Jesus as Lord and God

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3DOP-

Thank you. I certainly didn't want to misrepresent other faiths. Honestly, I don't understand how the trinity works. I've never heard it explained in a comprehensible (to me) way so I guess I just glom on to the only way it can make sense to me.

For example this makes no sense to me, at least insofar as other Christians claim to be monotheistic. "God from God" doesn't really mean anything to me. It sounds like a platitude designed to hide the fact that no one knows how God(s) really work or exist.

If they are eternally distinct, then they must be 2 separate God's right? Is the Holy Spirit also a distinct God? I don't think that it would fly in most Christian denominations if I described their faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as a belief in 3 different Gods. Can you help understand this better? Claiming the Godhead as 3 distinct Gods is where other Christians take great exception with LDS theology but it sounds like you're claiming the same thing, but I doubt that's what you're really saying.

Hi again Jack...Honestly you don't know how the Trinity works? Me either!

"God from God" means that the Son derives His eternal existence from the Father who begot Him. The Father is the fountain of all divinity who derives His existence from no one. In this, the Father is unique among the Three Persons. If the Son and Spirit are God, as Catholics believe, it is because their divinity is derivative in contrast to the Father. Anyway, that is probably "priestcraft", according to some of your fellows. 

I was only making a minor point. At this point, I don't want to argue that Catholic beliefs make sense, much less that they are right. I was confident that you would be glad to be corrected as to which crazy, incomprehensible thing we believe in! Let's get it right, okay? Heh.

Regards,

3DOP   

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, longview said:

I confess inability to comprehend your intricate statements.  My conviction is those kinds of statements resulted from the convoluted and contending priestcraft of men seeking for their own power.  Hence the many divisions and denominations in the Christian world.

From Google:  "Definition of Patripassianism. : the doctrine that in the sufferings of Jesus Christ God the Father also suffered — compare sabellianism.
In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead."

From the catechisms http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM  "266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16). - - - 267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

These are all bewildering statements.  Might be considered circular statements.  I reject the excuse that they are mysteries when words of Christ should be taken at face value.  For example Jesus said:  "I came into the world NOT to do My Will but Him that sent Me."  No one should dispute that Jesus truly is subordinate to God the Father.  Jesus was commanded to create (organize) the Heavens and the Earth.  And in John 14:31 "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence."

The catechism states that the Godhead is one, implying God is a single entity (with different aspects).  What is your understanding of the word  "ONE"?  Does it mean sameness or unity?  John chapter 17 is a great discourse by Jesus indicating that not only is the Godhead ONE (united in Purpose) but His Twelve Apostles can be ONE (united with God in carrying out His Purpose) AND the followers can also be ONE, united among themselves and with God the Father, Jesus and His Apostles.  What is your perspective on the entire chapter of John 17 (KJV)?

I am sorry if I have promoted your bewilderment. I am neither theologian nor philosopher. It doesn't seem that hard to me to realize the difference between two beliefs that are both errors according to LDS.  There are different ways to be wrong. I merely wanted to distance myself from the wrong belief that I do not hold. If that is what LDS consider to be the crime or sin of "priestcraft", I am content to be considered guilty.

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism.  It is a tragically common misconception.  As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things--

1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism.  Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds.  An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism.  Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 

2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings.  Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being).  The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes.  Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 

3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out.

The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations.  I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself.  It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.

 

That makes a lot of sense Jane Doe.

 

[Jane_Doe]

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again Jack...Honestly you don't know how the Trinity works? Me either!

(Just explaining some LDS Christian experience here)

I actually appreciate it when Trinitarian Christians do acknowledge that they don't understand how the Athanasian Trinity works.  It makes me 1) feel better about the fact that I don't either, and 2) I feel it's... honest?  Rather than trying to say "this is a square peg and it fits in square holes", acknowledging that this is a peg that not remotely square on any human-understandable shape.  Ironically, acknowledging "you're not supposed to deeply understand it" makes the very vague understanding easier.  Also Catholic acknowledgement that this is not a sola-scriptura doctrine helps too.

What is frustrating though: when I get yelled (usually by an "anti-cultist") who says essentially: "it's doesn't matter if it doesn't make any sense or it's clearly stated in the Bible- shut up and believe it anyways!!   Else you're going to burn in Hell and ain't a real Christian!".   That is... a time to smile politely & nod & walk away.

28 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

If the Son and Spirit are God, as Catholics believe, it is because their divinity is derivative in contrast to the Father. Anyway, that is probably "priestcraft", according to some of your fellows. 

Not really.  

[Calm]

Explaining beliefs, even wrong ones, is definitely not priestcraft.

Quote

Men preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world; they do not seek the welfare of Zion (2 Ne. 26:29).

Feed the flock of God, not for filthy lucre, 1 Pet. 5:2.

Churches which are built up to get gain must be brought low, 1 Ne. 22:23 (Morm. 8:32–41).

Because of priestcrafts and iniquities, Jesus will be crucified, 2 Ne. 10:5.

Were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction, Alma 1:12.

The Gentiles shall be filled with all manner of priestcrafts, 3 Ne. 16:10.

I suppose a view that the doctrine was created by men setting themselves as a light to the world that they could get gain and praise might be what he had in mind... the source of the belief.

I disagree that we can know for sure people's motivations in most cases.

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I apologize that I was curt with you. I thought you were being sarcastic about the way we pray, but I misunderstood. I think we were talking about different scriptures when you asked about varying interpretations. I was talking about those I quoted from 3 Nephi. They speak quite plainly to me.

Thanks -- we were misunderstanding each other (and I was misunderstanding which scripture you were referencing). I'm glad we got it all cleared up!  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I was only making a minor point. At this point, I don't want to argue that Catholic beliefs make sense, much less that they are right. I was confident that you would be glad to be corrected as to which crazy, incomprehensible thing we believe in! Let's get it right, okay? Heh.

This is my thought exactly, ha!

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question).

The actual Trinity (not modalism) acknowledges that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons.  Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor does He pat Himself on the back with "Behold my beloved Son".  It's the Father saying that line, and to whom the Son is praying to.  They are 3 different persons, a point that LDS Christians agree with.  The point of disagreement is the *how* 3 are 1: LDS Christians pointing to unity.    Trinitarian Christians point to ontological oneness through a shared substance (wherein they differentiate between a 'person' and a being')  -- yes this is extremely confusing for all folks, hence the difficult in explanations for all involved.

As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

So, some Trinitarians would be ok with the Son having a visual physical body, but the Father being a visually and physically separate person of Spirit, whatever Spirit might be? That appears to make them of two different substances and persons, not one. 

To me, two persons means one is here and one is there, temporally and physically. Three persons means there is another one over yonder, but I have been told I do not understand the concept of “person.” Yet I noticed 3DOP likes what you said. I interpret that to mean you get it. 

This is a new one for me because after decades of speaking with Trinitarians of many stripes trying unsuccessfully to grasp what they believe and that what Joseph saw was a heretical deception, I have consistently been told not only that I was wrong but mortal sinfully wrong. It’s a puzzlement.

Or maybe that is the beauty of it.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, some Trinitarians would be ok with the Son having a visual physical body, but the Father being a visually and physically separate person of Spirit, whatever Spirit might be? That appears to make them of two different substances and persons, not one. 

I have been told I do not understand the concept of “person.” Yet I noticed 3DOP likes what you said.This is a new one for me after decades of speaking with Trinitarians of many stripes trying unsuccessfully to grasp what they believe and that what Joseph saw was a heretical deception.

It's not supposed to make logical sense, even Trinitarian will tell you that.

I had a longer answer typed up but then it got deleted.  I'll type more later.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's not supposed to make logical sense, even Trinitarian will tell you that.

I had a longer answer typed up but then it got deleted.  I'll type more later.

So, that truly is the beauty of it?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's not supposed to make logical sense, even Trinitarian will tell you that.

I had a longer answer typed up but then it got deleted.  I'll type more later.

I would rather put it this way: It seems reasonable that we cannot completely understand the Trinity. I get what you say: "It's not supposed to make logical sense..." But that is susceptible to misunderstanding. I can not admit that the Trinity is absurd as some might say your words imply. Our position about incomprehensibility makes room for detractors that take comfort in believing that non-LDS screwballs hold that beauty consists in believing what is plainly stupid.

Edited June 23, 2019 by 3DOP

[longview]

Jane_Doe said:
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question). - - - As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, some Trinitarians would be ok with the Son having a visual physical body, but the Father being a visually and physically separate person of Spirit, whatever Spirit might be? That appears to make them of two different substances and persons, not one. 

Jesus said:  "I am the Resurrection and the Life . . ."  I am interested in knowing what the Modalists and Trinitarians think the meaning of the Resurrection is.  Do they understand that this involves the reunion of physical body and the spirit resulting in a glorified and eternal body?  The Genesis account states that both God the Father and Jesus participated in forming Adam and Eve's bodies.  In God's Image, meaning all of them looked like each other.  John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I would rather put it this way: It seems reasonable that we cannot completely understand the Trinity. I get what you say: "It's not supposed to make logical sense..." But that is susceptible to misunderstanding. I can not admit that the Trinity is absurd as some might say your words imply. Our position about incomprehensibility makes room for detractors that take comfort in believing that non-LDS screwballs hold that beauty consists in believing what is plainly stupid.

I used to be very uncomfortable with Catholics responding "it's a mystery" whenever (it seemed to me) that they got into a corner in a discussion but now that I am more mature and studied in all that language cannot do,  I am getting to the opinion that just about everything about God really is beyond the ability of language to convey, even assuming a great and logical paradigm for how it all works.

The reality is that Wittgenstein and Theresa of Avila had a lot in common on these issues.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LUUA7G6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Great book!

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, longview said:

Jane_Doe said:
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question). - - - As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

Jesus said:  "I am the Resurrection and the Life . . ."  I am interested in knowing what the Modalists and Trinitarians think the meaning of the Resurrection is.  Do they understand that this involves the reunion of physical body and the spirit resulting in a glorified and eternal body?  The Genesis account states that both God the Father and Jesus participated in forming Adam and Eve's bodies.  In God's Image, meaning all of them looked like each other.  John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

 Indeed! I have often asked the questions, "When Jesus showed his resurrected body to his apostles and others, they touched it and verified it was physical and it was his. Did he leave it on earth when he ascended? When he appears again, will it be with that same body? Where is that body now? If we were to see him, what would we see? Does his body exist in time and space? If so, where?" LDS scriptures and teachings answer those questions satisfactorily for me. I would like to hear someone else's opinions.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I would rather put it this way: It seems reasonable that we cannot completely understand the Trinity. I get what you say: "It's not supposed to make logical sense..." But that is susceptible to misunderstanding. I can not admit that the Trinity is absurd as some might say your words imply. Our position about incomprehensibility makes room for detractors that take comfort in believing that non-LDS screwballs hold that beauty consists in believing what is plainly stupid.

I have heard sentiments like this many times. I don't think the notion of the Trinity is stupid, by the way. I simply don't understand the explanations I have been given. Here's a good example of what I have heard that the mystery is the beauty. 

Quote

The beauty peculiar to the Christian God is grounded in his unique being, his distinctive life, and his identifiable character. But God's being is a being in consubstantiality among three persons; his life is the one life together of Father, Son, and Spirit; and his character is made known definitively in the sending of the Son of God into the world in the fullness of time, and the sending of the Spirit of the Son into the hearts of the redeemed, crying, Father.

Therefore in the one divine essence, in the three divine persons, and in the economy of salvation, it is as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that God is beautiful. Thus, to call once more on the two witnesses, Karl Barth went on to say, triunity of God is the secret of his beauty, while Edwards testified that God has appeared glorious to me, on account of the Trinity. It has made me have exalting thoughts of God, that he subsists in three persons; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

http://scriptoriumdaily.com/beauty-of-the-trinity/

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, that truly is the beauty of it?

We should be careful. Many of us believe in an unending succession of deities going backwards forever. We may not want to throw stones about doctrinal incomprehensibility.

I do believe that a correct knowledge of the nature of God is more important then that though and greatly strengthens faith and hope.

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We should be careful. Many of us believe in an unending succession of deities going backwards forever. We may not want to throw stones about doctrinal incomprehensibility.

I do believe that a correct knowledge of the nature of God is more important then that though and greatly strengthens faith and hope.

Yep.

[SettingDogStar]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We should be careful. Many of us believe in an unending succession of deities going backwards forever. We may not want to throw stones about doctrinal incomprehensibility.

I do believe that a correct knowledge of the nature of God is more important then that though and greatly strengthens faith and hope.

Exactly. The Brother is Jared pierced the veil with his faith and apparently had no clue the Lord had a body. The Lamanite King gave up all his sins and was born of God (and even saw God) with the basics understanding that He was a “Great Spirit.”

Its understanding of His attributes that produces faith. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Indeed! I have often asked the questions, "When Jesus showed his resurrected body to his apostles and others, they touched it and verified it was physical and it was his. Did he leave it on earth when he ascended? When he appears again, will it be with that same body? Where is that body now? If we were to see him, what would we see? Does his body exist in time and space? If so, where?" LDS scriptures and teachings answer those questions satisfactorily for me. I would like to hear someone else's opinions.

Just today I thought of a really snarky answer to those who laugh at us saying that "Joe Smith had the Gold Bible, and now it's gone? How convenient!"  The answer was: "Well, Jesus got resurrected with an immortal body, and now where is it?  How convenient!"  I'm still wondering if that's too disrespectful and snarky...

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Just today I thought of a really snarky answer to those who laugh at us saying that "Joe Smith had the Gold Bible, and now it's gone? How convenient!"  The answer was: "Well, Jesus got resurrected with an immortal body, and now where is it?  How convenient!"  I'm still wondering if that's too disrespectful and snarky...

Well, could you smile while saying it?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, could you smile while saying it?

Yeah, I think so.  I'd have to. Cuz it's funny!

[3DOP]

On 6/22/2019 at 11:51 PM, longview said:

Jane_Doe said:
(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question). - - - As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

Jesus said:  "I am the Resurrection and the Life . . ."  I am interested in knowing what the Modalists and Trinitarians think the meaning of the Resurrection is.  Do they understand that this involves the reunion of physical body and the spirit resulting in a glorified and eternal body?  The Genesis account states that both God the Father and Jesus participated in forming Adam and Eve's bodies.  In God's Image, meaning all of them looked like each other.  John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Hello longview.

I do not know that there is any way to answer what "the Modalists" think. Is there a community of modalists anywhere? Even if they are they probably deny being "modalists". Anyway, as a Catholic , I insist on the truth of what you describe about the Resurrection in each detail. I am a little puzzled why you would doubt that we would be in agreement. I would add that for the just, it would mean going to a special abode in the heavens, where our Lord and His Blessed Mother specially dwell together with the saints and the good angels. Jesus promised that "he goes to prepare a place for us. Further than that, as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the adopted sons and daughters of the Father, already dwell in heavenly places. St. Paul describes this In Eph. 2:6: "[God] hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus."

Ironically, the John 14:9 passage, if you want to attribute it to physical appearance, could lend itself better to Modalism than Mormonism. Catholics hold that "the image of God" in man is speaking to immaterial realities that are not given to lower creatures. When God made us, He made us with capacities for wisdom, free will, and rational judgment. We call ourselves homo sapiens. We are the only corporal beings that God created with an aptitude to receive sapientia, that is Latin for wisdom. But to reveal Himself to us, the Father sent the Wisdom of God, His Son, and our Lord, Jesus Christ. If Philip was hoping to see something like a supernatural photograph, I am not sure. Jesus sure didn't show Him one though. To see God, is less a function of the ocular nerves, than it is an understanding of an infinite ocean of goodness, worthy of all glory forever. Knowing that this is what we are made for, God needs not our praise, but the human soul that does not see God, and praise God for His immaterial attributes is disfunctional. Jesus certainly came to show us what the Father is like, not by outward appearance, but by deeds and acts that reflect a mercy and love that would have seemed impossible to the philosophers who proposed a transcendent God. That is good news to men.

And not that only...more is revealed about what it means, the mystery of His incarnation, when He sent His Son to be one of us. So He came, and now, after the Ascension of our Lord, one of us, fully human, despised by the devils on earth, opens the gates of heaven to be properly adored forever. The King of glory has come in, and in his train are countless souls who had been awaiting their redemption before he visited them between His death and the Resurrection. Leading captivity captive, our Great Prince and Captain, our Brother and Savior, throws opens the doors of Heaven and takes His rightful place before the Father, while bearing the very nature of Adam and of us. What glorious mysteries the Ascension implies for us. What a pageant that must have been. Can you imagine the holy cheers and joyous celebration of all the heavenly inhabitants at such a marvel? Do we need to be shown a photo? Do we need to be there in person? Is that the only way to see? Surely not, for though we see it not with our physical eyes, we believe that Christ's fellow brothers and sisters on earth, are "sitting together with Him, in the heavenly places" even now.

May we be enabled to continually and lovingly marvel at this our God-given capacity for heavenly bliss in its fullness, both here and now, and for eternity in the same heavenly places. Because marvel leads to praise. Peace be with you.

Rory

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by 3DOP

[Calm]

On 6/22/2019 at 10:51 PM, longview said:

I am interested in knowing what the Modalists .....think the meaning of the Resurrection is. 

If wiki is correct, it appears modern modalists believe God is to be called Jesus now incarnated God or God in the flesh, where before he was called the Father or Yahweh being transcendent God (God in Spirit).

Quote

Modalistic Monarchianism (also known as Oneness Christology) is a Christian theology that upholds the oneness of God as well as the deity of Jesus Christ. It is a form of Monarchianism and as such stands in contrast with Trinitarianism. Modalistic Monarchianism considers God to be one while working through the different "modes" or "manifestations" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Following this view, all the Godhead is understood to have dwelt in Jesus Christ from the incarnation. The terms Father and Son are then used to describe the distinction between the transcendence of God and the incarnation (God in immanence). Lastly, since God is a spirit, it is held that the Holy Spirit should not be understood as a separate entity but rather to describe God in action.

Modalistic Monarchians believe in the deity of Jesus and understand Jesus to be a manifestation of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, in the flesh. For this reason they find it suitable to ascribe all worship appropriate to God alone to Jesus also....

Modalistic Monarchians believe in the deity of Jesus and understand Jesus, the Son of God, to be a manifestation of the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, in the flesh. When Jesus was on Earth, he referred to God as his Father since God caused his conception through the Holy Spirit. Since God is spirit, the Holy Spirit is used to describe God in action. In this way, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered titles pertaining to the one God, not descriptions of distinct individuals.

Because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are maintained to be titles, most Modalistic Monarchians would believe that they fulfill the commandment of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by baptizing solely in the name of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus is the name given for salvation (Acts 4:12), Modalistic Monarchians would argue that this led the Apostles in the book of Acts fulfilling the commandment of Jesus by baptizing in the one name of the one God, Jesus. 

Much of their theology attempts to begin with an Old Testament understanding of God in order to understand what the first Apostles would have believed about Jesus. They also seek to avoid use of theological categories produced by Platonic-Aristotelian epistemologies, preferring rather to tell the story of redemption through narrative.[2] Thus, the distinction found in the New Testament writers between God the Father and Jesus is understood to be from the attempts to identify God the Father and Jesus together, rather than to separate them more than necessary.

From the Pentacostal wiki page, it is a bit clearer imo:

Quote

The central belief of classical Pentecostalism is that through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, sins can be forgiven and humanity reconciled with God.[15]This is the Gospel or "good news". The fundamental requirement of Pentecostalism is that one be born again.[16] The new birth is received by the grace of God through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.[17] In being born again, the believer is regenerated, justified, adopted into the family of God, and the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification is initiated.[18]...

In Oneness theology, the Godhead is not three persons united by one substance, but one person who reveals himself as three different modes. Thus, God manifests himself as Father within creation, he becomes Son by virtue of his incarnation as Jesus Christ, and he becomes the Holy Spirit by way of his activity in the life of the believer

This appears to be a oneness pentacostal site:

https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/BodilyResurrectionInvention.htm

https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/resurrection.htm

Quote

What do you do with a man who was raised from the dead, never to see death again? That was the question early Christians posed to an unbelieving world. It is the same question we must ask ourselves today. The historical evidence for Christ's resurrection compels us to consider the God of Christianity, because in the resurrection of Jesus, God has acted in time-space history in a decisive way.

Christians share a conviction that God raised Jesus from the dead as the forerunner and exemplar of our own eschatological resurrection. It is His resurrection that constitutes the factual foundation upon which the Christian hope is based. His resurrection (1) demonstrates that there is a God, and He is the God of the Bible; (2) confirms for us that Jesus is who He claimed to be; (3) confirms the veracity of His teachings; (4) confirms the coming of a future judgment; (5) and firmly establishes our own hope of future resurrection. 

All of us have rebelled against God; all of us have rejected His will in favor of asserting our own. We have broken His just laws, and are deserving of punishment. But the God who is perfect justice is also perfect love. While His perfect justice demands punishment for sin, His infinite love desires mercy. What is God to do? How can He abstain from punishing us, and yet remain just? His solution was Christ. God's justice and mercy meet at the cross. Christ, whose sinless life made Him undeserving of punishment, accepted God's holy wrath in our stead. He volunteered to be our substitute. As God manifest in human existence, Christ's death was of infinite value, able to atone for the sins of the whole world. All He asks of us is that we accept what He did on our behalf; that we acknowledge our sin, and our lack of ability to fix the problem.

God has offered us a solution to our sin problem, but on His terms, not ours. Christ paid the penalty for our sin, receiving the punishment that ought to have been our own. No one else has done this-not Buddha, not Mohammed, or any other man. Now we have a choice. If we accept Christ, God considers our debt of sin as paid in full. If we reject Christ, however, we reject the only solution to our guilt, and elect to pay for our own crimes against God. If we choose to stand before God based on our own works we will surely face condemnation. If we choose to stand before God based on Christ's work on our behalf, however, we can expect mercy and grace. That's the Gospel. That's the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 12:43 AM, Bernard Gui said:

 Indeed! I have often asked the questions, "When Jesus showed his resurrected body to his apostles and others, they touched it and verified it was physical and it was his. Did he leave it on earth when he ascended? When he appears again, will it be with that same body? Where is that body now? If we were to see him, what would we see? Does his body exist in time and space? If so, where?" LDS scriptures and teachings answer those questions satisfactorily for me. I would like to hear someone else's opinions.

I once asked a lady I worked with this question and she stared at me with puzzlement. She'd never considered it and didn't have an answer. "If Jesus was resurrected, does he still have a body?" She ultimately admitted she didn't know. "When we are resurrected will we always have that resurrected body?" She didn't know. I was really trying to understand when I asked the question and I didn't mind at all that she didn't know, but what I did mind is that even though she didn't know what she believed, she knew I was wrong and most likely going to hell  

She was a Baptist, but also a modalist, I think, even if modalism isn't officially the teaching or doctrine.

I've sat in many Baptist, Methodist church meetings and I hear pastors teach modalism. Perhaps its the fall back because it's easier to understand. But I really think that most/many American Christians of various denominations really do believe in modalism.

*This is such an interesting topic. Thanks all, for the conversation. (especially those with better Trinitarian understanding- which is most of you  )

[longview]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Anyway, as a Catholic , I insist on the truth of what you describe about the Resurrection in each detail. I am a little puzzled why you would doubt that we would be in agreement. I would add that for the just, it would mean going to a special abode in the heavens, where our Lord and His Blessed Mother specially dwell together with the saints and the good angels. Jesus promised that "he goes to prepare a place for us.

Thank you for your gracious manner and expressions.  I don't feel scholarly enough to properly address all your points.  Could you help me understand if there is a distinction between state of being and residing in a glorious abode?  In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul asserts that the resurrection will be available to ALL men (Christ being the FIRST to be resurrected).  He teaches that there will be 3 degrees of glory (state of being) in the resurrection:

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

This corruption refers to the Fall initiated by Adam and Eve.  Which introduced death into the world and causing the bodies (state of being) of Adam and Eve and all their posterity to have a fallen nature.  Interestingly Jesus affirms that both the righteous and the wicked will be resurrected.  See John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Ironically, the John 14:9 passage, if you want to attribute it to physical appearance, could lend itself better to Modalism than Mormonism. Catholics hold that "the image of God" in man is speaking to immaterial realities that are not given to lower creatures. When God made us, He made us with capacities for wisdom, free will, and rational judgment. We call ourselves homo sapiens. We are the only corporal beings that God created with an aptitude to receive sapientia, that is Latin for wisdom. But to reveal Himself to us, the Father sent the Wisdom of God, His Son, and our Lord, Jesus Christ. If Philip was hoping to see something like a supernatural photograph, I am not sure. Jesus sure didn't show Him one though. To see God, is less a function of the ocular nerves, than it is an understanding of an infinite ocean of goodness, worthy of all glory forever.

Good point.  This verse could ensnare us into modalism.  However Jesus did encourage all of us to search the scriptures (in order to obtain a more balanced overview of the doctrines).  It does hinge on the word "SEEN" used twice in this passage.  Maybe some scholar on this board can help us out by analyzing the Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew meaning of the word in depth.  My conviction is that the act of SEEING Jesus as He appears will be the same as SEEING the Father as He appears.  My personal belief is Jesus was half human (through the blood/DNA of Mary who was fully human, not some exalted being as taught by the Catholic Church) and the DNA of God the Father (which was conveyed by the Holy Ghost through the abdominal wall without sexual intercourse).  My inclination is think that Jesus was like an identical twin of the Father.

Many skeptics like to use John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; to deny the First Vision experienced by Joseph Smith.  A better clarification is found in John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.  I believe that man can SEE God and comprehend His Image and appearance.  God does have arms, legs and all the features of the human body (except in a glorious state).  Many passages throughout the Old and New Testaments affirm this truth.  Adam/Eve, Enoch, Isaiah and many of the prophets did SEE God.