worship Jesus Christ as God, just as Thomas did when he proclaimed "MY LORD AND MY GOD!".

Amazing. On one thread we have trinitarians, doubletarians and now a unotarian(aka Unitarian)! Well, we can't all be right, now can we?

Sorry, but I am going to be rather strict on this thread. The topic is modalism as taught by Witness Lee. I'll allow some latitude...but just a little.

-
Is it Untohim or now Untohims?
My main point is that the early church as portrayed in Acts and Paul’s writings, which we hold as scripture/ Word of God did not contain anything related to the aforementioned topic. So should not a “recovered” church also be in the same mind? If it was the, shall I say, mind of the Spirit that the Church would be based on such concepts, it should follow that those concepts were spoken, reinforced, taught, exemplified, but alas, the church did quite well in the early days without any of those ideas. Both Jews and gentiles would have no clue God is triune unless such were clearly taught by Paul. If it was good enough for the foundational church to exist and flourish without such concepts, and there is a desire to “ recover” what was lost, seems to me that a return to the teachings and thoughts of Paul- the wise master builder, who gave the whole counsel of God in preaching and building the church- seems that is what should be the contents of the church.

If needs must be, Ill have to have another go at the alt-site, but me thinks a good healthy discussion by those of us who went through the LC/ WL would be beneficial to all. Is there a criteria I should follow in expressing my views? I really try to tie my opinions to the WL/ LSM controversy.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 02:27 PM   #6
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Ohio, sometimes I wonder how closely you follow our forum. Boxjobox does not believe that Jesus is God. He does not believe that the Holy Spirit is God. He has made his views very clear for years on this forum.

If I let him, Boxjobox would give us hundreds of verses "proving" that Jesus is not God. How would that work for ya?....No? I thought so.

This is simply the wrong forum for our friend Boxjobox. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of Internet Forums that someone like him can sell his wares without any problems. This forum is just not one of them.

-
My main point is not to prove or disprove an ongoing controversy, but to point out that in the foundational church as portrayed in the writings of Luke/Paul, which comprise most of the NT, seems to me that Paul gave utmost care to refer to God as the Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, which is exactly the same as Jesus did. In fact Paul stated clearly to the gentile Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, and to the Ephesians, that keeping the unity of the Spirit relied on professing one God the Father. If there is a problem with one God the Father, maybe that’s where the church went astray and WL went way off the reservation. I do think this concept is germane to the topic discussed here.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2020, 02:44 PM   #7
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
[


The Lord Jesus was clearly speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person. A mere "power" or "life-source" cannot be blasphemed against. In fact, in the context of this passage, blasphemy specifically refers to speaking against God the Holy Spirit. In fact, this sin is so grievous that it will never be forgiven, even in heaven.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Ephesians 4:30

Very similar to the statement of the Lord Jesus in Matthew. Again, it should be obvious that a mere "power" or "life-force" cannot be "grieved". Only a person can be grieved.
-
Unto him- you made up a new term here and act as if it is scriptural- God the Holy Spirit is not a biblical term/ concept. You may want to rephrase your statement, and consider that there is a very good reason God the Holy Spirit is not used in scripture.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 04:08 AM   #8
Raptor
Member
 
Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 172
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
My little observation is, I think, a minor point in this whole thread, but just for the sake of clarifying what I said.....my main thrust is the co-equal thing.

The Holy Spirit is simply depicted differently. "Left out" in places where we would expect to see him if he was a co-equal person of the trinity. Anyone can see that. There is a unique relationship between the Father and the Son. Of course there is a Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure how to describe it yet.
Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:

The Holy Spirit
  • is the author, the source of the entire Bible
  • was there hovering over the waters at creation
  • is the One who spoke through all the saints and many people in the OT and NT
  • was the One through whom Jesus was conceived
  • was upon Jesus
  • was through whom Jesus cast out demons
  • raised Jesus from the dead
  • convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement
  • justifies us
  • regenerates man, causing him to be born of God and renews us
  • gives life
  • is our pledge
  • seals us
  • is the realm of our fellowship and the realm by which we walk, serve and pray in
  • is the sphere in which we are baptized, the whole Body of Christ is baptized in Him
  • is the Spirit of truth that guides into all the truth
  • testifies concerning Christ
  • is the Advocate, Helper, Comforter, Counselor with the believers forever
  • teaches us what to say
  • indwells every single christian throughout history
  • frees us, fills the believers, empowers believers, speaks to us and gives instructions, clarifies things
  • approves matters and forbids matters
  • sanctifies the Gentiles
  • reveals things and searches all things, even the depths of God
  • manifests, operates and assigns gifts of wisdom, knowledge, healing, works of power, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues
  • is the One through whom we put to death the practices of the body
  • produces fruit in us: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc.
  • grants us access to the Father
  • is the realm of our oneness
  • is a sword for spiritual warfare
  • helps us in our weakness, intercedes and prays through us
  • is the realm of righteousness, joy and peace for the Kingdom of God
  • is mentioned as the second in the trinity in Revelation
  • is the One that speaks to the churches
  • is the 7 Spirits of God that are in the hand of Jesus
  • is the 7 Spirits of God as 7 torches of fire
  • is the 7 Spirits of God that are before the Throne of God
  • is the 7 Spirits of God and identified as the 7 eyes of the Lamb
  • is the 7 Spirits of God that are sent out into all the earth
  • is the One who together with the Bride cries out to Jesus to come back at the end of the Bible!
Raptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 09:16 AM   #9
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor View Post
Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:
That makes sense! The Word was in the Father, in His bosom. When spoken the Word is the expression of the Father. The Word was always with the Father and one with Him. So therefore the Father and Son are one. This verse then comes to me: "Go therefore and baptize . . . into the NAME (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." These three are one. What I hear you saying, bro, is the Spirit is the transmission of this one God, right?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 09:48 AM   #10
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor View Post
Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:

The Holy Spirit
  • [B]is the author, the source of the entire Bible [/
  • is the Spirit of truth that guides into all the truth
The biggest problem with WLs teaching was his taking snips of scripture, molding them together, coming up with his conclusion, making a statement based on his conclusion, speaking as if his conclusion was scripture, having all the saints Buy into and repeat his “scriptural” conclusion until everyone believed his conclusion was scripture.
Raptor, the scripture does not say the Spirit IS God, rather the Spirit of God. The scripture does say God the Father. And Paul beseeches us to keep the unity of the Spirit by confessing One God and Father, who is above all, through all and in all. You list the Spirit as the source of the entire bible; we should give earnest heed to what IS written and not alter thing to draw conclusions. Paul, in that great letter to the Ephesians, makes known the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. I think this would be the Spirit guiding us into all truth.

Modalism is a branch that shoots out of a God is three persons tree. A tree that the Holy Spirit does not guide us into. The Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Scripture guides us plainly, clearly into One God, The Father. WL lived off the three persons tree and filled the saints with this fruit, alls the while, the scripture spoke of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Jesus, after raising from the dead, spoke to Mary and said I ascend to my God and your God and my Father and your Father. God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at His right hand- gave him the highest position in the universe, put him over all and gave him as head to the church. I think this should be the content of the church, not that three person tree! which was NOT written by the Holy Spirit!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 10:28 AM   #11
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Modalism is a branch that shoots out of a God is three persons tree. A tree that the Holy Spirit does not guide us into. The Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Scripture guides us plainly, clearly into One God, The Father. WL lived off the three persons tree and filled the saints with this fruit, alls the while, the scripture spoke of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Jesus, after raising from the dead, spoke to Mary and said I ascend to my God and your God and my Father and your Father. God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at His right hand- gave him the highest position in the universe, put him over all and gave him as head to the church. I think this should be the content of the church, not that three person tree! which was NOT written by the Holy Spirit!
I thought Modalism would be from the "God is one" tree - that is God is one person, manifested in three stages. I'm I missing something here?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 10:55 AM   #12
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Since these messages got moved to alt views, I will post this on here (afraid to say anything on regular forum as it might be censored): I don't understand why this is an alt view worthy item! Don't Boxjobox lives matter too?!

Seems like there's some "red-headed stepchildren" around here . . . or am I missing something?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 11:21 AM   #13
Raptor
Member
 
Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 172
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Raptor, the scripture does not say the Spirit IS God, rather the Spirit of God.
God is Spirit.
Raptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 12:42 PM   #14
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor View Post
God is Spirit.
Yes, God is spirit- eternal immortal, invisible. But I’m referring to the Holy Spirit given to us by God. Angles are spirits as well according to the scriptures. There are evil spirits. All entities listed as spirit are not God. The Holy Spirit shows us quite clearly in scripture that the one true God is the Father John 17.3
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 12:54 PM   #15
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
I thought Modalism would be from the "God is one" tree - that is God is one person, manifested in three stages. I'm I missing something here?
Depends on who you listen to or follow. There are numerous branches and theological/philosophical branches that come off the one God- three person tree, and every group and individual seems to have their own version. Modalism is also God manifests himself as 3 persons. Everyone seems to have name labels to describe everyone else’s view, and the argument goes on and on, division after division. I would say it’s Jezebel and all her daughters, but what do I know? What I do know is that the whole concept was not introduced by the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, because Paul clearly and plainly says that the oneness of the spirit is keeping the testimony of one God the Father. Is it not strange that this is so overlooked by all who claim the scripture is the word of God? You would think Paul wrote to keep the oneness professing a one God/ three person thing.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 01:04 PM   #16
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

The church definitely needs to be recovered, where the scripture is lifted up, and the monkey business is rejected. The church of WL/LSM does not do this. They are actually more full of the non scriptural triune god thing than the Catholic or Lutheran assemblies. In the last two, you get more of a sense of the awesomeness of God our Father- which is shoved out the door by the LSM crowd.
If the Holy Spirit insists on one God, the Father, that should be the stance of the Church. Oh, how there is a great need for Recovery!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 01:13 PM   #17
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Depends on who you listen to or follow. There are numerous branches and theological/philosophical branches that come off the one God- three person tree, and every group and individual seems to have their own version. Modalism is also God manifests himself as 3 persons. Everyone seems to have name labels to describe everyone else’s view, and the argument goes on and on, division after division. I would say it’s Jezebel and all her daughters, but what do I know? What I do know is that the whole concept was not introduced by the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, because Paul clearly and plainly says that the oneness of the spirit is keeping the testimony of one God the Father. Is it not strange that this is so overlooked by all who claim the scripture is the word of God? You would think Paul wrote to keep the oneness professing a one God/ three person thing.
Yes . . . I pointed out the labeling of Christians in an earlier post somewhere . . . just the action of labeling others creates division. So what if we have differing views and perspectives of this "elephant!" As long as we accept Jesus as the one Way, Truth & Life, I see little profit in much of the rest of the conniptions we tend to go through - proverbial angels dancing on the head of a pin thing IMHO.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 02:52 PM   #18
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Actually, posts that don't address modalism as taught by Witness Lee are off-topic for this thread. Not sure why that's so hard of a concept for people to understand. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this: There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ. Another would be that the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and if we believe on him our sins our forgiven. Another would be that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised bodily on the third day, ascended to heaven and is now at the right hand of the Father. There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.

My personal believe is the orthodox view/teaching/understanding of the Trinity, that God is one in Being and three in Person, has been a core element of the Christian faith since the beginning and is a nonnegotiable. However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead. (Assuming that you even believe there is such a thing)
-
This seems like a mixed message . . . sorry but I'm struggling with what's permissible and what is not. That is, the first paragraph seems to say one thing - a narrow defining, but then gets at least a little reversed and broadened in the second paragraph.

And I'm sure you know better than I do regarding Boxjobox not believing in the deity of Christ. You are right - that is a basic non-negotiable. The understanding of the Trinity - not so much IMHO . . .
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 05:04 PM   #19
Raptor
Member
 
Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 172
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Yes, God is spirit
Yes, and there is no separate Holy Spirit. God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Don´t bother to reply, I´m not going to further this discussion, God the Son is also God, in case you were wondering.
Raptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 06:35 PM   #20
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Since these messages got moved to alt views, I will post this on here (afraid to say anything on regular forum as it might be censored): I don't understand why this is an alt view worthy item! Don't Boxjobox lives matter too?!
Too funny.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 06:51 PM   #21
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Too funny.
Glad somebody appreciates my oft-offbeat humor. Whatever I bring up on the Modalism thread is seemingly ignored by the moderator more and more. I guess he thinks he's ignoring bad behavior or . . .

Feeling a little persona non grata over there, but Jesus still loves me in spite of myself, and that's what's most important!
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2020, 07:44 PM   #22
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ... There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.
However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
This seems like a mixed message . . . sorry but I'm struggling with what's permissible and what is not. That is, the first paragraph seems to say one thing - a narrow defining, but then gets at least a little reversed and broadened in the second paragraph.
No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 08:01 AM   #23
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-
Okay, thanks. That is helpful (and not as narrow as I thought).

I read a few verses in Daily Light (and a couple other places) this morning about the Spirit and thought to share them in this thread.

"But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." "

"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God"

"If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."

"The love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."

"By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit."

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."


(John 16:7; Romans 8:16, 10, 11; 5:5 1 John 4:13)

These are all wonderful verses regarding the indwelling! If we were trying to figure out who of the Godhead is living in us, after reading these verses our answer would have to be "Yes!" That is all three persons of the Godhead are specifically named as living in us. Christ comes to us from/with the Father in the "supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:19)

Concerning the first verse above (John 16:7), it is very interesting that Jesus had to go away before He could send the "Advocate." I think we would all agree that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit here, right? So did Jesus have to go away first before the Spirit could come, because the two of them just couldn't be in the same place together at the same time? (seems like something of a silly notion, doesn't it?) Or was it because the One Grain had to fall into the ground to die, to bring something new forth to get into His followers? That is, for the "joy set before Him, He endured the cross" to make something happen - to produce something.

So what is being produced? Look at those verses in Genesis 2 where it says "The the LORD God built (lit.) a woman from the rib." Adam was a picture of Christ and Eve of the church. Then Adam says, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh . . . because she was taken out of man." Fast forward to Jesus proclaiming, "I will build my church!" Are you seeing what I'm seeing?

Whoa - what hath God wrought!?!?!

Let's see if there ain't some good pipe-smokin' over that . . .
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 08:11 AM   #24
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-
I guess I'll have read the modalism site on the home side, and comment on the alt site. UntoHim, for you, who is the God of our Lord Jesus that Peter, John, Paul and Jesus clearly refer to? I think if you objectively look at all the posts on your Modalism site, and particularly your desire to bend the conversation toward " orthodox " position, you will see that there is NO actual orthodox position on a trinity god, because it is NOT what is taught in the scriptures. You are trying to overlay a man made theology on scripture, and come up with some sort of acceptable belief, whilst knocking WL's attempt at the same process.

UntoHim- in your thinking and approach to truth, can you clearly state you have the mindset of Peter, John, Paul, and of course, Jesus and profess the God of our Lord Jesus, and speak clearly of the God of our Lord Jesus? If not, it seems you are lacking the fundamental foundation for any discussion of modalism. I would think as fellow believers in the redemption work of Christ, that our like precious faith of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, that God raised him from the dead, and that God placed him at his right hand and gave him as lord over all to the church, that you would proclaim Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Maybe on your main site, you yourself would want to start a thread which honors the God and Father of our Lord Jesus as a fundamental foundation for all things related to considering the church. It's wasn't what WL did and look what that produced- it isn't what you've pursued, and look at the quagmire you now find yourself on your modalism thread. Only trying to help UntoHim, I appreciate you, brother.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 08:38 AM   #25
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Actually, posts that don't address modalism as taught by Witness Lee are off-topic for this thread. Not sure why that's so hard of a concept for people to understand. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this: There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ. Another would be that the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and if we believe on him our sins our forgiven. Another would be that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised bodily on the third day, ascended to heaven and is now at the right hand of the Father. There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.

My personal believe is the orthodox view/teaching/understanding of the Trinity, that God is one in Being and three in Person, has been a core element of the Christian faith since the beginning and is a nonnegotiable. However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead. (Assuming that you even believe there is such a thing)
-
Untohim, I see at least two large revealing errors in your post. First would be that God is one and three in person, being something core from the beginning. This is just not so. If this was taught by the apostles, we would not be having all of this discussion now. You need to consider what was preached and taught in the book of Acts to realize that the three person thing was not some core belief. Look at church history that led up to the various decree counsels. Be honest with yourself and with the scripture.

Second, and most revealing is you state " the Father so loved the world that he gave...". The error here is that John did not write the Father so loved, but God so loved... The one true God is the Father John 17.3 (Jesus's words as quoted by John- not mine) . But you can see that John's thought is God so loved. I think you altered the word to Father to preserve your trinitarian view, rather than the scriptural. John's thought of God, I'm afraid differs from yours. You reall should be calibrated by the scripture, and not try to mold the scripture to fit a man made theology.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 08:59 AM   #26
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Thank you Boxjobox for your kind, reasonable and thoughtful post. This forum could sure use a lot more of this - on the homepage as well as over here in the dongeon

Maybe I should give a short post with a short explanation of why I don't allow discussions of non orthodox (aka traditional, historical) theology over on the homepage of LCD. It is actually not for purely theological reasons, but also for some very practical reasons. One major reason would be the practical limitations of time and space on a forum with the limited scope of LCD. I have observed over the years that if an open Internet forum does not limit the scope of the discussions it soon becomes too large and unwieldy, and eventually loses the focus of it's mission. Off-topic, off-the-wall and totally irrelevant postings become the rule instead of the exception.

And speaking of the mission...one of the main parts of the mission of LCD is to become a "safe and sane" place for current and former LC members to have open dialog regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee movement. Many out there would question how much we have fulfilled this mission....especially our friends over at the LC/LSM headquarters over there on La Palma in Anaheim. In any event, my personal belief is that the real help and healing for all current and former LC members is to hear, fellowship and imbibe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to enter into the real teaching and fellowship of the apostles, both of which have been preserved for us down through the ages to this present day.

Anything that detours LCD from this core mission can quickly become a major problem as far as I'm concerned, and as the sole admin/moderator I feel obligated to protect the forum from such distractions.
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 09:30 AM   #27
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

I am discouraged from posting on this forum. The message I posted on the Modalism thread was, I thought, perfectly in line according to the 2nd paragraph of the "new guidelines." However, it still got moved to this alt thread (see #23 below). I think what I posted was what some might label as a type of Modalism - and where did I get that idea from?. Would not some say it was from WL? And wasn't that the purpose of that thread . . . to discuss Modalism coming from WL !?

Anyway, I feel pretty much shut down on here, and will see where the Lord might lead me next . . .


UPDATE: I was made aware I had actually made my post on this thread and not in the regular forum in the Modalism thread. My mistake . . . I got confused . . . I'm over 60 . . . now what were we talking about?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 10:32 AM   #28
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

My friend Sons to Glory! your post was not moved. Your post #23 was a direct response to my post #22 WHICH WAS POSTED HERE ON ALT VIEWS AND NOT THE FORUM HOMEPAGE.

Nevertheless, I hope you understand that I am not trying to discourage you in posting, but rather to encourage you and everyone else to do our best to keep within the topic of any given thread. I do this for the reasons I have just posted here this morning. (#26)

This being said, I have to disagree with you that your post #23 is addressing the matter of modalism as taught by Witness Lee. Your point claiming that "the Godhead is living in us", if not compelling, is certainly intriguing, but it really is taking us off the beaten path. But since it's over here on the wild wild west of Alt Views I see no harm is exploring your views. Go for it!
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 12:02 PM   #29
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

My apologies - I was responding to something you posted, which I thought was on the "regular" Modalism thread (you posted same in two places). My bad! (much adieu about nothing - where's that humble pie face emoji?) But it sounds like you would have moved it any way, right?

So this part (below) doesn't seem like Modalism to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Concerning the first verse above (John 16:7), it is very interesting that Jesus had to go away before He could send the "Advocate." I think we would all agree that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit here, right? So did Jesus have to go away first before the Spirit could come, because the two of them just couldn't be in the same place together at the same time? (seems like something of a silly notion, doesn't it?) Or was it because the One Grain had to fall into the ground to die, to bring something new forth to get into His followers? That is, for the "joy set before Him, He endured the cross" to make something happen - to produce something.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 01:06 PM   #30
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Well, since the moving of your post is a moot point, I won't address that one.

In regards to your points about John 16:7 - No, I would not say that the thoughts you have put forth "seem like modalism". In order for some teaching/doctrine to fall into the modalism category it would have to include the notion that there was some kind of ontological change among one or more of the Godhead/Trinity/Triune God. In the case of Lee's teaching, the change is reflected in the terminology of "became". There is also a more subtle type of modalism indicated when Lee teaches that "The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father!" and "The Lord Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". (See post #154 on Modalism thread on homepage) I'm not sure Witness Lee was theologically sophisticated enough to employ the word "is" in place of "became" in any meaningful way, so it really doesn't matter which word he uses...it all adds up to some form of modalism.
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 01:26 PM   #31
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

On the first point, I was just wondering - would my post have passed muster with you on the regular Modalism thread? (so I can better understand what's acceptable)

So if we say the Son has to go through a process, to then be able to come as the Spirit of Christ (aka Holy Spirit), is that Modalism?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 02:00 PM   #32
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

StG, this is going to have to be my last response for the day on this thread.

No, your post would not have passed muster...for the reasons that I thought I explained pretty clearly in my last post. Please take a closer look at what I posted and I think you will find the answer to your question.

For someone who says he doesn't see the value in theological discussions, it sure seems like your theological wheels are turning pretty quick my man! "the Son has to go through a process, to then be able to come as the Spirit of Christ". hmmm. This is a very subtle change to go from Witness Lee's "Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit" to Jesus Christ the Son being "able to come as the Spirit". Are you trying to explain what Lee taught in your own words and understanding? I think the whole "processed Triune God" teaching has been thoroughly debunked on our forum (Even brother Ohio says he doesn't go for that one anymore!), so I'm not sure where you think you are going to get in simply restating Lee's teachings with slightly different terminology.

Take your time replying, I'll have to respond at some point tomorrow.
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2020, 03:07 PM   #33
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
StG, this is going to have to be my last response for the day on this thread.

No, your post would not have passed muster...for the reasons that I thought I explained pretty clearly in my last post. Please take a closer look at what I posted and I think you will find the answer to your question.

For someone who says he doesn't see the value in theological discussions, it sure seems like your theological wheels are turning pretty quick my man! "the Son has to go through a process, to then be able to come as the Spirit of Christ". hmmm. This is a very subtle change to go from Witness Lee's "Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit" to Jesus Christ the Son being "able to come as the Spirit". Are you trying to explain what Lee taught in your own words and understanding? I think the whole "processed Triune God" teaching has been thoroughly debunked on our forum (Even brother Ohio says he doesn't go for that one anymore!), so I'm not sure where you think you are going to get in simply restating Lee's teachings with slightly different terminology.

Take your time replying, I'll have to respond at some point tomorrow.
-
Thanks and yes, yer right (re: bolded above)! I've already gone way past where I should've on this perpetually unsatisfying and generally frustrating debate, but have let myself get lured into it several times. (Call me a moth I guess.) So again, thanks for the offer, but I'm done - stick a fork in me!

There's no practical purpose to go down this unprofitable alley and just get mugged again . . . Peace.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2020, 12:55 PM   #34
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Thank you Boxjobox for your kind, reasonable and thoughtful post. This forum could sure use a lot more of this - on the homepage as well as over here in the dongeon

Maybe I should give a short post with a short explanation of why I don't allow discussions of non orthodox (aka traditional, historical) theology over on the homepage of LCD. It is actually not for purely theological reasons, but also for some very practical reasons. One major reason would be the practical limitations of time and space on a forum with the limited scope of LCD. I have observed over the years that if an open Internet forum does not limit the scope of the discussions it soon becomes too large and unwieldy, and eventually loses the focus of it's mission. Off-topic, off-the-wall and totally irrelevant postings become the rule instead of the exception.

And speaking of the mission...one of the main parts of the mission of LCD is to become a "safe and sane" place for current and former LC members to have open dialog regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee movement. Many out there would question how much we have fulfilled this mission....especially our friends over at the LC/LSM headquarters over there on La Palma in Anaheim. In any event, my personal belief is that the real help and healing for all current and former LC members is to hear, fellowship and imbibe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to enter into the real teaching and fellowship of the apostles, both of which have been preserved for us down through the ages to this present day.

Anything that detours LCD from this core mission can quickly become a major problem as far as I'm concerned, and as the sole admin/moderator I feel obligated to protect the forum from such distractions.
-
Untohim, I do appreciate the main site, and also that the alternate site is available for discussion. I, for one, as I think you also share, have a desire to see the true recovered churches , and not a misuse of the container as practiced by WL/LSM. Where we probably would differ is on what is the main misuse. On the main site, there is the continuous cycle of the daystar, Philip Lee, WL authoritarianism, cultish conformity issues and the like. Every now and then, the old triune thing pops up in various forms; this time in modalism. In my view, the major fundamental flaw that corrupted was this very thing- everything else is legitimate gripes, but not as paramount as the processed triune god theology WL filled the churches with. It was this that really gave him his LSM business product. He named his business, passed it off ( with the help of all of us through our compliance and purchases) as the ministry of the age, as the speaking of God, as the only legitimate view, and as the carrot and stick to keep the elders and saints in line. It’s unbelievable to me, when I look back on it all, that we all fell for it for some time, that we didn’t see it for what it was, that we gave credence to it. I left in ‘86 when, after John Smith walked away from it and the “elders” in my city signed off In writing a “we turn over the assembly and meeting place to WL/LSM.” I have done a lot of review and consideration, and fleshing out of what I really believe, what the scripture plainly says, and what was just the plain WL hogwash. I think WL pretty much took what W Née had presented concerning the matter of the local church, and used that as the catch to create his business. The local churches then became his clientele for his business adventures- mainly pedaling the word of God worked over with his own theology/ philosophy as his merchandise. Everyone loves to have the Bible explained and put in neat little packages, so he played us like a fiddle, as it were, and we all danced for him.

The entire thought of the church, the scripture, God, Christ, the trinity controversy, apostles, the truth, church practices has a history since the resurrection of Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit. WL/ the LC is not apart from this whole history. Obviously, the writings we have as scripture do not include the teachings that God is triune, and I would say the teachings that Jesus is God falls in this as well. I realize that this is highly controversial, particularly considering church history. None the less, in my reading and considering of the NT and considering what a major change such a belief would have been to the Jews as well as to the gentiles, such a concept as a man being God would have had to have a large, expansive teaching to be accepted, and that just doesn’t appear in the NT. That same, and maybe even more so would be the introduction that God is triune, that there are three persons in one being. No such teaching.
It does appear in the NT, quite plainly concerning One God the Father- this is taught, spoken, referred, explained, throughout the NT, it is the basis of eternal life, it is the basis for our oneness. Indeed, the recognized creeds start with I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Successive creeds followed with evolutionary thoughts on Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Church etc. as time moved forward. Today most denominations and assemblies have some form of belief that refers to God being triune.

So in the present state, along comes the “recovery” of the church. I would think, the recovery of the church would/should take us back to the scriptural foundation of all things. Untohim, your reliance on church history to support trinitarianism would only take us back to the 3rd century, NOT to what was presented in the scriptures. There is no preaching, teaching, declaration of God being triune in the scriptures. The whole trinity thing is as if a song was written in C major, the song got altered in the 4th century to F major and was played in F major for all these years and someone comes talking about recovery and sets the song in B minor, and then everyone wants to argue If F major is right or B minor is wrong. The original song was composed in C major! A recovery would return the song back to C major, or there would not really be a recovery! So a group sits in the great auditorium that was around when the song was composed and performs it in B minor and says “See, we recovered the great auditorium”— but the song is all wrong!!
The all important talk in the NT is concerning the One True God, the Father, sending His son Jesus for our salvation. The Apostles talk about the one True God, the gospel is about the belief that God sent His son. That God raised him from the dead and made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ, head over all to the church. The trinity thing altered the entire gospel message. Why has the church been in such a Spiritless state since the 4th century? Because the song was altered from C to F. Does anyone really think the Holy Spirit is going to bear witness to this alteration? Does it not appear that what was given us as the word of God has been altered by the “wisdom” of man into song of a different key? A recovery must bring us back not only to how to meet, but the correct content. The apostles all speak of the one God the Father, the son speaks of the One God, the Father, the angles profess the one God, the four living creatures, the 24 elders, even the evil spirits and even the devil admit to One God. Why has the song been altered by that which should be the pillar and ground of the truth?
WL further altered the song not to recovery but to a further degradation of the truth.
Do we really want to proceed down the whole trinity thing when it was not given to us by the scriptures? Is there some great error in speaking of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus- seems like in the recovery this should have been the main thing recovered. Did we pray as Jesus taught us “Our Father”? I think it is apparent that that part of the song was severely altered in the LC. WLs ministry led us astray to such a degree we did not even pray correctly! It was not a recovery, but a degradation.
Looking at the 7 churches in Revelation, the first Ephesus, lost their first love. The greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians beseeched them to acknowledge the one God the Father, which apparently they had a problem with. Then comes the teaching of the nicolaitans, teaching and stumbling of Balak and Balaam, and then the teaching of Jezebel. The one church that is highly honored by our head, Jesus is Philadelphia, of which the reward is Jesus saying Rev 12He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. Seemslike there is a whole lot of witness to the God of our Lord Jesus in that reward!

Is it really that hard to drop the whole trinity thing and all the offshoots that are endlessly argued about and return to one God the Father, who is above all, through all and in all, and to return to the fellowship that was with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ. This is what the Holy Spirit leads us to do. The song was written in C major; give up the man made F major rendition, and definitely save yourself from the B minor WL version. Recovery apparently starts individually with each one of us so that we properly worship the Father as Jesus taught and practiced and as the apostles taught and practiced.
Untohim, you are missing the main problem with the “recovery “
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2020, 04:18 PM   #35
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
The entire thought of the church, the scripture, God, Christ, the trinity controversy, apostles, the truth, church practices has a history since the resurrection of Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit. WL/ the LC is not apart from this whole history. Obviously, the writings we have as scripture do not include the teachings that God is triune, and I would say the teachings that Jesus is God falls in this as well. I realize that this is highly controversial, particularly considering church history. None the less, in my reading and considering of the NT and considering what a major change such a belief would have been to the Jews as well as to the gentiles, such a concept as a man being God would have had to have a large, expansive teaching to be accepted, and that just doesn’t appear in the NT.
Boxjobox, I can see how Christians throughout history have focused on the man Jesus who died on the cross for our sins, was raised from the dead, and now is enthroned. But there are too many N.T. verses which also plainly show his eternal deity. With that we also have so many parallels between O.T. and N.T. which show us plainly that Jesus is the Jehovah of old.

Because so many errant heresies hinge upon Jesus being only human, I would hope that you would reconsider your views here. Absolutely the humanity of Jesus is emphasized, but that in no way negates His eternal Deity as God.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2020, 07:03 PM   #36
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Boxjobox, I can see how Christians throughout history have focused on the man Jesus who died on the cross for our sins, was raised from the dead, and now is enthroned. But there are too many N.T. verses which also plainly show his eternal deity. With that we also have so many parallels between O.T. and N.T. which show us plainly that Jesus is the Jehovah of old.

Because so many errant heresies hinge upon Jesus being only human, I would hope that you would reconsider your views here. Absolutely the humanity of Jesus is emphasized, but that in no way negates His eternal Deity as God.
I would disagree with you on this- Recent Christians seem more intent on setting Jesus up as God. Have you considered that if the apostles were setting Jesus up as Jehovah of old you would have the Jews doing more than throwing dust in the air and renting their clothes. There would of necessity need much speaking/teaching to convey this new “revelation”. If the NT/ Holy Spirit was intent on bringing us to believe Jesus is Jehovah, I would think many of those parallels you say exist would have been brought to the forefront. The gospel is a simple message to bring us to recognize that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God; is does not include a message to bring up to believe that Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit honors this simple gospel such as John 3:16. Look and read what Peter told Cornelius and look what the results were.
By saying we are supposed to make some quantum leap from the gospel to a Jesus is Jehovah belief, to me, seems like a dereliction of duty on the part of the Holy Spirit and a shortage of revelation on the part of the apostles. Sorry, bro, I’ll stick to what is the gospel message. I’m quite happy to know that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus told Mary quite plainly, I go to my God and your God, my Father and Your Father. I’ve heard all the great “teachings” of trinity- it does nothing for me but lead me to either think God is playing a terrible joke or christianity over time developed quite a myth. I choose to accept the words of Jesus as recorded by John- eternal life is to know the Father, the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent- this really witnesses with me as truth- triune god, sorry, it’s confusion. It sells a lot of books and gives people an air of authority, but it doesn’t build the truth or elicit the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2020, 07:49 PM   #37
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Have you considered that if the apostles were setting Jesus up as Jehovah of old you would have the Jews doing more than throwing dust in the air and renting their clothes?

By saying we are supposed to make some quantum leap from the gospel to a Jesus is Jehovah belief, to me, seems like a dereliction of duty on the part of the Holy Spirit and a shortage of revelation on the part of the apostles. Sorry, bro, I’ll stick to what is the gospel message. I’m quite happy to know that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.
John began his Gospel with the absolutely incredible statement (1.3) "All things came into being thru Him (Jesus Christ, the word of God), and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

The Jews knew distinctly and specifically who their Creator was. Isaiah (45.11-12) reiterated what they already knew to emphasize his message to Israel: "Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker: Ask me of the things to come, concerning my sons, and concerning the work of My hands, command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it. I, even My own hands, have stretched out the heavens."

Yes, the Jews reacted. Yes, they thru dust in the air. And yes, they did far more than this, plotting to kill the apostles. They began their murder schemes while Jesus was alive, continued after His ascension, continued with plots to murder the apostles who preached the gospel, and continued in every city the apostles visited. Have you not read?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

Last edited by Ohio; 06-26-2020 at 05:17 AM.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2020, 10:21 PM   #38
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John began his Gospel with the absolutely incredible statement (1.3) "All things came into being thru Him (Jesus Christ, the word of God), and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

The Jews knew distinctly and specifically who their Creator was. Isaiah (45.11-120 reiterated what they already knew to emphasize his message to Israel: "Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker: Ask me of the things to come, concerning my sons, and concerning the work of My hands, command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it. I, even My own hands, have stretched out the heavens."

Yes, the Jews reacted. Yes, they thru dust in the air. And yes, they did far more than this, plotting to kill the apostles. They began their murder schemes while Jesus was alive, continued after His ascension, continued with plots to murder the apostles who preached the gospel, and continued in every city the apostles visited. Have you not read?
Ohio, yes the Jews often plotted to kill the apostles, but NOT because they preached Jesus is Jehovah. Read through the account of Stephen- what really ticked them off was his saying he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing by His right hand. I would encourage you to look through the book of Acts, and consider what was said each time the gospel was preached. If you find a Jesus is Jehovah gospel, I really would like to discuss it. But look how God is spoken of and how Christ is revealed. No recording of apostles being killed because of a Jesus is God message. And this is what I mean, how a true recovery, and a ministry of recovery would lift up the whole view of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and place Christ as resurrected and empowered at the right hand of God. Consider also carefully the wording in Galatians, where Paul explained his gospel and warns against different gospel. Read carefully 1Cor. 15 where Paul speaks of the gospel he presents. If the correct ministry had been there in the recovery, the ministry of the scripture, we all would have had a healthy understanding and worship of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. The whole trinity thing did not exist in the foundational church- it wasn’t preached.

James tells Paul to go to the temple and offer. He also says do you see the multitude of Jews who believe including priests. Do you really think this multitude of Jews were confessing Jesus is Jehovah? That would have been civil war!
No, the Holy Spirit just does not testify to Jesus is Jehovah. John sums up his gospel stating that it was written so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that we may have life in his name. Jesus speaks that eternal life comes through knowing the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. This is the testimony of John.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 04:28 AM   #39
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio, yes the Jews often plotted to kill the apostles, but NOT because they preached Jesus is Jehovah. Read through the account of Stephen- what really ticked them off was his saying he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing by His right hand. I would encourage you to look through the book of Acts, and consider what was said each time the gospel was preached. If you find a Jesus is Jehovah gospel, I really would like to discuss it. But look how God is spoken of and how Christ is revealed. No recording of apostles being killed because of a Jesus is God message. And this is what I mean, how a true recovery, and a ministry of recovery would lift up the whole view of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and place Christ as resurrected and empowered at the right hand of God. Consider also carefully the wording in Galatians, where Paul explained his gospel and warns against different gospel. Read carefully 1Cor. 15 where Paul speaks of the gospel he presents. If the correct ministry had been there in the recovery, the ministry of the scripture, we all would have had a healthy understanding and worship of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. The whole trinity thing did not exist in the foundational church- it wasn’t preached.

James tells Paul to go to the temple and offer. He also says do you see the multitude of Jews who believe including priests. Do you really think this multitude of Jews were confessing Jesus is Jehovah? That would have been civil war!
No, the Holy Spirit just does not testify to Jesus is Jehovah. John sums up his gospel stating that it was written so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that we may have life in his name. Jesus speaks that eternal life comes through knowing the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. This is the testimony of John.
You keep bringing up "true recovery," and I would rather discuss "true Bible." This seems to be happening on every thread nowadays. Some folks need to realize that you will not find the truth by throwing out everything from the LC's.

The Bible testifies that Jesus is Jehovah. I gave you one example. Many more exist.

When Thomas said after the resurrection, "my Lord and my God!" Why didn't Jesus correct him? Perhaps Jesus was still shaken up by those 3 days in the tomb, but John knew better, eh? Why didn't John set Thomas straight? He was the "doubter" afterall, so now both Jesus and John are heretics for allowing Thomas to worship Jesus as God.

In every other case in the Bible, when someone tried to worship the angel or messenger of God, the person was immediately stopped. Don't you think it was quite arrogant of Jesus to accept worship as God? Perhaps God scolded Him when He ascended to the throne?

The testimony of John is his entire Gospel, not just your hand-picked verses, which I also treasure.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 05:32 AM   #40
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio, yes the Jews often plotted to kill the apostles, but NOT because they preached Jesus is Jehovah. Read through the account of Stephen- what really ticked them off was his saying he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing by His right hand. I would encourage you to look through the book of Acts, and consider what was said each time the gospel was preached. If you find a Jesus is Jehovah gospel, I really would like to discuss it. But look how God is spoken of and how Christ is revealed. No recording of apostles being killed because of a Jesus is God message.
Classic subreption here.

Have you not read John 5.18?

"For this the Jews sought all the more to kill Jesus, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."


Also, referring to your comment about Stephen's martyrdom, did Stephen really see the Father? He who dwells in unapproachable light was seen by Stephen? But John said "no man has ever seen God." (1.18) And Stephen saw what Moses and all mankind have never seen? Perhaps Stephen saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ standing by the throne? (II Cor 4.6)
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 07:40 AM   #41
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Oh, woe unto me. Here I am, relegated to suffer in the alt site. When shall I hear the gospel of the triune god? When shall my suffering bring me the great revelation. Ohio comes to wet my burning lips with some of that trinity holy water, but it doesn't sooth.
Holy Spirit, why? Thomas was not with the 10 when when Jesus entered the locked doors and breathed the Holy Spirit on them. But then you gave him this greater revelation than all the other apostles had received (according to the trinity gospel). But Holy Spirit, did only John know about this? Holy Spirit, Luke talks about a different outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and Thomas was there at that time, because he spoke in tongues with all the others speaking of all the magnificent works of God. And, and Holy Spirit, Thomas was with the other 11 when Peter gave that 1st gospel message and said
Acts2 22Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; 23him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: 24whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou madest known unto me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance.

29Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; 31he foreseeing this'spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.

34For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 36Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Holy Spirit, why did you allow Peter to speak such a low gospel and why did you honor it by convicting 3000 souls in that one instance. Why, Holy Spirit did you not have Thomas speak and proclaim to all that Jesus was God?
And Holy Spirit, could you not have had Thomas write a gospel telling us that Jesus was Jehovah? Peter did such a lousy job. Couldn't Thomas at least been led to write maybe a small portion, like Jude to let us know about his great revelation. And Holy Spirit, that Jesus who told us before his passion that the one true God is the Father, couldn't he have explained the trinity to us in such clear words? Oh, Holy Spirit, I know, Peter taught elementary school to the 4th grade, Paul got us through 8th grade, and John was our high school teacher! And here I am wallowing in the elementary materials whilst so many others are high school graduates. Maybe I should buy a pair of those Nicene glasses and re-read the scriptures. I guess I never should have gotten out of the WL college classes. That WL was a real wise guy. He was able to solder together the phonograph, the cassette player and the am/fm radio to make that wonderful stereo system. In his classes we didn't need the elementary stuff with the God and Father of Jesus, we now hade the all inclusive processed stereo. Holy Spirit, I think he also had you hard wired to that all inclusive modern invention. Holy Spirit, why did Paul ever waste his time talking about bending his knee to the God of Jesus that we would all see the revelation of what God did in raising Christ from the dead, when all the time Jesus was Jehovah. Seems sooo confusing. Holy Spirit, why do you have this confusion? When will I hear the triune gospel? When will I be allowed to cast off these natural fleshy low thoughts and concepts about the God and Father of Jesus and obtain a college degree in trinitarianism so I too could have a seat on the main page instead of wasting away in agony in the alt purgatory. Will my sins of unbelief ever be cleansed. Do I have to be relegated to only know the God and Father of Jesus, and Jesus the Christ whom God raised from the dead? I wanna grow up too! I don't want to just be a priest to the God and Father of Jesus as John wrote of, I wanna see and use this new modern stereo like all the main pagers. They seem to dance to a different turner by listening to that thing. Oh well, let me review my elementary lessons again: Peter, full of the Holy Spirit talked about this man Jesus, approved by God, whom God worked through, who was crucified, and whom God raised from the dead and gave him the position on the right hand of his God and Father, and 3000 were convicted in heart and received the gospel. Oh, this elementary stuff is so low! When will I ever reach the big leagues!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 07:50 AM   #42
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Classic subreption here.

Have you not read John 5.18?

"For this the Jews sought all the more to kill Jesus, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."


Also, referring to your comment about Stephen's martyrdom, did Stephen really see the Father? He who dwells in unapproachable light was seen by Stephen? But John said "no man has ever seen God." (1.18) And Stephen saw what Moses and all mankind have never seen? Perhaps Stephen saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ standing by the throne? (II Cor 4.6)
You know, Ohio, it seems I did read that before, but I recall also reading Jesus' explaination in the rest of the chapter, and it seems he sets the record straight concerning His God and Fathe, and the relation between them..
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 08:03 AM   #43
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

"Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh . . ."

"For God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."

"To the Son He says, 'Your throne, oh God, is forever and ever.'"

"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, He says, 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.'"


(1 Tim 3:16, 2 Cor 5:19, Heb 1:8,6)
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 08:09 AM   #44
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
You keep bringing up "true recovery," and I would rather discuss "true Bible." This seems to be happening on every thread nowadays. Some folks need to realize that you will not find the truth by throwing out everything from the LC's.

The Bible testifies that Jesus is Jehovah. I gave you one example. Many more exist.

When Thomas said after the resurrection, "my Lord and my God!" Why didn't Jesus correct him? Perhaps Jesus was still shaken up by those 3 days in the tomb, but John knew better, eh? Why didn't John set Thomas straight? He was the "doubter" afterall, so now both Jesus and John are heretics for allowing Thomas to worship Jesus as God.

In every other case in the Bible, when someone tried to worship the angel or messenger of God, the person was immediately stopped. Don't you think it was quite arrogant of Jesus to accept worship as God? Perhaps God scolded Him when He ascended to the throne?

The testimony of John is his entire Gospel, not just your hand-picked verses, which I also treasure.
You know, Ohio, right after what John records about Thomas, John writes his explanation of why he wrote his gospel, and his explanation does not include a Jesus is Jehovah reason. I didnt just hand pick a verse out of nowhere. It was the logical summary of John.

I think we can agree that the gospel would be that Jesus suffered and died on the cross for our sins and redemption and that God raised him from the dead and rewarded him by making him both Lord and Christ. Thomas seems to have missed a very important meeting of the apostles where the resurrected Christ revealed himself. Thomas doubted, which would mean he did not really believe God raised the crucified body, which would also mean Jesus was not made Lord by God. Seeing is believing for Thomas and it seems that his statement means he was restored back to believing that Jesus is the Christ and that God did raise him from the dead. I take his statement to be that acknowledgement, not that he was declaring that Jesus was God himself. We have no scriptural basis to give us an understanding of this instance. The other gospels do not include it, and it is not mentioned elsewhere. But we do have the summary of John as to why he wrote his gospel immediately following, and it does not include a Jesus is Jehovah reason. We also have the history of the gospel being preached in Acts and there is no gospel presented of Jesus being God.

I realize I am a poor unfortunate who left the WL/LSM/LC and am relegated to the alt dungeon because of my wickedness in not having a trinitarian gospel. So my explanation is highly questionable by those who grasp that Jesus is God thing. I'm still enjoying the fruits of the low, simple elementary gospel I derive from reading the NT which the Holy Spirit witnesses to.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 08:24 AM   #45
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
"Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh . . ."

"For God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."

"To the Son He says, 'Your throne, oh God, is forever and ever.'"

"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, He says, 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.'"


(1 Tim 3:16, 2 Cor 5:19, Heb 1:8,6)
Yes, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.

On the Your throne quote, you left out most of the verse, it is

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”g

God's throne does endure for ever..and God, the God of our Lord Jesus did anoint him and gave him as a reward for his work of salvation, the reign over His kingdom. If you only include the 1st part, you would think that part is referring to Jesus. You have to read the whole thing to grasp it. In fact, if you read the whole 1st chapter of Hebrews it really gives an impressive view of God and his Christ and the work of God. Quite similar to what Paul prays we would all see in Ephesians.

You know, of course that Paul told Timothythat there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.. we definitely see godliness manifested in this man- Thank God for that!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 08:34 AM   #46
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Classic subreption here

Also, referring to your comment about Stephen's martyrdom, did Stephen really see the Father? He who dwells in unapproachable light was seen by Stephen? But John said "no man has ever seen God." (1.18) And Stephen saw what Moses and all mankind have never seen? Perhaps Stephen saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ standing by the throne? (II Cor 4.6)
Ohio, I just quoted what Stephen said concerning seeing THE GLORY OF GOD.
John, in revelation also records that he saw a radiance of God/ His throne. Not sure why this seems odd to you.

John saw the throne of God, and later when Christ the Lamb appears it is referred to as the throne of God and the Lamb. Modern Christianity has a song that goes something like " the godhead three in one, the Father, Spirit, Son, the lion and the lamb, how great is our God". I guess in the trinitarian view, God is the lion and the lamb. If you sing it all enough, I guess you start accepting it as scripture. We sure did in the LC
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 09:22 AM   #47
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I realize I am a poor unfortunate who left the WL/LSM/LC and am relegated to the alt dungeon because of my wickedness in not having a trinitarian gospel. So my explanation is highly questionable by those who grasp that Jesus is God thing. I'm still enjoying the fruits of the low, simple elementary gospel I derive from reading the NT which the Holy Spirit witnesses to.
Your opinions go well beyond the so-called "trinitarian gospel."

You have rejected the Deity of Jesus Christ. That is why UntoHim has decided to exclude that kind of discussion on his own bought-and-paid-for forum. Most Christians would consider your theology as that of the JW's.

I have believed my entire life that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. That tenet of my faith has nothing to do with the LC, any denomination, or any theology.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 09:31 AM   #48
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio, I just quoted what Stephen said concerning seeing THE GLORY OF GOD.
John, in revelation also records that he saw a radiance of God/ His throne. Not sure why this seems odd to you.

John saw the throne of God, and later when Christ the Lamb appears it is referred to as the throne of God and the Lamb. Modern Christianity has a song that goes something like " the godhead three in one, the Father, Spirit, Son, the lion and the lamb, how great is our God". I guess in the trinitarian view, God is the lion and the lamb. If you sing it all enough, I guess you start accepting it as scripture. We sure did in the LC
Odd? The Bible is not odd. It's your comments that are odd.

But you never respond to my points, rather resort to further subreption. I like that word. It seems to fit your responses.

Brother, you seem to have thrown out too much of the good when you discarded your old LC baggage. You constantly refute my points with bad LC theology rather than with the Bible.

There is a Lamb on the throne for eternity. That Lamb is Jesus Christ. He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and so much more. When we one day meet God, He will have the face of Jesus, complete with his 5 wounds suffered on the cross.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 09:41 AM   #49
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Yes, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.

On the Your throne quote, you left out most of the verse, it is

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”g

God's throne does endure for ever..and God, the God of our Lord Jesus did anoint him and gave him as a reward for his work of salvation, the reign over His kingdom. If you only include the 1st part, you would think that part is referring to Jesus. You have to read the whole thing to grasp it. In fact, if you read the whole 1st chapter of Hebrews it really gives an impressive view of God and his Christ and the work of God. Quite similar to what Paul prays we would all see in Ephesians.

You know, of course that Paul told Timothythat there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.. we definitely see godliness manifested in this man- Thank God for that!
And the point of all this is, I think, that yes (once again) - it is a mystery! If we could grasp God, then He wouldn't be God, would He? Sorry, but for every verse you might put up, I can likely do a verse showing Christ's deity. So where does that leave us?

Like the Armenians and Calvinists, they hold to just their set of scriptures that seems to neatly reinforce their side of the picture. I always like to say when someone asks, "Is this side right or that side right?" "They both are." Can I tie a neat little bow around it and say, "I've got it all figured out!"? Nope, can't do that with my limited, human mentality.

It's kinda like John Locke is quoted as saying: "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should!"
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 10:09 AM   #50
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
And the point of all this is, I think, that yes (once again) - it is a mystery! If we could grasp God, then He wouldn't be God, would He? Sorry, but for every verse you might put up, I can likely do a verse showing Christ's deity. So where does that leave us?

Like the Armenians and Calvinists, they hold to just their set of scriptures that seems to neatly reinforce their side of the picture. I always like to say when someone asks, "Is this side right or that side right?" "They both are." Can I tie a neat little bow around it and say, "I've got it all figured out!"? Nope, can't do that with my limited, human mentality.

It's kinda like John Locke is quoted as saying: "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should!"
Amen and Amen and Amen and Amen and Amen and Amen!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 10:53 AM   #51
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Odd? The Bible is not odd. It's your comments that are odd.

But you never respond to my points, rather resort to further subreption. I like that word. It seems to fit your responses.

Brother, you seem to have thrown out too much of the good when you discarded your old LC baggage. You constantly refute my points with bad LC theology rather than with the Bible.

There is a Lamb on the throne for eternity. That Lamb is Jesus Christ. He is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and so much more. When we one day meet God, He will have the face of Jesus, complete with his 5 wounds suffered on the cross.
Ohio , I think I have responded to your points and presented my own with scripture. Have you gone through Acts and found a Jesus is God gospel yet?

So here is a response from me worthy of your consideration concerning the lamb on God’s throne for eternity: Heb 1:13 and also found a few other places in the NT. 13But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?
Notice here, sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies.... the until denotes a time frame and condition. Then, look what Paul writes: 1Cor 15

20But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have [d]fallen asleep. 21For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Lots in here to dissect concerning the reigning of Christ. But, in particular, notice how Paul reinforces the position of Christ and God, who gave him this authority. When the rule of Christ is completed and that last enemy, death is dealt with, the son will be subject to God so that God is all in all.

Ohio, this is the words, the thinking, the ministry of Paul. It may not be in your concept due to the trinitarian influence, but it shows the teaching of the Holy Spirit so that we have a good understanding of God and the position Christ our Lord has been placed in. I would encourage you to consider this.

And please, don't associate me with JWs or any other cult. I just calls them as I sees them.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 11:00 AM   #52
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
And the point of all this is, I think, that yes (once again) - it is a mystery! If we could grasp God, then He wouldn't be God, would He? Sorry, but for every verse you might put up, I can likely do a verse showing Christ's deity. So where does that leave us?

Like the Armenians and Calvinists, they hold to just their set of scriptures that seems to neatly reinforce their side of the picture. I always like to say when someone asks, "Is this side right or that side right?" "They both are." Can I tie a neat little bow around it and say, "I've got it all figured out!"? Nope, can't do that with my limited, human mentality.

It's kinda like John Locke is quoted as saying: "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should!"
A mystery- ok, but that’s all the reason more to take what is clearly taught in the NT by the Holy Spirit. Which is one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ. If we stick to this as Paul beseeches the Ephesians to do, we are blessed. Moving away from this to a man made concept only brings division and confusion

Since the Spirit, the apostles and Jesus teach this, we should not deviate.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 11:15 AM   #53
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
A mystery- ok, but that’s all the reason more to take what is clearly taught in the NT by the Holy Spirit. Which is one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ. If we stick to this as Paul beseeches the Ephesians to do, we are blessed. Moving away from this to a man made concept only brings division and confusion

Since the Spirit, the apostles and Jesus teach this, we should not deviate.
And so we have clarity (which is good) - we disagree. To take one side of this and not the other, is to be a cake unturned. You see turning the cake (for both sides) as a compromise - I see one side of the cake getting really burned.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2020, 12:45 PM   #54
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio , I think I have responded to your points and presented my own with scripture. Have you gone through Acts and found a Jesus is God gospel yet?
I finished Daniel and Hosea. Haven't found the Jesus is God gospel there either. But my Bible has 66 books.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2020, 01:15 AM   #55
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

BJB, you mentioned "trinitarian influence" a few posts prior. I just finished reading Matthew again today and toward the end of it is Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Funnily enough, wikipedia says this about that verse, I kid you not: "This verse is part of the Great Commission narrative, containing the command to go, teach and baptize new disciples with the trinitarian formula."

Obviously this is one verse probably many Triune-holders point to. When you read it what is your takeaway given that "name" is singular and there are three names associated to it?

=======

I haven't read everything you've posted, but some of what you've said reminds me of Herbert Armstrong's teachings. If I understood it correctly, I think he (or some who follow his teachings) makes a distinction between "God" and "God-kind". In other words, God the Father is "the one true God" just as Jesus refers to His Father as, i.e. GOD. And Jesus, the Son of God, isn't GOD because He's the Son of God, but as the Son of God He is still considered "God-kind". In this way, Jesus thus retains a sense of deity and ever-existence without being "the one true God" or "GOD".....which is, as already stated, the Father. I've seen some posters give you grief for not saying Jesus is God......would you agree with Jesus being at least "God-kind" or no?
Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2020, 10:45 AM   #56
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
BJB, you mentioned "trinitarian influence" a few posts prior. I just finished reading Matthew again today and toward the end of it is Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Funnily enough, wikipedia says this about that verse, I kid you not: "This verse is part of the Great Commission narrative, containing the command to go, teach and baptize new disciples with the trinitarian formula."

Obviously this is one verse probably many Triune-holders point to. When you read it what is your takeaway given that "name" is singular and there are three names associated to it?

=======

I haven't read everything you've posted, but some of what you've said reminds me of Herbert Armstrong's teachings. If I understood it correctly, I think he (or some who follow his teachings) makes a distinction between "God" and "God-kind". In other words, God the Father is "the one true God" just as Jesus refers to His Father as, i.e. GOD. And Jesus, the Son of God, isn't GOD because He's the Son of God, but as the Son of God He is still considered "God-kind". In this way, Jesus thus retains a sense of deity and ever-existence without being "the one true God" or "GOD".....which is, as already stated, the Father. I've seen some posters give you grief for not saying Jesus is God......would you agree with Jesus being at least "God-kind" or no?
Not familiar with Armstrong, but using terms that I don’t find in scripture to make definitions and then get a following to buy into terms scares me.

I ended up on this alt site because my original posts on main site Modalism led the moderator to believe that I was trying to market a my own brand of theology using his forum. I understand his concerns, and hold the moderator Untohim in the highest regards as a dear brother, however, I don’t think one can have a good discussion about WLs teaching without considering what I brought up. I am really not interested in debating Jesus is or isn’t God, nor trinitarianism, but rather to offer a view for consideration. I feel that the scripture gives us the view of God in very human and understandable language; that we view God as our Father, that we hold the notion of One God and Father. In human terms, since the beginning with Adam, through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the scripture gives us a real good understanding of the term father, the headship of the father, the position of the father, the reverence for father. ( not withstanding the modern degradation of this position of father, and so many dysfunctional families now a days). This human, understandable presentation of God is the forefront of the NT. As God’s family, we hold God our Father in the highest regard. Indeed, Paul says the oneness of our experience of this is to have one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and the in all. This is the human experience of the headship of the father that we can all understand. The position of son, particularly the firstborn son, the inheritor in the family as portrayed in the scripture is also a very understandable human thing, with so many examples given in the scripture. This is what is given to us in the scripture- the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, Jesus the son, and we, the many children who are in Christ, inheritors with him. By altering all of this clearly understandable approach to God, we warp the word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Christianity took a wrong turn in the 3rd/ 4th centuries to somewhat redefine God as a trinity and something was lost. People were murdered and tortured for not accepting this. All who did not proclaim were not in a good state, to say the least. For over 1000 years the church suffered. When the reformation came along, some strange practices such as the worship of Mary, the mother of God we’re exposed, but the trinity thing seemed to stay intact, although controversial. So, our discussion is about WL/LSM/LC. WL, in borrowing from W Née and some others, brought to the forefront what the scripture had to say about how to meet. This was a great thing to learn and practice particularly considering all the 1000s of splinter and denominational assemblies that function in the US. This was referred to as the “recovery” of the church. BUT- WL went way further and then manipulated to fill the LCs with his own brand of trinitarianism. His was the most egregious because it completely redefined God into something the scripture never spoke of- a processed triune god.
It’s interesting to note that in the Catholic as well as Lutheran assemblies, God the Father is given the most mention and worship. In just one meeting of either of those assemblies you would hear more about God our Father than in 1000 WL/LSM gatherings. The teachings of WL produced a bunch of people that followed his thought instead of the scripture. This is a cult.
A true recovery in my thinking would not have reverted the church back to the 3rd/4th century, but rather to the foundational church where triune god, Jesus is God talk would not even be the vocabulary, but rather a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. I have to say I’m sorry to Untohim, but I don’t know a better way to bring this up without stepping on his trinitarian toes. OUCH!

The scripture gives us this very understandable, human (in the image of God) understanding of one God and Father, and Jesus the son of God, who after his redemptive work sat down at the right hand of his Father, whom the God and Father of Jesus made head over all to the Church.
I was in the LC for over 13 years, and this was not the ministry of the WL/LSM, nor by what I read is the current view. The whole processed triune god thing was not only wrong, it was blasphemy. The trinity thing is a deviation in scripture in that it was not the teaching given to us by the Holy Spirit- What was given was one God the Father and the son whom he gave to redeem us- very very understandable on human terms. Lee took the trinity thing and really went into the tar pit and to try to argue which is more correct the triune god or the processed triune god I are both unscriptural teachings and do not lead us to the scriptural presentation of God our Father and His son Jesus. John encourages us to return to that which was from the beginning so that we could have that fellowship with God our Father and with His Son Jesus the Christ- the perspective that is give to us throughout the NT.
I long for the “recovery” of the church- hope it is not another 1000 years!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2020, 11:23 AM   #57
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
The scripture gives us this very understandable, human (in the image of God) understanding of one God and Father, and Jesus the son of God, who after his redemptive work sat down at the right hand of his Father, whom the God and Father of Jesus made head over all to the Church.
Did you read the piece from Piper that someone posted on the Modalism thread? He was taking the view that Jonathan Edwards had regarding the Father and Son, and the Spirit.
If you didn't read it, here's the link: Piper - A Meditation on the Trinity

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2020, 01:22 PM   #58
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

The whole thing of one God, our Father, and Jesus, the son of God, our Lord, and our relation with the Father and with His son, really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend just from reading the scriptures. Jesus hammers it home constantly, and Paul introduces it at the beginning of all his epistles. Peter, James, Jude, Acts all point to this very understandable, human level relation. John, with his much symbolism seems to be used by many to muddle this God given, Christ bought relationship we should have with the Father and with His son. UntoHim seems fearful of exposing the confusion trinitarianism has brought to Christianity, but think Lee's version is the problem. Yes, Lee's version did take his followers far away from what the Holy Spirit leads us to in the scriptures, but to revert back to a incomprehensible orthodox view does not meet the scriptural understanding and really, just plants us back in the " poor, poor, Christianity " condition with no recovery of the church. It seems like many who got out of the WL/LSM nightmare seem to still have one foot in WL teachings one the other in modern Christianity. I would say recovery would start when each of us as individuals recovers our thinking back to that which was from the beginning- the recognition of one God, our Father and his son Jesus the Christ, as John so clearly calls for in his 1st epistle.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2020, 02:00 PM   #59
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Well, Mr. Boxjobox - I guess you either didn't see or choose to not respond to the inquiry in my previous post.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2020, 04:45 PM   #60
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Well, Mr. Boxjobox - I guess you either didn't see or choose to not respond to the inquiry in my previous post.
Sorry, I just now looked at that. John Piper starts with P that sounds like T - there's trouble right here in River City! He Meditates on the trinity. While I can appreciate some of what he says, the bottom line to me is that this kind of thought makes Jesus, the Apostles, the scripture and, of course the Holy Spirit look quite inadequate; which is similar to what WL did on a large scale. If this is supposed to be the thought of the Christian, why did it not concern the above mentioned? It seems the trinitarian thought is always " it's too great to understand", but you better believe it. And then, certain men who have some great, deep knowledge about "it" can wow everyone with their beautiful, deep " experience", but I would think, if you ask the common laity what it meant you would either get a thousand different versions or a I don't really understand it, but I know it's there because the Bible says so. Mucho divisions because of this doctrine. And it's originality was accompanied by a lot of death, suffering, torture, and ugliness by the folks who made sure it became the foundation of Christian thought. But, sorry, scripture did not give us such a beautiful mediation as pastor John Piper, whom I'm sure is a dear saint who loves the Lord. When Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that there is but one God the Father, and that our oneness is based on this, I think dear John Piper is meditating on the wrong thing.

But what do you or others think about it? Do all the Christians meditate on the trinity? And why was this not a spiritual subject given to us by the Holy Spirit?
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2020, 06:04 PM   #61
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,087
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
John, with his much symbolism seems to be used by many to muddle this God given, Christ bought relationship we should have with the Father and with His son.
Box, please tell us about the "symbolism" of:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

I know that folks like you would desperately like to take the Gospel of John out of the biblical canon. (Just like Lee desperately wanted James out of the canon) I'm sure you would also like to take out some other of John's other writings...like where the Lord Jesus is called "King of kings and Lord of lords!" and "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"

Box, who is greater than the temple? Only the one who dwells in the temple is greater than the temple. You read the Old Testament, right? So you should know this. Hear the words of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ: "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." Yes, something greater than the temple was there, because the Word of God was made flesh. And the Word was God. Praise Him for the wonderful and glorious fact!
-
__________________
Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2020, 07:04 PM   #62
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
The whole thing of one God, our Father, and Jesus, the son of God, our Lord, and our relation with the Father and with His son, really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend just from reading the scriptures. Jesus hammers it home constantly, and Paul introduces it at the beginning of all his epistles. Peter, James, Jude, Acts all point to this very understandable, human level relation. John, with his much symbolism seems to be used by many to muddle this God given, Christ bought relationship we should have with the Father and with His son. UntoHim seems fearful of exposing the confusion trinitarianism has brought to Christianity, but think Lee's version is the problem. Yes, Lee's version did take his followers far away from what the Holy Spirit leads us to in the scriptures, but to revert back to a incomprehensible orthodox view does not meet the scriptural understanding and really, just plants us back in the " poor, poor, Christianity " condition with no recovery of the church. It seems like many who got out of the WL/LSM nightmare seem to still have one foot in WL teachings one the other in modern Christianity. I would say recovery would start when each of us as individuals recovers our thinking back to that which was from the beginning- the recognition of one God, our Father and his son Jesus the Christ, as John so clearly calls for in his 1st epistle.
John, Peter, and Paul all tell us that Jesus the Son is God. So you can continually tell us that we are all wrong, because we have of one foot in WL teachings and the other in modern Christianity, but you are not acknowledging this great truth.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 09:38 AM   #63
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John, Peter, and Paul all tell us that Jesus the Son is God. So you can continually tell us that we are all wrong, because we have of one foot in WL teachings and the other in modern Christianity, but you are not acknowledging this great truth.
Ohio- have you gone through the book of Acts yet and looked at all the gospels preached and how Jesus was presented?
Peter, John, and Paul in their writing all present Jesus as the Son of God. Paul plainly tells us there is but one God, the Father, and also tells (beseeches) us that keeping the oneness of the Spirit by acknowledging that there is one God, the Father. John summarizes his gospel in saying he wrote all his words so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and have life in his name. Jesus, the one you claim as God, says that eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus the Christ. Peter, in his 1st epistle says Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. John, in his second epistle says Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the son of the Father.
John, in the Revelation says that Jesus bought us with his blood and made us a kingdom of priests to his God and Father.
Ohio, the presentation, the leading of the Holy Spirit is not to tell us Jesus is God, but to bring us to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, where we may worship and fellowship with our God and Jesus’s God and our Father and Jesus’ Father and with His son Jesus the Christ. This is the whole message in the scripture- it is not to make Jesus out to be God or to present a triune God of some sorts.

Please, look through Acts and get a foundational understanding and appreciation of the presentation of Jesus in all the gospels given in this great church history. Consider also Galatians and 1st Cor 15 to see what is the gospel. You make it sound like the gospel is a Jesus is God message and a God became a man preaching.

Ohio, in the LC, and elsewhere for that matter- how often do/did you hear a solid message on The God of our Lord Jesus, or on the God and Father of our Lord Jesus? I really would like an answer to this question. I’ve been a believer now for over 40 years and can not remember hearing any such message in the LC or in Christianity.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 10:15 AM   #64
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Box, please tell us about the "symbolism" of:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

I know that folks like you would desperately like to take the Gospel of John out of the biblical canon. (Just like Lee desperately wanted James out of the canon) I'm sure you would also like to take out some other of John's other writings...like where the Lord Jesus is called "King of kings and Lord of lords!" and "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"

Box, who is greater than the temple? Only the one who dwells in the temple is greater than the temple. You read the Old Testament, right? So you should know this. Hear the words of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ: "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." Yes, something greater than the temple was there, because the Word of God was made flesh. And the Word was God. Praise Him for the wonderful and glorious fact!
-
Untohim, you are using the old Untohim is a liar and never tells the truth persuasion. Now everything you say, the hearers would question your veracity. This is done quite a bit in politics, and in cases where people really don’t want to discuss the point but shoot the messenger. I think, if you look at my posts, I quote John quite a bit.

Concerning symbolism consider He who eats me shall live by me, Unless you eat the flesh of the... This is my body. We know that the R Catholic Church, and the Lutherans to some degree say that communion is actually the taking of Jesus body and blood. Trans substantiation! It was these same people who brought you Trinity, and fully God and fully man. John was quite a user of symbolism, such as in Revelation- every commentator on Rev. seems to have a different take on his meanings. 1st John- do you feel there is adequate understanding of many things John says there? John’s opening gospel lines, what beginning are we talking about, word /logos/ idea/ thought/ plan and it all became real when Jesus came to his own! Light, darkness, comprehend, with/ toward God was God/was divine, he/this/that etc. Many interpretations of John’s opening words used by many to create a plethora of teachings, sects, cults. Do we know who John was writing to and why? Johns writings do not have a history/context to get a good grasp as do the other gospels and Paul’s writings, so it’s hard to wrap your head around them in that they are so different. I think the last time we hear about John in scripture context is when Paul goes to Jerusalem and says Peter, James and John, who seemed like pillars. I love reading John’s works- right now in my daily reading, I’m on Genesis 37 and Rev.8. As a point of consideration, lay aside your trinitarian glasses (there, I used your argument tactics) and read Rev 7 and look carefully how God and the Lamb are talked about- I don’t see a mingle, mingle hallelujah moment here.

I think if you really consider the whole NT you will find the Holy Spirit leading the people of God into a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus understanding and will NOT find a triune god. That whole thing belongs in the trans substantiation crowd.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 11:49 AM   #65
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Untohim, do you agree of disagree that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to bring us to into fellowship with The God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

Do you agree or disagree that the a Holy Spirit does NOT lead us to understand God as a triune being.

Do you agree that there is one God the Father

I am talking here about the overall theme and work of the Holy Spirit through the scriptures, not certain individual verses or parts of verses that we could argue over, but the entire package, the entire theme.

My reason for bringing this up is not a gottcha thing or do you agree with me, but a basis to understand each other’s views to better discuss the LC and WL/LSM and the term recovery
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 12:39 PM   #66
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio- have you gone through the book of Acts yet and looked at all the gospels preached and how Jesus was presented?
Peter, John, and Paul in their writing all present Jesus as the Son of God. Paul plainly tells us there is but one God, the Father, and also tells (beseeches) us that keeping the oneness of the Spirit by acknowledging that there is one God, the Father. John summarizes his gospel in saying he wrote all his words so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and have life in his name. Jesus, the one you claim as God, says that eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus the Christ. Peter, in his 1st epistle says Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. John, in his second epistle says Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the son of the Father.
John, in the Revelation says that Jesus bought us with his blood and made us a kingdom of priests to his God and Father.
BJB, what you are saying is all true. The Bible definitely teaches this ...

BUT ... then you draw a false conclusion. You say that since Jesus is the Son of God, and God is His Father, then Jesus is not God. Wrong!

In order to make such a conclusion, you must remove many verses from scripture. I cannot do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio, in the LC, and elsewhere for that matter- how often do/did you hear a solid message on The God of our Lord Jesus, or on the God and Father of our Lord Jesus? I really would like an answer to this question. I’ve been a believer now for over 40 years and can not remember hearing any such message in the LC or in Christianity.
Are you serious? I have no way to answer such a question. I have been saved since 1975, and have no way to assess what all I have heard in all of those messages. I have heard many messages on the Lord's Prayer, does that qualify? Most Christians don't spend their time talking about the God of our Lord Jesus, rather they just pray to the God of our Lord Jesus.

I would say that all Christians I know believe Jesus is God, and that God is His Father. It's a mystery we cannot understand with our puny brains.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 12:48 PM   #67
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
do you agree of disagree that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to bring us to into fellowship with The God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

I am talking here about the overall theme and work of the Holy Spirit through the scriptures, not certain individual verses or parts of verses that we could argue over, but the entire package, the entire theme.
I don't see your point here.

I Cor 1.9 tells us that God has called us into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 14.26 speaks of the role of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who teach us all things and reminds us of what Jesus has spoken to us.

John 15.26 Jesus told us that when the Comforter comes, who is sent from the Father, He testifies concerning Jesus.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2020, 12:49 PM   #68
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Fairly late in his earthly ministry, Jesus asks his disciples who men say that he is, and then who do they say that he is. No one brings up you are the 2nd person of the trinity, or you are God the Son, or you are God incarnate. One would think, from the much that is said about John’s gospel, that those should have been the response. A great teachable moment in the revelation of the triune God!
In the garden before his sufferings, he prays Father, in John 13-17 it’s the Father as the focus, on the cross he cries out my God, and Father, into your hands I commit..., in resurrection he tells Mary of his Father and God. The entire book of Acts records no gospel of Jesus being God or God being triune. So when and where was everyone informed of this newfound revelation? My reading of the scripture shows me that the Holy Spirit gave no such teaching. Such a concept would have been a large departure from the common knowledge. It would have required very large quantities of scriptural space to be explained and digested questioned by the believers.
But here we are in the 21st century arguing about if modalism is the accurate description for the teachings of WL who was “recovering” the church and the truth!!!! Are we all that far off from what is the scripture as opposed to what is the evolution of man’s thought?

Should not a recovery of the church and the truth been one which brings us back to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus?

I’m just asking
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2020, 09:31 AM   #69
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
BJB, what you are saying is all true. The Bible definitely teaches this ...

BUT ... then you draw a false conclusion. You say that since Jesus is the Son of God, and God is His Father, then Jesus is not God. Wrong!

In order to make such a conclusion, you must remove many verses from scripture. I cannot do that.


I would say that all Christians I know believe Jesus is God, and that God is His Father. It's a mystery we cannot understand with our puny brains.
Your last part here about “all Christians I know believe Jesus is God”; here is an interesting exercise you may want to try: Read through Revelation 7- a heavenly scene with lots of participants,, and try to figure out where that “ all Christians I know believe that Jesus is God” thing would fit in here.

Untohim thinks I have problems with John.. maybe it’s time to really examine all of John’s writings.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 04:25 AM   #70
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Your last part here about “all Christians I know believe Jesus is God”; here is an interesting exercise you may want to try: Read through Revelation 7- a heavenly scene with lots of participants,, and try to figure out where that “ all Christians I know believe that Jesus is God” thing would fit in here.

Untohim thinks I have problems with John.. maybe it’s time to really examine all of John’s writings.
Pretty crazy universe we have here with a cute little lanb sitting on the throne, eh?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 04:32 AM   #71
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Fairly late in his earthly ministry, Jesus asks his disciples who men say that he is, and then who do they say that he is. No one brings up you are the 2nd person of the trinity, or you are God the Son, or you are God incarnate. One would think, from the much that is said about John’s gospel, that those should have been the response. A great teachable moment in the revelation of the triune God!
In the garden before his sufferings, he prays Father, in John 13-17 it’s the Father as the focus, on the cross he cries out my God, and Father, into your hands I commit..., in resurrection he tells Mary of his Father and God. The entire book of Acts records no gospel of Jesus being God or God being triune. So when and where was everyone informed of this newfound revelation? My reading of the scripture shows me that the Holy Spirit gave no such teaching. Such a concept would have been a large departure from the common knowledge. It would have required very large quantities of scriptural space to be explained and digested questioned by the believers.
But here we are in the 21st century arguing about if modalism is the accurate description for the teachings of WL who was “recovering” the church and the truth!!!! Are we all that far off from what is the scripture as opposed to what is the evolution of man’s thought?

Should not a recovery of the church and the truth been one which brings us back to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus?

I’m just asking
We once had a Unitarian Universalist preacher on this forum, also an ex LCer, who arrived at some of the same conclusions.

Yes, Jesus prayed to our Heavenly Father, and yes, Jesus is the Eternal Logos of God, Who was with God, and Who is God. We were not told to understand this, but to believe.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 09:39 AM   #72
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Pretty crazy universe we have here with a cute little lanb sitting on the throne, eh?
Ohio, you read Rev7 through the lens of 21st century Christianity and thus miss what is stated.
9After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; 10and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb.

John was writing this in the 1st century, not filled with the same taint. The chapter includes quite a few ANDs to differentiate between God and the Lamb. You are obviously filled with a trinitarian view that did not exist at the time of John. A person reading this at that time would have the distinction between God and the Lamb. Paul prayed quite profoundly in Ephesians that the believers would see what God did in raising Christ from the dead and giving him this great position. Jesus speaks about this in Rev. 3 to the overcomers in the church in Laodicea: He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne. 22He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

A real recovery of the church would have included the ministry to bring our thinking back to that of the foundational church. Unfortunately, although the concept of the local church was brought out adequately, WLs ministry did not bring us back to a foundational understanding. Have you not noticed how much of the content of the LC discussion centers around the whole trinity thing? Yet here in Rev 7 there is no triune God mentioned and no concept of a triune god given. Even you must wonder what is the game that is going on- a 4th century man made god replacing that which the scripture portrays, and people reading the scripture now a days trying to fit it into a modern day unscriptural view. Time to recover the church to the concept given of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and the oneness of the Spirit where we profess one God, the Father. You are kicking not against me, but against the goads of truth and revelation. I am glad to see you are at least reading the scripture. Have you gone through the book of Acts yet and observed the gospels presented, which were foundational in bringing about the believer and the church? FOUNDATIONAL
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 09:49 AM   #73
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
We once had a Unitarian Universalist preacher on this forum, also an ex LCer, who arrived at some of the same conclusions.

Yes, Jesus prayed to our Heavenly Father, and yes, Jesus is the Eternal Logos of God, Who was with God, and Who is God. We were not told to understand this, but to believe.
So then, who is the God of our Lord Jesus? This is clearly portrayed in the scripture by Jesus- read Johns words to the church in Philadelphia- that is Jesus talking to the overcomers. The overcomers do not seem to have a trinitarian concept, now do they?

I have no clue what a Unitarian Universalist would be- I am just a simple believer who takes the scripture seriously.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 10:39 AM   #74
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

A case study to point out what I am saying: here is a quote from our dear friend and brother Untohim taken from the Bone of My Bone thread on the main page

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Well since none of the verses you posted say that the church is Christ, I would think that it is off the mark to say that the church is Christ based on those verses.

Taking metaphors too far can lead to serious error. One day we are teaching and believing that "the church is Christ" and the next day we might find ourselves teaching and believing that "the church is the fourth part of the Trinity".



And you're right, StG, this is related to Witness Lee's modalistic teaching of the Trinity. Just as no reputable, orthodox teacher or scholar has ever taught that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit, no reputable, orthodox teacher or scholar has ever taught that the church is the fourth part of the Trinity. Again, with this kind of nonsensical teaching, we see the dangers in freeing ourselves from the obligation to stay within the bounds and restrictions of orthodoxy handed down to us down though the ages.


Well any Christian who doesn't have a very full picture of what the ekklesia is really called into is probably not reading their Bible...at least not paying good attention. All the things you list are right there in the Bible. No need for any external source to tell us the church is going to be the Bride of Christ - it's right there in the Bible! No need for some enlightened guru to tell us the church is the Body of Christ - it's right there in the Bible! And the fact that these wonderful truths are right there for us in the Scriptures is the most amazing thing ever.
-
Notice how he speaks of orthodoxy passed down, and trinity as a scriptural truth. Yet, the discussion is from 1Cor and Eph. Yes, orthodoxy was passed down from the 3rd and 4th century, but God being a trinity has no place in scripture, and certainly not in the thinking and writing of Paul. Dare I point out Paul’s words such as “ you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s “, or the head of the man is Christ and the head of Christ is God, or to you there is but one God, the Father? No, I dare not upset Untohim or that whole thread with such profound scriptural pronouncements, it would only upset Untohim, because it does not match his orthodoxy. So that discussion will lack truth an clarity and will stay muddled in the 4th century, mingled with the thoughts of WL, who filled the LCs with his theology which did not result in a foundational church, but in a 4th century edifice.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 02:42 PM   #75
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Ohio, you read Rev7 through the lens of 21st century Christianity and thus miss what is stated.
9After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; 10and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb.

John was writing this in the 1st century, not filled with the same taint. The chapter includes quite a few ANDs to differentiate between God and the Lamb. You are obviously filled with a trinitarian view that did not exist at the time of John. A person reading this at that time would have the distinction between God and the Lamb.
BJB, you constantly make erroneous assumptions about me, John, and the scriptures.

The throne of God and the Lamb is well explained by John's extremely well scripted opening to his gospel: "In the beginning was the Logos (Word), and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The Logos was in the beginning with God."

Now BJB, it is not me or any other 21st century Christian who influenced John's writing here. Whether you want to label John as a trinitarian or whatever, he is consistent from the opening of his gospel to the end of Revelations.

Following the Logos' death and resurrection, John refers to Him as the Lamb, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. This Lamb of God is with God, and is God.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2020, 02:47 PM   #76
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
So then, who is the God of our Lord Jesus? This is clearly portrayed in the scripture by Jesus- read Johns words to the church in Philadelphia- that is Jesus talking to the overcomers. The overcomers do not seem to have a trinitarian concept, now do they?

I have no clue what a Unitarian Universalist would be- I am just a simple believer who takes the scripture seriously.
Sorry, BJB but since you constantly diss the so-called "trinitarians," I thought you were well-versed with "unitarians."

And ... am I not also a simple believer who takes the scripture seriously? And btw, I claim allegiance to neither "trinitarians" nor "unitarians."

To your initial question, our Heavenly Father is the God of our Lord Jesus.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

Last edited by Ohio; 07-04-2020 at 07:44 PM.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 10:16 AM   #77
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Sorry, BJB but since you constantly diss the so-called "trinitarians," I thought you were well-versed with "unitarians."

And ... am I not also a simple believer who takes the scripture seriously? And btw, I claim allegiance to neither "trinitarians" nor "unitarians."

To your initial question, our Heavenly Father is the God of our Lord Jesus.
Now your last statement sounds right on to me. So, I’m curious, when you read in Rev 19 10So I fell at his feet to worship him. But he told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”, what do you feel is conveyed here concerning “ worship God”. Would this be a command to worship the God and Father of our Lord, or do you see it differently?
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 11:11 AM   #78
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
BJB, you constantly make erroneous assumptions about me, John, and the scriptures.

The throne of God and the Lamb is well explained by John's extremely well scripted opening to his gospel: "In the beginning was the Logos (Word), and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The Logos was in the beginning with God."

Now BJB, it is not me or any other 21st century Christian who influenced John's writing here. Whether you want to label John as a trinitarian or whatever, he is consistent from the opening of his gospel to the end of Revelations.

Following the Logos' death and resurrection, John refers to Him as the Lamb, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. This Lamb of God is with God, and is God.
Here is my dilemma, and where I would differ from your thinking that John is telling us Jesus is God, and is consistent through his writings. John writes also 17.3 and 20.17, which would no lead me to believe he is bringing us to see Jesus as God at all. If we read 2 John 3, it doesn’t follow, or Rev 1. 1,2 and 6, it doesn’t follow what I would consider a consistency, unless, as many seem to do, we are supposed to find secret, hidden meanings and read behind and underneath what is written.
I would say that logos should be understood as the thought, the idea, which was with God, and was God. We seem to have no clue as to why John put in “was God” for a description of logos- who was John writing to, what was there philosophy/theology, what would have been their need to hear such a thing? Was it because they viewed the cosmos as being something apart from God, that God randomly did things or had no interest or connection to hHis creation. We don’t know. So I’m fine with John writing what he wrote, and to me he is saying that God had an idea that wasn’t flighty or random, but that God created all things according to this idea, this purpose. And reading through the whole of scripture, it seems to me that I could sum up that idea as man being the center of his affection and fellowship, which would come about through the redemptive work of the Christ, the anointed one, Son of God. And that through Christ Jesus we would be His many sons. So creation was entirely through this idea, and one day, according to His plan, that idea came to full fruition with the coming of, the birth of Jesus the Christ. I’m just writing this off the top of my head, considering the whole of the scripture. And I’m sure it will not pass the muster of the critics, but considering the whole of scripture, I do not think that John was trying to bring in a new revelation that everyone needs to see that Jesus is God and that in seeing that Jesus is God, we must assume that God is therefore triune, and must now worship a triune God. Sorry, but I put too much rationality in the scripture, and don’t think that such a “ revelation” is what is being said at all.
If this was really what John was conveying- that We need to see that Jesus is God, then why would Paul tell us that there is but one God, the Father, and we are to stick with the plan by acknowledging one God and Father.. I can’t follow what Paul writes, if I am supposed to follow what John writes, unless I’m supposed to accept some 4th century labyrinth- ah ah I guess I’m supposed to say orthodoxy?



No, John is not consistent with a Jesus is God program, and I think if one reads through John, one would see that John is not saying that at all.

Luke opened his gospel stating 1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning wer eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Am I to assume that Luke did poor investigative work, or that he and the early believers did not have the John revelation of Jesus being God? This would make the scripture laughable and extremely inconsistent. As I stated before, Luke’s presentation of Acts, a furtherance of his gospel writing, contains NO gospel preached where Jesus is set up as God!

The whole trithestic (is that a word?) thing does not lead us to an understanding of the scriptures, but sends us into division, sects, heresy, and, man’s orthodoxy. We all saw this with WL, a case study in finding all sorts of new “light”.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 11:26 AM   #79
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

So Untohim wants us to keep to an orthodoxy that takes us outside the realm of scripture to discuss how WL was wrong because he went outside the Orthodoxy and bent the scripture beyond what it was saying, and somehow that will be helpful to readers.

I can’t say it enough, that if WL had a ministry to recover the church, it would have led us to a good understanding of the scripture and the thinking of the foundational church, which included nothing about a triune god. It would have brought us to appreciate the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and give that highest honor, worship, prayer and praise to our God and Father for all that He gave us in His Son Jesus Christ.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 02:25 PM   #80
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Here is my dilemma, and where I would differ from your thinking that John is telling us Jesus is God, and is consistent through his writings. John writes also 17.3 and 20.17, which would no lead me to believe he is bringing us to see Jesus as God at all. If we read 2 John 3, it doesn’t follow, or Rev 1. 1,2 and 6, it doesn’t follow what I would consider a consistency, unless, as many seem to do, we are supposed to find secret, hidden meanings and read behind and underneath what is written.

I would say that logos should be understood as the thought, the idea, which was with God, and was God. We seem to have no clue as to why John put in “was God” for a description of logos- who was John writing to, what was there philosophy/theology, what would have been their need to hear such a thing?
John was a simple man who spoke with plain words. The opening to his gospel was well constructed with much deliberation.

Yes, the Logos is the thought, the idea, the message, the story, the narrative of God. Paul, however, called Him the image of the invisible God. These in no way conflict, rather provide complementary descriptions.

While John's message is simple, yours requires endless wordsmithing to explain away his message. Where is your foundational basis of scripture that declares Jesus is not God? There is none. There is only your understanding that the Son of God cannot also be God. This is exactly why John wrote what he did, nearly 70 years after Jesus died and resurrected. John clarified some false and prevailing errors that had developed over time.

Thus John made it so clear that Jesus, the Son, was God eternal. The Word, in the eternal beginning, was with God and was God. This Word created all things. And this Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. In his gospel, John repeatedly brought this truth up:

  • He is in the bosom of the Father (1.18)
  • The Jews killed Jesus because He made Himself equal with God (5.18; 10.33; 19.7)
  • He and the Father are one (10.30)
  • Thomas worshiped Him as God (20.28)
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 02:31 PM   #81
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
So Untohim wants us to keep to an orthodoxy that takes us outside the realm of scripture to discuss how WL was wrong because he went outside the Orthodoxy and bent the scripture beyond what it was saying, and somehow that will be helpful to readers.

I can’t say it enough, that if WL had a ministry to recover the church, it would have led us to a good understanding of the scripture and the thinking of the foundational church, which included nothing about a triune god. It would have brought us to appreciate the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and give that highest honor, worship, prayer and praise to our God and Father for all that He gave us in His Son Jesus Christ.
The only orthodoxy we can build our faith on is the word of God.

WL did try to recover the truths of God's word back to the N.T. church. Many, many Christians have endeavored on this same journey. Endless ordinances and traditions always tend to creep into the church to remove us from God's word. When Jesus came to earth He too faced endless Jewish traditions which separated them from God's word.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 04:02 PM   #82
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Now your last statement sounds right on to me. So, I’m curious, when you read in Rev 19 10 So I fell at his feet to worship him. But he told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”, what do you feel is conveyed here concerning “ worship God”. Would this be a command to worship the God and Father of our Lord, or do you see it differently?
Compare Rev 19.10 with Rev 1.17-18

In the former, another slave came to John announcing the marriage dinner of the Lamb. Of course, John should not worship another slave, but should worship only God.

In the latter, John fell at the feet of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, and worshiped Him. John was never instructed not to worship, nor to worship God, since John was already worshiping God.

And this underscores another proof of Jesus being God, i.e. all those in the N.T. who worshiped Him, and none of whom were ever instructed not to.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 05:57 PM   #83
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Here is my dilemma, and where I would differ from your thinking that John is telling us Jesus is God, and is consistent through his writings. John writes also 17.3 and 20.17, which would no lead me to believe he is bringing us to see Jesus as God at all. If we read 2 John 3, it doesn’t follow, or Rev 1. 1,2 and 6, it doesn’t follow what I would consider a consistency, unless, as many seem to do, we are supposed to find secret, hidden meanings and read behind and underneath what is written.
I would say that logos should be understood as the thought, the idea, which was with God, and was God. We seem to have no clue as to why John put in “was God” for a description of logos- who was John writing to, what was there philosophy/theology, what would have been their need to hear such a thing? Was it because they viewed the cosmos as being something apart from God, that God randomly did things or had no interest or connection to hHis creation. We don’t know. So I’m fine with John writing what he wrote, and to me he is saying that God had an idea that wasn’t flighty or random, but that God created all things according to this idea, this purpose. And reading through the whole of scripture, it seems to me that I could sum up that idea as man being the center of his affection and fellowship, which would come about through the redemptive work of the Christ, the anointed one, Son of God. And that through Christ Jesus we would be His many sons. So creation was entirely through this idea, and one day, according to His plan, that idea came to full fruition with the coming of, the birth of Jesus the Christ. I’m just writing this off the top of my head, considering the whole of the scripture. And I’m sure it will not pass the muster of the critics, but considering the whole of scripture, I do not think that John was trying to bring in a new revelation that everyone needs to see that Jesus is God and that in seeing that Jesus is God, we must assume that God is therefore triune, and must now worship a triune God. Sorry, but I put too much rationality in the scripture, and don’t think that such a “ revelation” is what is being said at all.
If this was really what John was conveying- that We need to see that Jesus is God, then why would Paul tell us that there is but one God, the Father, and we are to stick with the plan by acknowledging one God and Father.. I can’t follow what Paul writes, if I am supposed to follow what John writes, unless I’m supposed to accept some 4th century labyrinth- ah ah I guess I’m supposed to say orthodoxy?



No, John is not consistent with a Jesus is God program, and I think if one reads through John, one would see that John is not saying that at all.

Luke opened his gospel stating 1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning wer eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Am I to assume that Luke did poor investigative work, or that he and the early believers did not have the John revelation of Jesus being God? This would make the scripture laughable and extremely inconsistent. As I stated before, Luke’s presentation of Acts, a furtherance of his gospel writing, contains NO gospel preached where Jesus is set up as God!

The whole trithestic (is that a word?) thing does not lead us to an understanding of the scriptures, but sends us into division, sects, heresy, and, man’s orthodoxy. We all saw this with WL, a case study in finding all sorts of new “light”.
What an oxymoron that, the Jesus is God bunch would have us believe that God killed God on the cross ... even tho the record has Jesus saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 07:22 PM   #84
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What an oxymoron that, the Jesus is God bunch would have us believe that God killed God on the cross ... even tho the record has Jesus saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me."
The bigger oxymoron would be that God died! The trinitarian thing worked when you had the catholic clergy as the sole possessor of the “truth”, and could condemn people to nasty, nasty punishment who did not go along with their “ orthodoxy.” With the printing of the Bible, a lot opened up that was questioned, but by then it was so entrenched, you would be committing the unpardonable heresy to question. Now, we all have a lot of easy access research tools, and easy access to language tools and historical records.

But God died?
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 07:31 PM   #85
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John was a simple man who spoke with plain words. The opening to his gospel was well constructed with much deliberation.

Yes, the Logos is the thought, the idea, the message, the story, the narrative of God. Paul, however, called Him the image of the invisible God. These in no way conflict, rather provide complementary descriptions.

While John's message is simple, yours requires endless wordsmithing to explain away his message. Where is your foundational basis of scripture that declares Jesus is not God? There is none. There is only your understanding that the Son of God cannot also be God. This is exactly why John wrote what he did, nearly 70 years after Jesus died and resurrected. John clarified some false and prevailing errors that had developed over time.

Thus John made it so clear that Jesus, the Son, was God eternal. The Word, in the eternal beginning, was with God and was God. This Word created all things. And this Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. In his gospel, John repeatedly brought this truth up:

  • He is in the bosom of the Father (1.18)
  • The Jews killed Jesus because He made Himself equal with God (5.18; 10.33; 19.7)
  • He and the Father are one (10.30)
  • Thomas worshiped Him as God (20.28)
2nd and 3rd John I would consider simple and plain spoken. 1st John, on the other hand is not that plain, simple speech and here, like his gospel is hard to determine who he was speaking to and why he wrote in the way he did.
I, of course would disagree with your assessment of the word being the creator in a simple straight forward speech- throughout the book of Revelation, it is the God of Jesus who is labeled as the creator by the angels, elders, living creatures and by the overcomers. John seems to confuse the basic teachings of Paul if I’m to accept your version of Jesus.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 07:40 PM   #86
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
John was a simple man who spoke with plain words. The opening to his gospel was well constructed with much deliberation.

Yes, the Logos is the thought, the idea, the message, the story, the narrative of God. Paul, however, called Him the image of the invisible God. These in no way conflict, rather provide complementary descriptions.

While John's message is simple, yours requires endless wordsmithing to explain away his message. Where is your foundational basis of scripture that declares Jesus is not God? There is none. There is only your understanding that the Son of God cannot also be God. This is exactly why John wrote what he did, nearly 70 years after Jesus died and resurrected. John clarified some false and prevailing errors that had developed over time.

Thus John made it so clear that Jesus, the Son, was God eternal. The Word, in the eternal beginning, was with God and was God. This Word created all things. And this Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. In his gospel, John repeatedly brought this truth up:

  • He is in the bosom of the Father (1.18)
  • The Jews killed Jesus because He made Himself equal with God (5.18; 10.33; 19.7)
  • He and the Father are one (10.30)
  • Thomas worshiped Him as God (20.28)
I would offer you to really consider that John 17:3 was written by John, quoting Jesus and it follows what Paul stated in 1 Cor 8, which is a clear and concise statement about God and Jesus. I don’t think it is good to say I should have to prove something that does not exist as being false.

I don’t think my explanation required very much wordsmithing but is quite an easy explanation if you consider that no one in the early church preached the kind of Jesus you are stating John is relating to the believers- who was John’s audience? Was it the church in Ephesus, where Paul beseeched them to keep the oneness of the Spirit by acknowledging one God the Father? If your explanation is correct and I am wrong, then John definitely contradicts Paul and what Jesus so clearly says-at the hand of John in 17:3.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 07:48 PM   #87
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
The only orthodoxy we can build our faith on is the word of God.

WL did try to recover the truths of God's word back to the N.T. church. Many, many Christians have endeavored on this same journey. Endless ordinances and traditions always tend to creep into the church to remove us from God's word. When Jesus came to earth He too faced endless Jewish traditions which separated them from God's word.
I would highly disagree with this- WL mixed all kind of odd teachings that were not present in the foundational church as given to us in scripture. The foundational church has no triune gospel, and definitely no processed god! Nor was there a business set up by the apostles to sell “ the word”. A recovering ministry would have brought us to speak in terms of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and to highly appreciate what God has done. The whole processed triune god thing created a blasphemous understanding of the things of God and the scripture.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2020, 08:01 PM   #88
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
J This is exactly why John wrote what he did, nearly 70 years after Jesus died and resurrected. John clarified some false and prevailing errors that had developed over time.

Thus John made it so clear that Jesus, the Son, was God eternal. The Word, in the eternal beginning, was with God and was God. This Word created all things. And this Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. In his gospel, John repeatedly brought this truth up:

  • He is in the bosom of the Father (1.18)
  • The Jews killed Jesus because He made Himself equal with God (5.18; 10.33; 19.7)
  • He and the Father are one (10.30)
  • Thomas worshiped Him as God (20.28)
What were those errors John had to clear up? Were they errors Paul preached? They obviously were not errors that people questioned if Jesus was God, because this was not ever established as some sort of truth in the foundational church. READ ACTS and look at what was preached, look at Galatians and 1Cor 15 to see what was spoken. There was no foundation laid that would suggest the foundational church had any other understanding than there was one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.
John even summed up his gospel stating that he wrote it so that we would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. One would not use this summation if it was supposed to be understood that Jesus is God!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 07:55 AM   #89
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Oh what to believe!? So many verses showing that Jesus was subservient to and distinct from the Father. Oh wait, there's also so many verse showing He was God in the flesh! What ever shall we do!!?? Get out the scissors and start removing all those verses that don't line up perfectly!

We'd like to wrap our minds completely around these two, seemingly diametrically opposed sets of scripture describing who the Lord Jesus is, yet it is impossible for our minds to do so! Therefore I must once more quote John Locke, "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should." (i.e., if we can't get our minds around the awesomeness of a flower, how can we possibly come to grasp the exact nature of God come in the flesh?)

May He shine light into our humble minds bros.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 10:43 AM   #90
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Oh what to believe!? So many verses showing that Jesus was subservient to and distinct from the Father. Oh wait, there's also so many verse showing He was God in the flesh! What ever shall we do!!?? Get out the scissors and start removing all those verses that don't line up perfectly!

We'd like to wrap our minds completely around these two, seemingly diametrically opposed sets of scripture describing who the Lord Jesus is, yet it is impossible for our minds to do so! Therefore I must once more quote John Locke, "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should." (i.e., if we can't get our minds around the awesomeness of a flower, how can we possibly come to grasp the exact nature of God come in the flesh?)

May He shine light into our humble minds bros.
For 17 centuries it has been stated that, Jesus was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God.

And ever since it's been, God God God, that Christians have been obsessed with concerning Jesus. The human half -- or whole, they say - get that, Jesus was wholly human -- has been cast aside. Some early Christians completely denied the human side of Jesus altogether (Thus 1 John 4:2). So despite 1 John 4:2, the human side of Jesus has been ignored not only for 17 centuries, but even beginning in the first century, when the New Testament was written.

And if you think the divinity of Jesus is unfathomable, consider the human side. We have less about that than the divinity side. For goodness sake, we don't even know what made Jesus laugh.

So the mystery of Jesus had to be settled by the creeds, centuries later --that's when homousious was cooked up, by votes. This process came to be called The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [orthodoxy], that started with Constantine in the early 4th c, at Nicaea.

So for over 2 centuries now there's been what is called The Quest for the Historical Jesus. And you know what, the quest has gone nowhere.

In the end, we not only have conflicting verses concerning the divinity of Jesus, we don't have enough information about Jesus to solved anything about the human historical Jesus. So Bible scholars end up with nothing but guesses and suppositions.

Oddly, orthodoxy differed than orthodoxy today, cuz modalists signed the creed of Nicaea, but later came to be anathematized by Emperor Constantine.

Ultimately, the orthodoxy bro Untohim stands upon today, was developed by the Roman Catholic Church of Constantine, and following creeds ... and even the Biblical Canon of today -- developed by Eusebius (friend of Constantine), that because of Montanus and the New Prophecy, deliberately avoided the Holy Spirit when selecting the books ; thus, the canon selection was uninspired.

I think, in the end, we're just going to have to embrace the mystery. We can't even fathom a flower, how can we ever hope to fathom God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ; it's -- they're -- unfathomable.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 12:17 PM   #91
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Oh what to believe!? So many verses showing that Jesus was subservient to and distinct from the Father. Oh wait, there's also so many verse showing He was God in the flesh! What ever shall we do!!?? Get out the scissors and start removing all those verses that don't line up perfectly!

We'd like to wrap our minds completely around these two, seemingly diametrically opposed sets of scripture describing who the Lord Jesus is, yet it is impossible for our minds to do so! Therefore I must once more quote John Locke, "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should." (i.e., if we can't get our minds around the awesomeness of a flower, how can we possibly come to grasp the exact nature of God come in the flesh?)

May He shine light into our humble minds bros.
Sonsofglory- it’s not that hard, really. Paul tells the Corinthians that there is but one God, the Father, and the Ephesians to hold that declaration for the oneness of the Spirit. Jesus- remember him? Says that eternal life is to know the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
There is no reason to get yourself into a conniption fit- just follow what Jesus and the apostles taught.

Here you were saying “ so many verses Showing he was God in the flesh”. This is where the twists and turns start to manifest to lead you to the “we just can’t grasp it” mode- one that those who follow the trinity thing seem to express when they are shown the contradictions of their beliefs. I don’t think many would argue with “ God was in Christ” or that Christ was the effulgence of God’s glory, or if you see Jesus then you see the Father- All the fullness of deity was manifest in Christ. But to go to a belief that God became flesh? It may have been the theology of Charles Wesley ‘this mystery all, it it is not what was preached in the foundational church. If Paul tells us there is one God, the Father, why resist the scripture? I mean do you really believe God became flesh? Think about it. To be rather silly, every time Jesus bathed, God was going down the drain!! At his circumcision, God got cut up! No No- it is not taught that God became flesh- the reason you stumble is that you are accepting a man made theology and turning to a different sort of gospel that was not preached.
This is why I say that if WL really was ministering to recover the church, the LCs would have been full of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. It’s not that difficult- just reject the whole triune god thing and return to One God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Look at the rewards to the overcomers in Philadelphia- it’s not that difficult. The Church has put up with the teachings of the nicolaitans, Balaam, and Jezebel too long - it’s time to return to that which was from the beginning, as clearly presented in the scriptures.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 12:25 PM   #92
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
For 17 centuries it has been stated that, Jesus was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God.

And ever since it's been, God God God, that Christians have been obsessed with concerning Jesus. The human half -- or whole, they say - get that, Jesus was wholly human -- has been cast aside. Some early Christians completely denied the human side of Jesus altogether (Thus 1 John 4:2). So despite 1 John 4:2, the human side of Jesus has been ignored not only for 17 centuries, but even beginning in the first century, when the New Testament was written.

I think, in the end, we're just going to have to embrace the mystery. We can't even fathom a flower, how can we ever hope to fathom God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ; it's -- they're -- unfathomable.
I never had the perception that the human side of Jesus was largely ignored! I always, at least as an adult, accepted that He was fully God come in the flesh, as a man. He had to do it that way - having the limitations of a man, and took on the "assignment" as a man. He usually referred to Himself as the Son of Man too. He was all about being a man, as He needed to live as a man and die as a man, in order for man to be made the righteousness of God in Christ.

My favorite potrayal of Jesus is here: The Visual Bible: Matthew I like it because the actor (Bruce Marchiano, a believer) portrays Jesus as a man, who is passionate, laughs and even cuts-up with His disciples, and really acts like He loves others above all. A Man, who for the joy set before Him is getting ready to endure the cross. (plus this movie is only scripture - no added or subtracted words) BTW - Part way through this clip of Jesus speaking, it cuts away to someone else speaking. This is Matthew, who is giving an account of Jesus' speaking so that it could be written down.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 12:27 PM   #93
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
For 17 centuries it has been stated that, Jesus was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God.

And ever since it's been, God God God, that Christians have been obsessed with concerning Jesus. The human half -- or whole, they say - get that, Jesus was wholly human -- has been cast aside. Some early Christians completely denied the human side of Jesus altogether (Thus 1 John 4:2). So despite 1 John 4:2, the human side of Jesus has been ignored not only for 17 centuries, but even beginning in the first century, when the New Testament was written.

And if you think the divinity of Jesus is unfathomable, consider the human side. We have less about that than the divinity side. For goodness sake, we don't even know what made Jesus laugh.

So the mystery of Jesus had to be settled by the creeds, centuries later --that's when homousious was cooked up, by votes. This process came to be called The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [orthodoxy], that started with Constantine in the early 4th c, at Nicaea.

So for over 2 centuries now there's been what is called The Quest for the Historical Jesus. And you know what, the quest has gone nowhere.

In the end, we not only have conflicting verses concerning the divinity of Jesus, we don't have enough information about Jesus to solved anything about the human historical Jesus. So Bible scholars end up with nothing but guesses and suppositions.

Oddly, orthodoxy differed than orthodoxy today, cuz modalists signed the creed of Nicaea, but later came to be anathematized by Emperor Constantine.

Ultimately, the orthodoxy bro Untohim stands upon today, was developed by the Roman Catholic Church of Constantine, and following creeds ... and even the Biblical Canon of today -- developed by Eusebius (friend of Constantine), that because of Montanus and the New Prophecy, deliberately avoided the Holy Spirit when selecting the books ; thus, the canon selection was uninspired.

I think, in the end, we're just going to have to embrace the mystery. We can't even fathom a flower, how can we ever hope to fathom God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ; it's -- they're -- unfathomable.
Man, Awareness, you left out all the great torture devices and inquisitions that enforced that doctrine, that orthodoxy! It’s too bad the Holy Spirit was so lame as to not have introduced this great three one mystery earlier on, it could have prevented a lot of needless suffering. Instead, the Spirit was wasting time and causing confusion by honoring Peter telling people about the man Jesus, whom God raised from the dead and set at His right hand, making him our Lord!

And, if God would have just raised up WLee in the 2nd century, he could have set the record straight with the processed triune god! and all this terrible confusion could have been alleviated.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 02:23 PM   #94
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
I never had the perception that the human side of Jesus was largely ignored! I always, at least as an adult, accepted that He was fully God come in the flesh, as a man. He had to do it that way - having the limitations of a man, and took on the "assignment" as a man. He usually referred to Himself as the Son of Man too. He was all about being a man, as He needed to live as a man and die as a man, in order for man to be made the righteousness of God in Christ.

My favorite potrayal of Jesus is here: The Visual Bible: Matthew I like it because the actor (Bruce Marchiano, a believer) portrays Jesus as a man, who is passionate, laughs and even cuts-up with His disciples, and really acts like His loves others above all. A Man, who for the joy set before Him is getting ready to endure the cross. (plus this movie is only scripture - no added or subtracted words) BTW - Part way through this clip of Jesus speaking, it cuts away to someone else speaking. This is Matthew, who is giving an account of Jesus' speaking so that it could be written down.
O StG, you make me laugh.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 02:40 PM   #95
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
O StG, you make me laugh.
We all need a laugh - which part did you find funny?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 06:07 PM   #96
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
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.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 06:55 PM   #97
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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.
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 07:14 PM   #98
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Please delete - duplicate. Thanks!
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2020, 08:43 PM   #99
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
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.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 06:19 AM   #100
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 07:41 AM   #101
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
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.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 07:45 AM   #102
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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!!!
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 09:24 AM   #103
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor View Post
Yes, and there is no separate Holy Spirit. God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Don´t bother to reply, I´m not going to further this discussion, God the Son is also God, in case you were wondering.
In reviewing posts, I saw that I missed this one, which is well worth responding to. Raptor follows the Lee method of theology of mixing, matching and coming up with derivative meanings and declaring that the derivatives are Bible truths.

John 4, where Jesus tells us that God is spirit, is a very chocked full chapter of John’s. It’s particularly interesting because Jesus is talking to a Samaritan woman about God, himself the messiah, and Jesus speaking of God as the Father who desires worshipers.
Raptor seems to have the one God three persons down pretty well, and uses the old “God the Son” , and makes the transition from God is spirit to God is the Holy Spirit readily. Thus, in his reading of scripture ( which I hope he does) more than likely when reading, let’s say Ephesians, his thinking more than likely would automatically breeze over a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, internally translating that into a trinity persons thing, and in reading Paul’s beseeching the Ephesians to keep the oneness of the Spirit by holding to One God and Father of all, would, because that section talks about one Spirit, and one Lord, translate this into a triune thing as well, and slide easily over one God and Father, rendering the whole thought as Paul being a triunist, and therefore, anyone who would even question the trinitarian view is a reprobate fool.

But then, we still have Jesus’ word to the Samaritan woman that God-whom Jesus calls The Father, whom Paul and Jesus tells us is the one true God, desires worshippers, ie fellowship.

Most peculiar thing to take scripture and through various devices, to have what is written take on a quite different meaning and then practice the derivation rather than the truth.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 09:32 AM   #104
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
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.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 09:36 AM   #105
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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?)
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 09:47 AM   #106
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
In reviewing posts, I saw that I missed this one, which is well worth responding to. Raptor follows the Lee method of theology of mixing, matching and coming up with derivative meanings and declaring that the derivatives are Bible truths.

John 4, where Jesus tells us that God is spirit, is a very chocked full chapter of John’s. It’s particularly interesting because Jesus is talking to a Samaritan woman about God, himself the messiah, and Jesus speaking of God as the Father who desires worshipers.
Raptor seems to have the one God three persons down pretty well, and uses the old “God the Son” , and makes the transition from God is spirit to God is the Holy Spirit readily. Thus, in his reading of scripture ( which I hope he does) more than likely when reading, let’s say Ephesians, his thinking more than likely would automatically breeze over a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, internally translating that into a trinity persons thing, and in reading Paul’s beseeching the Ephesians to keep the oneness of the Spirit by holding to One God and Father of all, would, because that section talks about one Spirit, and one Lord, translate this into a triune thing as well, and slide easily over one God and Father, rendering the whole thought as Paul being a triunist, and therefore, anyone who would even question the trinitarian view is a reprobate fool.

But then, we still have Jesus’ word to the Samaritan woman that God-whom Jesus calls The Father, whom Paul and Jesus tells us is the one true God, desires worshippers, ie fellowship.

Most peculiar thing to take scripture and through various devices, to have what is written take on a quite different meaning and then practice the derivation rather than the truth.
I see dear brother Untohim falling in the same quandary. Wanting to discuss the WL/LSM/LC thing only in terms of orthodox, ie church doctrine/history, where as WL on one hand would dismiss the source of triunism as degraded Christianity, yet, pull up the doctrine as legitimate, yet expanding on it with his own theological views, which were steeped in the trinitarian thought. At the same time, purporting to claim scripture as the source for all his teachings, yet making a business out of his processed triune god material. Alls the while, Paul tells us there is but one God, the Father. So how do we discuss the WL/LSM problem without bringing up the “elephant in the room”? We dismiss the whole notion of there being a legitimate elephant. How can we have an honest discussion about the whole Lee thing, the whole concept about recovery, about the ministry, and remain in the 4th century orthodoxy. I tend to think recover is no longer a topic people want to consider, and I tend to think that most of those who left the LC have probably returned to “ poor, poor, christianity” and the concept, zeal for the recovery of the church, and for that matter, whether the church as any real meaning at all, has drifted into a past history worthy only of historical discussion.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2020, 06:05 PM   #107
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I see dear brother Untohim falling in the same quandary. Wanting to discuss the WL/LSM/LC thing only in terms of orthodox, ie church doctrine/history, where as WL on one hand would dismiss the source of triunism as degraded Christianity, yet, pull up the doctrine as legitimate, yet expanding on it with his own theological views, which were steeped in the trinitarian thought. At the same time, purporting to claim scripture as the source for all his teachings, yet making a business out of his processed triune god material. Alls the while, Paul tells us there is but one God, the Father. So how do we discuss the WL/LSM problem without bringing up the “elephant in the room”? We dismiss the whole notion of there being a legitimate elephant. How can we have an honest discussion about the whole Lee thing, the whole concept about recovery, about the ministry, and remain in the 4th century orthodoxy. I tend to think recover is no longer a topic people want to consider, and I tend to think that most of those who left the LC have probably returned to “ poor, poor, christianity” and the concept, zeal for the recovery of the church, and for that matter, whether the church as any real meaning at all, has drifted into a past history worthy only of historical discussion.
What "recovery" and the "restoration" movements are missing is a Pentecost, with rushing mighty wind, tongues of fire, and speaking many languages.

That's what originated the foundational early church. Don't get that and the recovery and restoration are just hollow claims and efforts.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 01:27 AM   #108
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 07:39 AM   #109
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post

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.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 08:12 AM   #110
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
“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.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 08:16 AM   #111
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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”?
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 08:41 AM   #112
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What "recovery" and the "restoration" movements are missing is a Pentecost, with rushing mighty wind, tongues of fire, and speaking many languages.

That's what originated the foundational early church. Don't get that and the recovery and restoration are just hollow claims and efforts.
Luke gives us an account of Pentecost and the Spirit being poured out on the 120. John gives this different account of Jesus coming and breathing into them, but old Thomas had stepped out for the day and didn’t participate in the “ experience”. The results of Pentecost was the preaching of the gospel and nowhere was the gospel preached that told people that Jesus was God and that now we all should look at God as a trinity.

Why would God want to pour out the Holy Spirit again on a bunch of people who morphed His person into a trinity? Is there supposed to be a great blessing in the “end times” on trinitarianism? Let’s take a vote on it and set up an orthodox dogma based on the vote?

Looks to me that a recovery of the church would be people repenting of going astray in trinitarianism and returning back to worshiping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and “seeing” the man God raised from the dead, set at His right hand and gave all authority to.
The real question would be why does Jesus not exercise that authority to clear up the modalism question? Seems like it has been around for almost 2 millennia, as has trinitarianism. Neither, of course, were taught in the foundational church.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 09:30 AM   #113
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
How long will you reprimand God for His ways?
I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm no stranger to being angry at God ; the real life God, not the Bible God ... more on that.

Due to coming thru fallen men, the Bible God is not the real God. And I do get angry at times because God is depicted in the Bible as not how God is, or was.

It's all a matter of the now, today, God ... not a God from long long ago, from the days when everyone believed they were living on a flat earth ; the Bible comes from the flat earth age, if you will. Can we really expect a accurate depiction of God to come from that age?

Maybe it's just me, but the God I know these days would never flood everyone ; men, women, children, and fetuses, plus all the critters. That depicts God, in the least, as a failing God ; a God that failed in his creation.

If God is God that can't be true. It's a made up legend, influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, written 1300 years before Geneses, with its flood story.

So to answer you question, I don't reprimand God, as much as I'm angry at false depictions of God. Which means if it looks like I'm reprimanding God, don't get confused, I'm actually reprimanding a God that's not any more real than Zeus.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 09:44 AM   #114
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
“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."
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 09:47 AM   #115
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm no stranger to being angry at God ; the real life God, not the Bible God ... more on that.

Due to coming thru fallen men, the Bible God is not the real God. And I do get angry at times because God is depicted in the Bible as not how God is, or was.

It's all a matter of the now, today, God ... not a God from long long ago, from the days when everyone believed they were living on a flat earth ; the Bible comes from the flat earth age, if you will. Can we really expect a accurate depiction of God to come from that age?

Maybe it's just me, but the God I know these days would never flood everyone ; men, women, children, and fetuses, plus all the critters. That depicts God, in the least, as a failing God ; a God that failed in his creation.

If God is God that can't be true. It's a made up legend, influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, written 1300 years before Geneses, with its flood story.

So to answer you question, I don't reprimand God, as much as I'm angry at false depictions of God. Which means if it looks like I'm reprimanding God, don't get confused, I'm actually reprimanding a God that's not any more real than Zeus.
So you separate the God depicted in the OT, from the Christ we see in the NT, since you believe the OT to not be divinely inspired - is that accurate?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 12:40 PM   #116
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I'm not sure how to answer your question. I'm no stranger to being angry at God ; the real life God, not the Bible God ... more on that.

Due to coming thru fallen men, the Bible God is not the real God. And I do get angry at times because God is depicted in the Bible as not how God is, or was.

It's all a matter of the now, today, God ... not a God from long long ago, from the days when everyone believed they were living on a flat earth ; the Bible comes from the flat earth age, if you will. Can we really expect a accurate depiction of God to come from that age?

Maybe it's just me, but the God I know these days would never flood everyone ; men, women, children, and fetuses, plus all the critters. That depicts God, in the least, as a failing God ; a God that failed in his creation.

If God is God that can't be true. It's a made up legend, influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, written 1300 years before Geneses, with its flood story.

So to answer you question, I don't reprimand God, as much as I'm angry at false depictions of God. Which means if it looks like I'm reprimanding God, don't get confused, I'm actually reprimanding a God that's not any more real than Zeus.
Kind of confused here. Everyone believed the earth was flat? Highly doubtful, but only you could base the beliefs of all humanity on the foolishness of a few "flat earthers." They were prolly Democrats too! No wonder why they want free tuition!

Besides that, I guess you are entitled to your own god/God. Just make sure you get mad at the wrong ones. And love the right One!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 12:43 PM   #117
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What Life actually meant in the LC was : A life sentence in their cult.
But we all got out!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 03:14 PM   #118
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Just make sure you get mad at the wrong ones. And love the right One!
I do that daily. And I guess I shouldn't get angry, since I don't get angry at the thousands of other gods. I also don't get angry at the hundred or so apocryphal books, of the non-canonical books from early Christianity, even tho they too are very fantastical about Jesus, like the Jewish OT books about God. They sure loved back then to write fantastical stories.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 03:33 PM   #119
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
So you separate the God depicted in the OT, from the Christ we see in the NT, since you believe the OT to not be divinely inspired - is that accurate?
The God of Jesus doesn't appear to be like the God depicted in the OT.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 04:08 PM   #120
Sons to Glory!
Member
 
Sons to Glory!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,704
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
The God of Jesus doesn't appear to be like the God depicted in the OT.
Sure. I think we all get that. When I recently went through the OT I thought that - I think it'd be hard to think otherwise. It only makes sense to me if I think that it was because He was dealing with man according to the law, and the bar for righteous requirement is therefore set very high. However, this shows me that we need a Savior, and hallelujah He came - in love - to become our righteousness!
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now
Sons to Glory! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 05:19 PM   #121
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Sure. I think we all get that. When I recently went through the OT I thought that - I think it'd be hard to think otherwise. It only makes sense to me if I think that it was because He was dealing with man according to the law, and the bar for righteous requirement is therefore set very high.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - Nietzsche
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 08:29 PM   #122
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
But we all got out!
Amen to that. But it still haunts me. As see it, you can get yourself out of the church, but you can't get the church out of you. That's true for even the RCC.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2020, 08:57 PM   #123
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Amen to that. But it still haunts me. As see it, you can get yourself out of the church, but you can't get the church out of you. That's true for even the RCC.
I think it is even more true that we all leave our parents' home, but we can't get our parents out of us. For better and for worse, in many respects, we are stuck for life with what we got from our parents. Our parents had a major role in the reason why we even connected with the LC's. We all have to make the best with what we got. For every complaint we can muster up, there are millions more here on earth with a life 10x worse than what we were given. This life here is temporary, and is a preparation for the next. God is fair.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2020, 10:13 AM   #124
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
It may cast some doubt in your mind, and in the mind of Witness Lee, but it hasn't for the vast majority of Christian teachers and scholars for the past 2000+ years. So everybody has been interpreting this passage wrong for two millennia, and out of nowhere this Witness Lee fellow got it right. How convenient. How improbable.



Well one good reason is that the apostle Paul wasn't teaching modalism, and he never taught that Jesus Christ, the second of the Godhead, became the Holy Spirit, the third of the Godhead. Witness Lee went further in a lot of things, mostly because he thought he was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle. Who needs to be bound up by all those poor, poor traditional and historic interpretations when you da man! The Bible says WHAT I SAY IT MEANS, GOT THAT MOO COW!


Of course not! That's puttin on your thinkin cap Ohio! Now don't stop there...keep going. Since you now admit that the reference to pneuma/spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 is not a definitive reference to the Holy Spirit, what spirit are we talking about? If I was talking to Witness Lee, I would expect to hear "how many spirits are there that give life?" but you're not going to do that to us, are you Ohio?

So back to my question. If this occurrence of pneuma/spirit is not a reference to the Holy Spirit, why not?
-
So Paul tells the Corinthians (1Cor.8) that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Paul does say that there are a whole lot of gods and lords, but to us there is One God The Father. He also says that there is not in all men that knowledge. This all seems pretty clear speaking and straightforward to me, and it is the belief that governs my scripture reading and practicing of the Christian faith.

In that regard, it seems almost insane that people spend so much time arguing about a trinity god. I mean, we are 2000 years past Paul’s writing and the best we can do is argue over something that no one can come to an agreement over, and the basis for this argument is really the Nicene Creed, written 3 centuries after Paul’s writing, which seems to be taken as authority over Paul’s clear statement. So in other words, the argument over 1 cor15.45b, which, if that statement of Paul results in a theoretical theological argument that tries to squeeze in a trinity with perhaps a modalistic tendency which then would negate Paul’s clear relating to the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, brings us to divisions of thought and sectarian associations, also negates Paul’s admonition in Ephesians to maintain a oneness be keeping the view of one Lord, Jesus and ONE God, the Father.

Is there perhaps a reason we do not grasp the concept of the Holy Spirit because we long left the scriptural instruction of the greatest commandment of loving the one true God and created a different entity which is now the replacement of the one true God. It seems to me that I read about this this falling away and false teaching business, and “fornication” somewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. That old Nicene creed created a nasty beast!! If the Spirit has walked away from it, but people holding on to it have unceasing theoretical arguments about it, and about the departed Spirit, that’s truly spiritual insanity.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2020, 07:36 PM   #125
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
In that regard, it seems almost insane that people spend so much time arguing about a trinity god. I mean, we are 2000 years past Paul’s writing and the best we can do is argue over something that no one can come to an agreement over, and the basis for this argument is really the Nicene Creed, written 3 centuries after Paul’s writing, which seems to be taken as authority over Paul’s clear statement. So in other words, the argument over 1 cor15.45b, which, if that statement of Paul results in a theoretical theological argument that tries to squeeze in a trinity with perhaps a modalistic tendency which then would negate Paul’s clear relating to the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, brings us to divisions of thought and sectarian associations, also negates Paul’s admonition in Ephesians to maintain a oneness be keeping the view of one Lord, Jesus and ONE God, the Father.

Is there perhaps a reason we do not grasp the concept of the Holy Spirit because we long left the scriptural instruction of the greatest commandment of loving the one true God and created a different entity which is now the replacement of the one true God. It seems to me that I read about this this falling away and false teaching business, and “fornication” somewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. That old Nicene creed created a nasty beast!! If the Spirit has walked away from it, but people holding on to it have unceasing theoretical arguments about it, and about the departed Spirit, that’s truly spiritual insanity.
And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 04:54 AM   #126
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.
This is the tragic legacy of some of the more dogmatic Reformers. They (like John Calvin) escaped persecution, inquisition, and death from the hands of the Roman Catholics for their religious views, yet turned around and applied these same measures to those (like Servetus or e.g. the Anabaptists) who disagreed with them.

But lest we think that mankind has evolved or modern society has improved due to its technology and great learning, today's Left with its own religious tenets is now duplicating this same intolerant history. Whereas they once fought vehemently for the rights of all to be made known and heard, they now wish to silence the voices of all their own critics with unjustified accusations of "hate speech" and "racism." Today's antifa rioters are no different than the rabid reformers who called for the head of Servetus.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 06:46 AM   #127
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
This is the tragic legacy of some of the more dogmatic Reformers. They (like John Calvin) escaped persecution, inquisition, and death from the hands of the Roman Catholics for their religious views, yet turned around and applied these same measures to those (like Servetus or e.g. the Anabaptists) who disagreed with them.

But lest we think that mankind has evolved or modern society has improved due to its technology and great learning, today's Left with its own religious tenets is now duplicating this same intolerant history. Whereas they once fought vehemently for the rights of all to be made known and heard, they now wish to silence the voices of all their own critics with unjustified accusations of "hate speech" and "racism." Today's antifa rioters are no different than the rabid reformers who called for the head of Servetus.
But John Calvin was on the right, and Servetus was on the left.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 07:02 AM   #128
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
But John Calvin was on the right, and Servetus was on the left.
Don't know what that means.

Obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.


Every society labels opponents "left and right." But you are a smart guy. Do you really think that all of these "lefts" and "rights" since the stone age can be lumped together?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 08:15 AM   #129
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Don't know what that means.

Obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.


Every society labels opponents "left and right." But you are a smart guy. Do you really think that all of these "lefts" and "rights" since the stone age can be lumped together?
But out here you seem to see the mote in the left's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own party's eye.

Let's get back to topic, and stop introducing politics.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 09:41 AM   #130
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.
Oh, we know the routine- you can question about scripture, and come up with fantastic fanatics , but you better not step on the Nicene creed, or we will invoke the Athanasian Creed. The creeds take precedence over the scripture, and the trinitarians live by that spirit. Those who would dare to disagree are already damned to hellfire, so the good godly men are just assisting Gods judgement by starting the fires a little earlier.

Reading the main site modalism orthodox discussions really scare me. Religious insanity is most dangerous.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 01:06 PM   #131
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Oh, we know the routine- you can question about scripture, and come up with fantastic fanatics , but you better not step on the Nicene creed, or we will invoke the Athanasian Creed. The creeds take precedence over the scripture, and the trinitarians live by that spirit. Those who would dare to disagree are already damned to hellfire, so the good godly men are just assisting Gods judgement by starting the fires a little earlier.

Reading the main site modalism orthodox discussions really scare me. Religious insanity is most dangerous.
Can you explain this post.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 08:32 PM   #132
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
But out here you seem to see the mote in the left's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own party's eye.

Let's get back to topic, and stop introducing politics.
It is actually quite surprising, with your proclivity for introducing extraneous topics, to hear you say I am off topic. I am just overwhelmed.

If modern day examples help to explain the past, shouldn't we then apply them in order to learn?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2020, 09:29 PM   #133
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It is actually quite surprising, with your proclivity for introducing extraneous topics, to hear you say I am off topic. I am just overwhelmed.

If modern day examples help to explain the past, shouldn't we then apply them in order to learn?
... YES ...
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2020, 12:32 PM   #134
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
...using terms that I don’t find in scripture to make definitions and then get a following to buy into terms scares me.
I understand, and hope it didn't seem like I was trying to get you to use non-scriptural terms. I was just trying to find a decent phraseology to better understand your POV.

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I think the reason people get up in arms is precisely about the point you said you don't want to discuss - Jesus is God or not God.

Here is an excerpt from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" that I think better explains what I was trying to say in my previous post. He speaks of God the Father, and the Son of God, but then clarifies that since the Son is begotten, and not made or created, the Son of God is of the same "kind". In other words, just as man begets man, so does God beget God. It doesn't mean the thing begotten IS what begot it, but simply that they are the same kind.

Here is the quote. Thoughts?

=========excerpt============

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.



The last chapter was about the difference between begetting and making. A man begets a child, but he only makes a statue. God begets Christ but He only makes men. But by saying that, I have illustrated only one point about God, namely, that what God the Father begets is God, something of the same kind as Himself. In that way it is like a human father begetting a human son. But not quite like it. So I must try to explain a little more.

Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2020, 11:51 PM   #135
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Trapped- you may want to read the 1st 10 verses of Romans 1. Pay special attention to Paul’s referring to God and Christ. As far as I can determine Paul always writes in such a way as to be governed by what he tells the Corinthians- there is one God, the Father. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus is the one true God. He admonishes the Christians in Ephesus to hold to that belief. When one departs from that belief, that practice, I don’t think we can expect the help of the Holy Spirit to witness to a practice that has departed. It would then be the Holy Spirit witnessing to man’s work rather than man witnessing to the work of the Holy Spirit. My contention is that the church took a very wrong turn when it came out with its own dogmas and decrees, which in essence said that the scripture was too short sighted in giving us the truth about God but we have improved with our teachings, and now all just accept our teachings ( does this also sound like WL). My contention then is that if the ministry of WL was working for the recovery of the church, it would have led the saints to declare what Paul gave us- which is a clear understanding that there is but one God, the Father. The meetings would have been filled with a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus atmosphere rather than an Oh Lord Jesus/processed triune god venue. The idea of meeting together as the LC was wonderful, but the contents was way off base due to the errant speaking of WL. On the main site, the debate seems to be whether modalism was taught by WL. The problem was not just modalism, it was the whole triune God thing. This was not given to us by the scriptures- not taught by the apostles, not witnessed by the Holy Spirit. Would one really expect to have a “ recovery” and stew in this 4th century farce? I think not.

Here is what Peter spoke to those gathered at Cornelius’ house, and the Holy Spirit witnessed to it.
Acts 10.34And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. 36The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) — 37that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. 40Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, 41not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead. 43To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.

If you want the “ Jesus is God” gospel, realize that it is not what was preached by the foundational church.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 02:05 AM   #136
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Boxjobox you continually reinforce your position that Jesus is the Son of God -- "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus is the one trus God."

I agree. Trapped agrees. Others agree.

Yet that in no way negates the truths of scripture that Jesus is eternal and is God, and is now manifest in the flesh for eternity. And I do not base my views here on Lee's teachings or the 4th century creeds.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 08:12 AM   #137
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Boxjobox you continually reinforce your position that Jesus is the Son of God -- "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus is the one trus God."

I agree. Trapped agrees. Others agree.

Yet that in no way negates the truths of scripture that Jesus is eternal and is God, and is now manifest in the flesh for eternity. And I do not base my views here on Lee's teachings or the 4th century creeds.
Yes, Ohio, I do constantly reinforce this position, because it has been lost by the prevailing propaganda of triunism to the point that it is ignored. That gospel that Peter tells Cornelius concerning Jesus- that God was WITH Jesus: Peter was present during most of Jesus' ministry. Peter saw the transfiguration! Jesus, late in his ministry, asks who do men say that I am? No one says You are God, but Peter says You are the Christ, the son of THE living God. Jesus says it is upon this rock I will build my church. Your ( the collective your, I'm not just singling you out) constantly harping about Jesus being God has warped the message of the scripture and the gospel, and the understanding of the entire Christian faith, and the bringing about of the church. Paul says the oneness of the believers for the building of the church is predicated on acknowledging One God, the Father. Are you concerned about my opinion or Paul's? Seems like your concern is more related to a trinity god.

Read through 1st Timothy where Paul speaks of "manifest" and look at what Paul is telling us about God- the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the ONLY wise God, and about Jesus. I mean Paul plainly says One God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus- how plain does it need to be spoken? At what point in the scripture do you see the apostles running around telling everyone that Jesus is God? When did this become the gospel? I know it sounds low and demeaning of me not to follow the Jesus is God, triune god thing, but I see no outcome of such teaching in the scriptures. I do see an evolution of this that resulted in 4th century dogmas, and I do see a corruption of the truth and thus the church as a result of it.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 08:45 AM   #138
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

As an afterthought to my last: my observation is that modern, prevailing Christianity is totally caught up in a Jesus is God mentality. And, surprisingly, the ones that give the most, clear acknowledgement to God the Father are the old traditional RC, Lutheran denominations. Modern, pastoral business model assemblies seem to be the most biggest purveyors of a Jesus is God mentality. The old creeds start with a I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth statement, which the old denominations acknowledge. New Christianity seems to hold a God became a man, God died on the cross, Jesus died on the cross that was his own creation- the scripture is totally muddled and the participants seem oblivious.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 10:02 AM   #139
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Yes, Ohio, I do constantly reinforce this position, because it has been lost by the prevailing propaganda of triunism to the point that it is ignored. That gospel that Peter tells Cornelius concerning Jesus- that God was WITH Jesus: Peter was present during most of Jesus' ministry. Peter saw the transfiguration! Jesus, late in his ministry, asks who do men say that I am? No one says You are God, but Peter says You are the Christ, the son of THE living God. Jesus says it is upon this rock I will build my church. Your ( the collective your, I'm not just singling you out) constantly harping about Jesus being God has warped the message of the scripture and the gospel, and the understanding of the entire Christian faith, and the bringing about of the church. Paul says the oneness of the believers for the building of the church is predicated on acknowledging One God, the Father. Are you concerned about my opinion or Paul's? Seems like your concern is more related to a trinity god.

Read through 1st Timothy where Paul speaks of "manifest" and look at what Paul is telling us about God- the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the ONLY wise God, and about Jesus. I mean Paul plainly says One God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus- how plain does it need to be spoken? At what point in the scripture do you see the apostles running around telling everyone that Jesus is God? When did this become the gospel? I know it sounds low and demeaning of me not to follow the Jesus is God, triune god thing, but I see no outcome of such teaching in the scriptures. I do see an evolution of this that resulted in 4th century dogmas, and I do see a corruption of the truth and thus the church as a result of it.
If Jesus is not God what is He? When was His genesis? How could He create all things if He was not God? How could He know our hearts if He is not God. (Thousands more questions like this could be asked.)

But please respond to these.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 10:30 AM   #140
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

And if Jesus was not God, but was only a man, how could his death atone for all of mankind? If he was man then his death could only substitute for one other person's death. It seems to me that it's precisely that he is God (or God-kind, or divine, or eternal, or whatever doesn't make you shiver) that his death took care of everyone. Yes, he was a man, but he wasn't only a man, or else his death would have been useless.

The bible says eternal life is not only to know God the Father also but our Lord Jesus Christ. Let's talk about the latter one a bit then. Don't keep repeating that one phrase to us. We can read. We understand. We agree. We'd like to talk about a few other phrases. We'd like to talk about some implications. This is not an argument, at least not on my part. This is an interested conversation. Engage with us, please!
Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 11:18 AM   #141
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
And if Jesus was not God, but was only a man, how could his death atone for all of mankind? If he was man then his death could only substitute for one other person's death. It seems to me that it's precisely that he is God (or God-kind, or divine, or eternal, or whatever doesn't make you shiver) that his death took care of everyone. Yes, he was a man, but he wasn't only a man, or else his death would have been useless.

The bible says eternal life is not only to know God the Father also but our Lord Jesus Christ. Let's talk about the latter one a bit then. Don't keep repeating that one phrase to us. We can read. We understand. We agree. We'd like to talk about a few other phrases. We'd like to talk about some implications. This is not an argument, at least not on my part. This is an interested conversation. Engage with us, please!
I tend to think both you and Ohio would take a position based on your understanding of John 1 that God became flesh. This is probably too extreme to face, so it gets watered down to Jesus was fully God and fully man, so that somehow you can avoid contemplating God became flesh.

Trapped, you really misquoted, or left out the significant statement in John 17.3 Jesus does not just say eternal life is to know God The Father, but says to know you ( The Father) the only true God. The impact you are missing is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. These are not my words, but John wrote them quoting Jesus. I receive them, and I would hope you would too. They are extremely significant, because the whole scripture, and our understanding of scripture should be with this foundational thought. Jesus could have as easily said eternal life is to know the triune god- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit- if this was the case, I would be right there with the best of them praising the triune god. You would have heard this preached, taught, expanded, etc in clear incontrovertible terms. The church would have been based on this! Which seems to be the case of the church since the 4th century. I would tend to think both you and Ohio are steeped in a trinitarian view, and therefore ask so many questions based on your understanding of a Jesus is God belief. Here I am, this nasty guy quoting scripture that says opposite. I believe that Jesus is the Christ- which has most significant ramifications- this is taught and preached throughout the NT clearly. I believe Christ died for my sins as clearly taught by Paul in Romans- that righteousness man died for us unrighteous men. I believe that God raised him from the dead.. if you want to see what I feel about Christ’s position and greatness just read. Ephesians. Paul prays that we would see this glorious revelation of the power and working of God in raising Jesus and enthroning him. But in all of Ephesians, where is the Jesus is God teaching or at least statement? God accepts this man’s death as a redemption for me and all believers. When Jesus rose, he met Mary and said I go to my God and your God and my Father and your Father. Not an insignificant statement about God, Christ and us!

The questions both you and Ohio pose are endless and unanswerable for the most part because they are based on a trinitarian supposition, which is not scriptural.

I can only say again, read through Acts and see what is preached as the gospel.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 11:49 AM   #142
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
Engage with us, please!
If y'all want God to have died on the cross, have at it. But also, you have to accept that Mary was/is the mother of God ... that is, she gave birth to God. So God didn't exist until she did that. Go for it y'all. You won't be the first.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 11:51 AM   #143
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I tend to think both you and Ohio would take a position based on your understanding of John 1 that God became flesh. This is probably too extreme to face, so it gets watered down to Jesus was fully God and fully man, so that somehow you can avoid contemplating God became flesh.

The questions both you and Ohio pose are endless and unanswerable for the most part because they are based on a trinitarian supposition, which is not scriptural.

I can only say again, read through Acts and see what is preached as the gospel.
What is too extreme to face?

Is that your response to legitimate questions? That they are "endless and unanswerable for the most part because they are based on a trinitarian supposition, which is not scriptural?" That's how you dodge the issue?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:25 PM   #144
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
If Jesus is not God what is He? When was His genesis? How could He create all things if He was not God? How could He know our hearts if He is not God. (Thousands more questions like this could be asked.)

But please respond to these.
I’ll probably get slammed for this, but have you considered Satan, how he knows thoughts, hearts, lives in people, is the power of the air, that the whole world is under his control in some sort of way? Yet he is a created entity and NOT God. Please do not read more into this than as related to your heart question. Satan seems to know a lot more that we do about the cosmos, yet when questioning Jesus, after Jesus’ anointing aaaheeem, he says to Jesus if you are the Son of God, and Jesus answers how man should live by the word of God, that we should not tempt the Lord our God, and that we should worship the one true God. This was Jesus responses. Satan did not ask him if he were God, or some sort of triune question, which by the way, both would be a new and shocking revelation to every Jew!

Concerning what is he, I’ll enter into the 1 Cor15.45b debate. He was the last Adam, and now is a life giving spirit, how all of this appears is a large topic in the NT epistles and revelation, he is the resurrected man that is siting on the right hand of God, as the scripture prophesied - sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.

Concerning creation, I think I responded to this before to you- all things were made by God through, in view of his master plan, idea, thought, logos. The creation and entities in the heavens all give God in the throne credit for creation. Actually, the creeds seem to account for God Almighty creating. I can’t reiterate this enough, that Paul beseeches us to keep the oneness by acknowledging the one God and Father through whom are all things and to whom are things. Most important principle to follow in appreciation all things God.

Modern Christianity seems to want to associate all the things of God with Christ, so the scriptures get turned on their end and prayers, and speaking and teaching which takes away the splendor of God our Father, and eliminates the greatness of God and His work by and trough and to Christ. If we would have spent our days in the LC under a ministry that Blessed the God and Father of our Lord Jesus- much of this could have been recovered.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:29 PM   #145
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Do you realize how hard it is to put together a cohesive response using an IPad

I can see why everyone for the most part just puts down one liners
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:38 PM   #146
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I’ll probably get slammed for this, but have you considered Satan, how he knows thoughts, hearts, lives in people, is the power of the air, that the whole world is under his control in some sort of way? Yet he is a created entity and NOT God. Please do not read more into this than as related to your heart question. Satan seems to know a lot more that we do about the cosmos, yet when questioning Jesus, after Jesus’ anointing aaaheeem, he says to Jesus if you are the Son of God, and Jesus answers how man should live by the word of God, that we should not tempt the Lord our God, and that we should worship the one true God. This was Jesus responses. Satan did not ask him if he were God, or some sort of triune question, which by the way, both would be a new and shocking revelation to every Jew!
Have you not read the account? After Satan thrice tempted Him in the wilderness (see Luke 4.1-13), Jesus answered and said to him, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." (v.12)

Pretty conclusive, eh?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:41 PM   #147
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
What is too extreme to face?

Is that your response to legitimate questions? That they are "endless and unanswerable for the most part because they are based on a trinitarian supposition, which is not scriptural?" That's how you dodge the issue?
The extreme understanding would be that God became FLESH. The way around this by the triunes is that he is fully God and fully man, this splitting the person of Christ Jesus into two separate but coexisting, in some manner, being. Thus, saying God became FLESH can be rationalized. As I pointed out with the Cornelius gospel Peter told him For God was WITH him- a far cry from God BECAME FLESH, wouldn’t you agree? It’s why it’s hard to discuss this with the triunes because they dance back and forth using the Fully argument.

When all else fails it usually results in a Oh, God is too mysterious to understand statement, which who can argue with that? The real problem is not accepting the scripture of One God the Father and replacing it with trinitarian thought. Our faith becomes clearer and scriptural when we follow what Jesus and Paul told us about One God. And actually, calling God Father, and relating to God in this most humanly understanding is a major revelation in the scripture; it might be THE major revelation considering Revelations
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:50 PM   #148
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I’ll probably get slammed for this, but have you considered Satan, how he knows thoughts, hearts, lives in people, is the power of the air, that the whole world is under his control in some sort of way? Yet he is a created entity and NOT God.
Satan does not know our thoughts. He does not live in people, except maybe entering one at a time like Judas. He is a limited being. He is not omnipresent. The world is under his control because he has legions of his cronies everywhere.
Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:50 PM   #149
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Have you not read the account? After Satan thrice tempted Him in the wilderness (see Luke 4.1-13), Jesus answered and said to him, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." (v.12)

Pretty conclusive, eh?
No Ohio, you are cutting a snippet and not getting what is going on: Satan tells Jesus to throw himself down because it is written that the angels would uphold him, to throw himself down would be to tempt to see if God would fulfill his word. It is not Satan tempting God, it is Satan trying to put Jesus in a position to tempt God. Jesus is telling that he is following the scripture.
Have you ever considered that there is no account of Jesus stubbing his toe or getting sick? God’s angels did a good job!
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 12:52 PM   #150
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Paul says he lives by the faith of the son of God- consider how great was the faith of Jesus in that he believed and went to the cross because he believed that God would raise him from the dead and enthroned him.
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 01:01 PM   #151
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
Satan does not know our thoughts. He does not live in people, except maybe entering one at a time like Judas. He is a limited being. He is not omnipresent. The world is under his control because he has legions of his cronies everywhere.
I would check with the Christians who seem to feel he is in our flesh, directs many thoughts, and all the world lies in this hand. So, really, if you think about it, Paul gets into what we were before salvation in Ephesians and talks quite plainly about the evil one in an overwhelming way. The fallen flesh of man is a large topic as well in the scripture. The influence of the evil one seems to be a lot more pervasive than one soul at a time!

My point being Jesus is the Christ, that overcame the world, and the evil one and was given by God all authority in heaven and earth. Given is the key word here. Paul prays that we see this
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 01:40 PM   #152
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
I would check with the Christians who seem to feel he is in our flesh, directs many thoughts, and all the world lies in this hand. So, really, if you think about it, Paul gets into what we were before salvation in Ephesians and talks quite plainly about the evil one in an overwhelming way. The fallen flesh of man is a large topic as well in the scripture. The influence of the evil one seems to be a lot more pervasive than one soul at a time!

My point being Jesus is the Christ, that overcame the world, and the evil one and was given by God all authority in heaven and earth. Given is the key word here. Paul prays that we see this
I don't care if some Christians feel Satan is in our flesh. He is not.

Sin dwells in us. Satan doesn't.

Satan can influence our thoughts. But he doesn't know our thoughts.

All the world lies in his hand. But he's not everywhere in the world.

The fallen flesh is something different than "Satan living in people".
Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 02:26 PM   #153
Boxjobox
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 648
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
I don't care if some Christians feel Satan is in our flesh. He is not.

Sin dwells in us. Satan doesn't.

Satan can influence our thoughts. But he doesn't know our thoughts.

All the world lies in his hand. But he's not everywhere in the world.

The fallen flesh is something different than "Satan living in people".
Trapped, I agree with you that Satan does not live in people. I am not really up on Satan things or think about this topic and don't know how the spirit world operates. James has some things to say as does Peter. Jesus said you are of your father the devil. I don't think Satan runs to someone in Moscow and then over to another in Iran and then over to Mayor De Blasio n NY ( sorry, I couldn't resist that one) I would think that knowing how to influence someone would involve knowing their thoughts.

Now that I think of it a little more- where do I come up with a picture of Jesus knowing everyone's thoughts? I don't seem to formalize a clear picture of that being the case from scripture. Jesus knowing all thoughts of all people at the same time would definitely be an interesting study, maybe Ohio could fill me in on that one. I suspect he is speaking from situational things he read about in the gospels
Boxjobox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2020, 04:15 PM   #154
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 12,535
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
No Ohio, you are cutting a snippet and not getting what is going on: Satan tells Jesus to throw himself down because it is written that the angels would uphold him, to throw himself down would be to tempt to see if God would fulfill his word. It is not Satan tempting God, it is Satan trying to put Jesus in a position to tempt God. Jesus is telling that he is following the scripture.
Have you ever considered that there is no account of Jesus stubbing his toe or getting sick? God’s angels did a good job!
Serious?

No mention of Jesus getting His diapers changed either.

Angels took care of that too?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2020, 07:07 AM   #155
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Serious?

No mention of Jesus getting His diapers changed either.

Angels took care of that too?
It doesn't trouble me that we don't hear about Jesus getting his diapers changed, or don't hear about him going to the 'bathroom.' He was human after all, and not built like a Ken doll. What I'd like to hear about is : what made him laugh? That would be telling. I wonder if he laughed when someone called him God ... or that he was the 2nd person of the trinity (I know, I know, the trinity wasn't invented yet)?
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2020, 10:29 AM   #156
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

BJB, how do you interpret John 1:18?

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Berean Study Bible
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Trapped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2020, 11:37 PM   #157
awareness
Member
 
awareness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,708
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
BJB, how do you interpret John 1:18?

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Berean Study Bible
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 10:34 - "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

I doubt you've stumped BJB, but please allow me to interject. Obviously you know of other translations, and have selected the ones that support your proclivities.

As exemplified by the account of the adulterous woman, John has been meddled with -- the manuscripts don't agree -- and that's why the translations don't agree. In the ones you've selected perhaps a little 'g' god reveals big 'G" God the Father.

Plus, how could Jesus be in his own bosom?

Keep trying bro Trapped, you haven't cinched your argument with that verse. Exemplary try tho.
__________________
God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.
awareness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2020, 09:59 AM   #158
Trapped
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 584
Default Re: Boxjobox on modalism

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
John 10:34 - "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

I doubt you've stumped BJB, but please allow me to interject. Obviously you know of other translations, and have selected the ones that support your proclivities.

As exemplified by the account of the adulterous woman, John has been meddled with -- the manuscripts don't agree -- and that's why the translations don't agree. In the ones you've selected perhaps a little 'g' god reveals big 'G" God the Father.

Plus, how could Jesus be in his own bosom?

Keep trying bro Trapped, you haven't cinched your argument with that verse. Exemplary try tho.
There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.

I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.

Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.

What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.

BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his