"I am He"

[Word_Swordsman]

You bastards of the Christ Jesus faith, be advised. I have been herding you up into one pen. Is it here?

It is the time.

 

[PS]

That incident was NOT a parable, and not at all an event taught by Jesus. You took a plainly reported event as a parable, possibly knowing people are generally drawn to parables, whether proposed in AD 40 or AD 2019.

There are many statements uttered by Jesus that were not in parabolic form, but straightly expressed as directly as Jesus heard and saw of Father God. Parables are directed to the uneducated commoners who probably even probably only comprehended any language but their own dialect. That communication divide persists unto this very time, starting at the Tower of Babel.

I was responding to this of yours:

Hey, Ya'll, Henry Ford is dead and the Ford Corp is completely different, though disappointing to me as a former devoted Ford customer. His examples relate to secular concepts, which are rampant today and are affecting their sales. Look to the scriptures instead! [Word_Swordsman]

 

[PS]

You bastards of the Christ Jesus faith, be advised. I have been herding you up into one pen. Is it here?

It is the time.

What is that about?

 

[bluto]

.

Modalism is where one person follows on, one after the other.
Whereas we believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist together as One God.

First of all I know what "Modalism/Sabellism/ Monarchianism and dynamic Monarchianism" is. And who is the "we" when you said, "Whereas we believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist together as One God."

I highly suggest you loose the Queen example that is based on "roles." I also have a feeling your mixed up and do not understand what your advocating because it is not biblical based on the reasons I gave concerning "roles." And just so you know "modalism" is unfamiliar to most Christians, yet it is the most common theological error among people who think themselves orthodox.

It is the simplest way to explain the Trinity while preserving the oneness of God, unfortunately, it is incorrect.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Word_Swordsman]

I was responding to this of yours:

So you remain deceived of both history and plainly worded scriptures laid out in modern languages. Wow. I minister to hundreds of drug abusers who catch on easier! Woe.

Admit your addiction that seeks to remove you from truth. That admission alone opens up a channel to God through gospel truth.

 

[PS]

.. And just so you know "modalism" is unfamiliar to most Christians, yet it is the most common theological error among people who think themselves orthodox.

It is the simplest way to explain the Trinity while preserving the oneness of God, unfortunately, it is incorrect.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I wouldn't attempt to explain the Trinity using Modalism. That would be a dangerous path to go down.

 

[PS]

So you remain deceived of both history and plainly worded scriptures laid out in modern languages. Wow. I minister to hundreds of drug abusers who catch on easier! Woe.

Admit your addiction that seeks to remove you from truth. That admission alone opens up a channel to God through gospel truth.

????

 

[bluto]

It would be good if you would kindly give us an exegesis on the passage.

Exo 3:1-6
(1) Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
(2) And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
(3) And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
(4) And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
(5) And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
(6) Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Also this commentary by Albert Barnes:

What Moses saw was the flame of fire in the bush; what he recognized therein was an intimation of the presence of God, who maketh a flame of fire His angel. Compare Psa_104:4. The words which Moses heard were those of God Himself, as all ancient and most modern divines have held, manifested in the Person of the Son.

Thanks.

Actually ps, I did exegete the gist of the verses. What did I say that was wrong or that you did not understand?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[crossnote]

That is who the Queen is. She is actually those people. They are the same person as herself.

So if one of te

It is the other way round, without any one, two, or three, the Queen would continue on. Although her authority and influence would diminish.

It seems like you are equating 'person' with function. One person of the Trinity may cease certain functions but that doesn't diminish the personage or the authority of the other two.

 

[bluto]

I wouldn't attempt to explain the Trinity using Modalism. That would be a dangerous path to go down.

And neither would I. So, if someone was to ask you to explain the Trinity what would you tell them?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Word_Swordsman]

What is that about?

Your very spirit and soul, in jeopardy, managed by your mere finger tip strokes of your keyboard, are expressing your eternal destiny according to your own mind. Your NATURAL MIND IS PERVERTED.

STOP being so naturalistic! LISTEN to HIM.

 

[PS]

So if one of te

It seems like you are equating 'person' with function. One person of the Trinity may cease certain functions but that doesn't diminish the personage or the authority of the other two.

Actually ps, I did exegete the gist of the verses. What did I say that was wrong or that you did not understand?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

You seemed to contridict yourself. I have highlighted what I mean.

Actually the burning bush is not Jesus, the burning bush is just that a bush. It was the angel of the Lord who appeared in the "midst" of the bush and the angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus Christ. You are also right that the "I am" at Exdous 3:14 is the one God, i.e. God the Father and God the Son. So, it has to be Jesus Christ in the burning bush because as you rightly say the Father cannot be seen just like the Holy Spirit cannot be seen.

Don't worry about it, it might be me.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So if one of te

It seems like you are equating 'person' with function. One person of the Trinity may cease certain functions but that doesn't diminish the personage or the authority of the other two.

Remember, they have a major issue

Paul tells us the Jesus could not even raise himself from the dead. The HS had to. And the body that Jesus was raised in, Ascended into heaven. And is still in that form today, Sitting NEXT to the father

 

[PS]

And neither would I. So, if someone was to ask you to explain the Trinity what would you tell them?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

In a nutshell I would say God came to earth in the form of man according to scripture.

Mat 1:20-23
(20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
(23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

[PS]

@bluto. A post from crossnote got mixed in with my reply to you. Due to the five minute rule I cannot remove it. Sorry, it just happened and was completely unintentional.

 

[crossnote]

Remember, they have a major issue

Paul tells us the Jesus could not even raise himself from the dead. The HS had to. And the body that Jesus was raised in, Ascended into heaven. And is still in that form today, Sitting NEXT to the father

i'm quite confused over this discussion. My point to PS was just because Jesus stopped functioning as our sacrifice, it does not detract from the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit, unlike his Queen analogy.

 

[bluto]

You seemed to contridict yourself. I have highlighted what I mean.

Actually the burning bush is not Jesus, the burning bush is just that a bush. It was the angel of the Lord who appeared in the "midst" of the bush and the angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Jesus Christ. You are also right that the "I am" at Exdous 3:14 is the one God, i.e. God the Father and God the Son. So, it has to be Jesus Christ in the burning bush because as you rightly say the Father cannot be seen just like the Holy Spirit cannot be seen.

Don't worry about it, it might be me.

I understand, and your right it is you. When I said "it has to be Jesus Christ in the burning bush" there are a hundred more Biblical reasons that it is true more than just the fact that God the Father cannot be seen. In fact, and as far as I'm concerned the best proof that Jesus pre-existed His incarnation as a man is that He is the angel of the Lord and God Almighty. I will be explaining why in greater detail to poster nwl pretty soon so stayed tuned.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[eternally-gratefull]

i'm quite confused over this discussion. My point to PS was just because Jesus stopped functioning as our sacrifice, it does not detract from the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit, unlike his Queen analogy.

I do not understand his thinking at all

 

[posthuman]

I minister to hundreds of drug abusers who catch on easier!

here on CC in the BDF you are generally talking to people who actually know the scriptures fairy well and who think about them to a far greater degree and have thought about them far longer than your random addict off the street in a shelter.
when a person has no knowledge of a subject and rarely gives it any thought, it's generally pretty easy to convince them of whatever you like about it -- whether that be error or truth.

 

[bluto]

Remember, they have a major issue

Paul tells us the Jesus could not even raise himself from the dead. The HS had to. And the body that Jesus was raised in, Ascended into heaven. And is still in that form today, Sitting NEXT to the father

Somebody has a major issue problem! Jesus said at John 2:19, "Destroy this temple and in three days I WILL RASISE IT UP." At John 2:21 John says this: "But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

Then you have at Romans 8:11 the following: "But if the Spirit of Him, who rasied 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 indwells you." So you have all three persons of the Trinity raising Jesus from the dead. And here's a little side note about this found at the trial of Jesus at Matthew 26:60-61,

"and they did not find (any evidence) even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, vs61, and said. This man stated "I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days."

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto