Modalism vs. Trinitarianism (which one stands better against JW doctrine?)

by Ianone 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Ianone

  Look this isnt that complex. God is one. not three, not three in one, but ONE.

  JESUS IS ONE GOD, ONE PERSON, ONE SAVIOUR, ONE MASTER, ONE SHEPHERD, ONE FATHER, ONE HOLY ONE, ONE CREATOR, ONE COVENANT, ONE SACRIFICE
• 

  Ianone

  Satanus said:

  ianone the fetus+

  ianone the baby+

  ianone the child+

  ianone the adolescent=

  how many ianones in total?

  Yes I am one , very good. Notice that ianone the fetus, is not a seperate person from ianone the adolescent or any of the other ianones?
• 

  Ianone

  John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM he, ye shall die in your sins.
• 

  Satanus

  That's good, ianone. Now try the other one.

  S
• 

  Leolaia

  I believe the answer has to do with the kenosis (Philippians 2:6-11), when God willingly set aside the exercise of the divine prerogatives to take up a human existence, operating within the confines of an ordinary man. The deity of the Father was in Jesus, but latent in Him. In the incarnation, Jesus is distinct from the Father, not in His deity, but in His humanity.

  Some questions about your christology. The distinction between the Father and the Son is one you attribute to Jesus' incarnation in the flesh, or as you put it "in his humanity". Does this mean that there wasn't a Father-Son distinction before the incarnation? The phrase pros ton theon "with God" in John 1:1 is usually understood as indicating a relationship between the "Word" and God the Father prior to the incarnation. John 1:18 similarly would indicate a present (present tense) mutual relationship between the Son and the Father (cf. the glorified Christ at the right hand of God/the Father in Acts 2:33, 5:31; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13, 12:2). Is the distinction between the Son and the Father one that endures after the resurrection?

  (These considerations are among the main reasons why modalism was rejected by the early orthodox church)
• 

  heathen

  I don't think jesus was God at first but was promoted . Isaiah 9:6 refers to the messiah in a future sense as being called Mighty God . I think I have seen some interesting things on the web stating that christians were not allowed to worship an angel , there seems to be no problem with worshipping jesus however so for the WTBTS to say you cannot worship jesus and be a christian is blaspheme . They even believe he recieves worship in prayer when you ask in his name but will argue over the divinity of christ like mindless morons . I believe there is a father son relationship but that jesus eventually was given rulership in heaven and earth prior to his assention . Mathew 28:18
• 

  Ianone

  leolai, I believe God became Jesus at the incarnation and not prior too, and that God became a man permanenty thereafter. That is how much he loves us. That is not to say that God did not manifest in other forms prior to the incarnation. Angel of the Lord was worshipped and wrestled with men. Angel of the Lord did not rebuke when He was worshipped by Sarah for example.

  Did Jesus pray to Himself ? No, not when we understand that Jesus was both God and man. In His deity Jesus did not pray, for God does not need to pray to anyone. As a man, Jesus prayed to God, not to his humanity (7). He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God, to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits the universe. No further explanation is given, and none is needed. Does Jesus pray now since his exaltation ? The answer is no. He prayed in the days of His flesh (Hebrews 5:7). The work of the mediation was finished through His death on the cross at Calvary (Hebrews 9:14-15). There is no more sacrifice for sins, for once and for all time His blood was shed for the remission of sins (Hebrews 10:12
• 

  LittleToe

  Ian:
  We've got enough of our own craziness, around here, being ex-cult-members - go sell your's someplace else...

  You appear inept at research, and seem to survive on cut'n'paste drivel. You present things as "fact" and listen to no other opinion, when there are plenty of people here who have studied the subjects you espouse knowledge of, to a far greater depth than you appear capable of. Resorting to big and colourful fonts does not make your point right!

  From reading your posts I have gleaned that:

  • you have never been a JW
  • you have no time for any religion, so make up your own
  • you believe in "your own interpretation" (substitute for "whatever internet-based opinion suits you today") of key orthodox doctrines
  • included in that is a belief that there will be an "elect" (of which, no doubt, you are a member) and a future Armageddon Fatwa destruction.
  • you display leanings towards anti-semitism
  • you appear a completely obsessed crank in connection with conspiracy theories (outdoing even our most deluded site-members, who have an excuse in that they were raised in a cult).

  So why did you come here? To save us from ourselves? To proselytise us to your way of thinking?
  If that's the case, then surely you're no better than Russell...
  ...something to think about.

  LT of the "Just passing through collecting my PMs" class

  PS - Don't feed the Trolls
• 

  Ianone

  Little mason

  Resorting to big and colourful fonts does not make your point right!

  It copy and pasted that way genius. I didnt do it that way on purpose. And some of these things are copy and pasted from my own website. lol
• 

  hmike

  There is a major religion today that holds to this modalism concept?I can't remember who, offhand?Moon's Unification Church?

  I don't see how the Bible can be used to support modalism, but it can be used to support Trinitarianism.

  I think there is a problem if we demand that the Father and the Logos (John 1:1) are exactly the same in every way. I don't think the Bible text requires that. What the writers did want us to see was that Jesus was in complete harmony and unity with the Father, and had the same authority over all creation that the Father did in the OT. In that regard, it would be perfectly acceptable to refer to Jesus as God. Although John is the most overt about this assertion, the other Gospels make it a point to note events where the actions of Jesus are consistent with those of God in the OT. It also seems consistent with the rest of John's Gospel that he would assert that "God was the Word (logos)" and not "a god... ," so that the Logos shared in God's nature.

  Now I may be deviating a bit from traditional orthodox teaching here, but as I read it, Jesus can be called "God" because of his dual nature: body and spirit. The Bible teaches that each of us has a dual nature: the physical body and the spirit. (It may even be considered a trinitarian nature, if you want to include the soul as separate. For the sake of simplicity, I would only differentiate between natural/physical/material and supernatural/non-physical.) Each one of us is a body and a spirit?together, they constitute the individual, and yet, either one of those constituents could be referred to as that individual (When we refer to a person today, say Billy, for example, we would normally be talking about him in his physical form. Yet, scripturally, it would also be appropriate to refer to Billy's non-physical essence by his name.) I see the spiritual component of Jesus as the Logos (God), so it would be completely proper to refer to him as man (Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary), or God (Logos in him?but please don't call Mary the "mother of God.") While on earth, though, he functioned as a man. During his ministry on earth, he operated pretty much as an OT prophet?relying on the Holy Spirit for insight and power. One area he operated as God was in his authority?in his teaching, and over the natural and supernatural realm, but the power came by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, he was subject to many limitations. Although he was always aware of his relationship to the Father, he operated under these restrictions or limitations to meet the requirements as the "second Adam." Therefore, it is appropriate for him to pray to the Father and to call Him his God. Even now, in his glorified state, he is still retains a bodily form (and I mean a resurrected, physical body, although it is no longer subject to the limitations of our physical laws) and is subject to the Father in some manner. He is a glorified man and yet more.

  To be comfortable with the concept of the Trinity (I think tri-unity may be a better term), we have to get out of our limited way of thinking about the universe?limited by our own restrictions of what we are able to perceive, how we process that information, and the models we construct to process further information. The more we learn about the universe, though, the more we realize there is so much we don't know. We become better able to "think outside the box," or at least accept there are things we can't know with the current technology we have. Consequently, we have passed from simply accepting things on pure faith, to rejecting them because they can't be explained or tested scientifically, to recognizing that they may exist, but we just can't verify them at this time. We are now advancing beyond the limitations that confine things to the context of a four-dimensional universe. Science fiction has always been on the cutting edge of this frontier, and what is sci-fi today can be reality tomorrow. The idea of a single entity being manifested in multiple forms is a hard concept for us to accept because it just doesn't happen in our limited experience. One person is one person, manifested in one form. Multiple manifestations have always been hard to explain or depict. I notice the WT has used illustrations from artwork to refute the Trinity by appealing to the apparent absurdity of the artwork?three-headed men, etc. But that is attacking a straw man. Ridiculing the work of medieval artists does not refute the Trinity. So what happens if we set aside our medieval thinking and open our minds to accepting the possibility of a parallel dimension?the spiritual world, including heaven?where God is not confined to a single manifestation, i.e. the Father, but can simultaneously exist with the Logos (indwelling Jesus Christ since the incarnation), and the Spirit? These three can have some differences between them, but share a common nature and are called God. Three "persons" are all entitled to be called "God"; all three collectively constituting God, yet each individually deserving of the title of God. Is this really so incredible, then?