-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I mean, think about it. Why would God refer to Himself in the plural form within the Old Testament? Translation error? Well, if you believe that then you are letting your theology get in the way of what the Word of God plainly says. In John 8, Jesus says He is the same " I AM " from Exodus chapter 3. In fact, when Jesus said He was the " I AM " as an answer as to the Pharisees mocking words of how could he know Abraham they went ape crazy and wanted to stone Him.
More importantly, Jesus essentially said earlier in John chapter 8 to the Pharisees that if they did not believe that He is the " I AM ", that they would then die in their sins (Please take note that the English word "he" is not in the original Greek).
More importantly, Jesus essentially said earlier in John chapter 8 to the Pharisees that if they did not believe that He is the " I AM ", that they would then die in their sins (Please take note that the English word "he" is not in the original Greek).
Last edited:
I think you are taking liberties and making assumptions based on the little that I just said. I believe Christ was fully God as well as fully man in his incarnation. I never said otherwise. I never said he wasn't present at creation or that he was anything other than God. I never said anything about translation errors or anything.
Micah 5:2 says the Messiah (Who is obviously Jesus) is from everlasting. Again, you have to twist Scripture to make it not say that. The Scriptures also essentially say Jesus is our Immanuel, which means God with us. Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh. Believers have God living within them, but they are not Immanuel like Jesus. Jesus was God incarnate. We are not God incarnate. Big difference.
If you believe in Modalism:
Then you need to realize that...
The Lord our God is one God in three distinct persons:
For Modalism teaches that God just puts on a mask or takes on a title or name. It teaches that there is no difference between the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Which is is not what the Bible teaches. It is unbiblical.
Why is it unbiblical?
Well, the Bible clearly teaches that there are distinctions within the persons of the Godhead. Here are a couple of quick points why the Scriptures are against the idea of Modalism.
#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).
Also, I imagine those who believe in Modalism like to quote 1 John 5:7 as proof text for their case, too.
However, they also have to look at what else John has written on this topic, too. For in the beginning of the gospel of John, it says this...
John 1:1-2 KJV - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
Then you need to realize that...
The Lord our God is one God in three distinct persons:
For Modalism teaches that God just puts on a mask or takes on a title or name. It teaches that there is no difference between the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Which is is not what the Bible teaches. It is unbiblical.
Why is it unbiblical?
Well, the Bible clearly teaches that there are distinctions within the persons of the Godhead. Here are a couple of quick points why the Scriptures are against the idea of Modalism.
#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).
Also, I imagine those who believe in Modalism like to quote 1 John 5:7 as proof text for their case, too.
However, they also have to look at what else John has written on this topic, too. For in the beginning of the gospel of John, it says this...
John 1:1-2 KJV - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
No I don't. I'm entirely opposed to it. I believe Christ to be the literal, eternal and living Word of God who was manifested at the preordained time in the flesh. I believe Him to be fully God in that they share the same Spirit and Mind, although are separate in role and function. I believe Christ to be the image of the invisible Father and the Spirit to be His breath and power, also a separate facet of the same God, sharing the same Mind and Word, but being separate in role and function. I do not believe in oneness theology or modalism. I believe in the Trinity when it is well defined, which some seem to have trouble doing. I take John 1 regarding the Word literally. The λόγος (logos) is literally God's Word which was made flesh.
But in regards to the OP, I believe Jesus was praying to the Father sincerely based on his humanity, as well as an example for us.
But in regards to the OP, I believe Jesus was praying to the Father sincerely based on his humanity, as well as an example for us.
That doesn't address explaining a contradiction. The Trinity isn't so hard to understand that a layman cannot understand it. The reason people can't understand it is because they "WON'T" listen to the Scriptures. I've posted several times in this thread the words of Paul and Jesus, 'to us there is one God, the Father' and Jesus praying to the Father, 'that they may know you, the only true God'. And yet, time after time people have come back with God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They say God is three coequal persons and yet Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I". However, rather than accept what Jesus said, many try to make His words fit their preconceived idea that God is three coequal persons and say, oh, He was talking about His humanity. That's nonsense. Jesus didn't say anything in that passage about being lower than the Father only in His humanity. Then they'll turn around and say, well, Jesus limited His Godhood while here on Earth. However, that's not what Scripture says. Scripture says, 'being in the form of God, He emptied Himself. John said that the Word "Became" flesh. He didn't say the Word put on a flesh suit. But, people don't want to believe this because it doesn't fit their preconceptions about God. Personally, I think a child could understand the Trinity as long as they're not trying to force it into some preconceived idea.
You didn't answer the question and you've presented a straw man. Man can understand what God has reveal to him because God has given man that ability. God having no beginning has no bearing on the question of the Trinity.
I've already shown that the idea comes from several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles. As late as 381 people still held 'I believe in one God the Father.'
In the Anthanasian Creed one passage says the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the Holy Spirit is Almighty and yet there are not three almightys but one almighty. That statement doesn't even make sense. The word "almighty" means having all power. How can three different persons have all of the power? They can't.
I've already shown that the idea comes from several hundred years after Jesus and the apostles. As late as 381 people still held 'I believe in one God the Father.'
In the Anthanasian Creed one passage says the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the Holy Spirit is Almighty and yet there are not three almightys but one almighty. That statement doesn't even make sense. The word "almighty" means having all power. How can three different persons have all of the power? They can't.
I remember arguing with someone else for a very long time that they were not Modalistic and yet what they believed was in fact that reality. They believe 1 John 5:7 taught that all three persons are smashed together and are not distinct from one another. You said on page 2 of this thread that God is three parts and not three distinct beings (Which implies persons). Yes, God is one being (i.e. One God), but He is three distinct persons in one being. You talk about different roles and functions and deny the different persons in the Godhead. Such a denial of the distinctions within the Godhead is a direct contradiction of Scripture and a denial of the Trinity taught in Scripture. For you can blaspheme the Holy Spirit (by speaking bad about the Holy Ghost) but you cannot blaspheme the Son of God in the same way. For one can be forgiven and the other cannot be forgiven. Also, in the OT, God refers to Himself in the plural form. In addition, John chapter 1 says the Word was God and the Word was WITH God. Distinctions here. Yet you are saying they are parts. Doesn't sound like parts to me in John chapter 1. They are persons. Jesus says He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Meaning, there are distinctions. Again, Modalism teaches roles and functions and not persons. How is your belief different from Modalism and yet not like the traditional Scriptural teaching on the Trinity (i.e. One God who exists as three distinct persons)?
Last edited:
Perhaps before you throw the first stone, maybe you should read a little closer, my friend. He doesn't believe God is one God who exists as three distinct persons. He believes the different persons of the Godhead are parts and not persons. He defines the Trinity in a wrong way and does not truly believe in the Trinity as traditional Bible believers. If he is willing to admit to say that God is one God who exists as three distinct persons, then I am willing to apologize. But I do not believe this to be the case by what he had written on Page 2.