Apostolic Pentacostal beliefs?

[Aeg071]

You are welcome.

I will say that Oneness Pentecostals tend to be more antagonistic or hostile toward Catholics than Trinitarian Pentecostals tend to be (especially since much of the hostility within Trinitarian Pentecostalism has abated in recent years).

I will also point out a difference between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal soteriology.

Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that salvation is received by grace through faith. Repentance must accompany faith. These are the only “essential” acts we believe are required to become a Christian: faith and repentance.

Oneness Pentecostals, however, believe that 3 essential elements are necessary to become a Christian and gain salvation:

1. Faith and repentance
2. Water baptism in the Name of Jesus
3. Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

I point this out because this differs from the standard evangelical soteriology.

As an Apostolic Pentecostal I believe Faith, repentance and baptism in Jesus name is essential to gain salvation. but the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a gift and everyone will not receive it. I do not believe because one has not spoken in tongues or baptized in the trinitarian formula, one would"t be a Christian.I may not be able to say you have the baptism of the Holy Spirit but I wouldn’t say your not a Christian because if you are not holding up the blood stained banner and sanctified yourself whole, then it wold all be in vain anyway. O and even tho I am only 42 I am still a little uncomfortable with women wearing pants to church, definitely standing on the pulpit in pants,but that is just me.I don’t see anything wrong with earrings and makeup as long as one doesn’t look like Jezebel. I remember growing up in the 80’s and at the conventions the other Apostolic churches would whisper we were not saved because our Bishop was moderate allowing women to modestly wear earrings and makeup. and pants when necessary (not on the pulpit tho). I thought it funny at the time.

 

[Porknpie]

When I stated I was of the mind, means I am incline to believe that Jesus did not say the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that He actually said In My Name and the titles we substituted at some point in history

Aeg, by the same logic, a Muslim says that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not the Son of God, a prophet only as the Truth was altered by humans and that the bible is not the inerrant Word of God.

but for the sake of that argument, We say the titles quoted are authentic from Christ mouth.What Jesus said in Matthew and what the Apostles did in Acts has to be the same thing or the Apostle disobeyed the command,they were there when He said it so they would know what He actually said and what He actually meant .

We can read what the Church has taught since the death of Christ. This includes the Early Church Fathers (the first Catholic Christians) and scripture itself. Christ taught the twelve apostles and no matter where they all went to preach the Gospel they taught baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One does not find a Church anywhere baptizing in the name of Jesus only.

Here’s a Catholic.com tract written on this subject.

You need to go research because the Catholic Church as already conceded that the early Church baptized in Jesus Name .

Please provide the source please.

Quotes from the so called Church Fathers after the Infallible Word of God was written

No, the Earliest Church Fathers wrote nearly 300 years before the canon of scripture was developed.

may be Gospel to you but to me it is just what the so called Church Fathers thought based on what they were taught.(Not the inspired Word).

And how do you know what writings are inspired and what are not inspired? How do you know that all the books in your bible are both inspired and inerrant?

 

[Aeg071]

Aeg, by the same logic, a Muslim says that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not the Son of God, a prophet only as the Truth was altered by humans and that the bible is not the inerrant Word of God.

We can read what the Church has taught since the death of Christ. This includes the Early Church Fathers (the first Catholic Christians) and scripture itself. Christ taught the twelve apostles and no matter where they all went to preach the Gospel they taught baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One does not find a Church anywhere baptizing in the name of Jesus only.

Here’s a Catholic.com tract written on this subject.

Please provide the source please.

No, the Earliest Church Fathers wrote nearly 300 years before the canon of scripture was developed.

And how do you know what writings are inspired and what are not inspired? How do you know that all the books in your bible are both inspired and inerrant?

The Catholic Church records is my source.It amazes me how you use Church Fathers,as if the Church had always been unified.The early Church had various theological belief Until the Unity was solidified o maybe around AD 381 in Constantinople or maybe AD 431 at Chalcedon. With that said for me who is considered a Church father is in the eye of the beholder be cause there are a few so called church Father that you hold dear who I believe did not hold to the modern trinitarian view . The original Apostle’s Creed as written I as a Apostle Pentecostal believe and accept. But the other creeds that give the impression that God is 3 individuals I do not. Although the doctrine of the trinity is explained not to be 3 individuals perse, but when you try to explain God’s nature like you do ,you can’t help but sound like your talking about 3 actual individuals.Father I can see ,Son I can see, Holy Spirit I can see.especially when using English to describe God’s being…At the end of the day the only real difference is the belief that the Ousia was manifested in 3 hypostatsis/Prospon/Personae/Persons or what you belief the Ousia is shared among 3 hypostatsis/Prospon/Personae/Persons. I believe the Ousia was manifested, you believe it it shared. As Christians we all read the same Bible but we all don’t believe that it is Christ who will come the Judge .

 

[Porknpie]

The Catholic Church records is my source.It amazes me how you use Church Fathers,as if the Church had always been unified.The early Church had various theological belief Until the Unity was solidified o maybe around AD 381 in Constantinople or maybe AD 431 at Chalcedon. With that said for me who is considered a Church father is in the eye of the beholder be cause there are a few so called church Father that you hold dear who I believe did not hold to the modern trinitarian view . The original Apostle’s Creed as written I as a Apostle Pentecostal believe and accept. But the other creeds that give the impression that God is 3 individuals I do not. Although the doctrine of the trinity is explained not to be 3 individuals perse, but when you try to explain God’s nature like you do ,you can’t help but sound like your talking about 3 actual individuals.Father I can see ,Son I can see, Holy Spirit I can see.especially when using English to describe God’s being…At the end of the day the only real difference is the belief that the Ousia was manifested in 3 hypostatsis/Prospon/Personae/Persons or what you belief the Ousia is shared among 3 hypostatsis/Prospon/Personae/Persons. I believe the Ousia was manifested, you believe it it shared. As Christians we all read the same Bible but we all don’t believe that it is Christ who will come the Judge .

Aeg -

With all respect, you are challenging the belief in the Trinity, held by 99% of Christendom. Do you have a source in the early Church or even from “Catholic Records” as your describe?

There is nothing in the Apostles Creed that denies the Trinity. In fact it upholds the Trinity as I reference below.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia below.
A few years before this (c. 390), the letter addressed to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213) supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum (“Creed of the Apostles”) in these striking words: “If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate.” The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the “Symbol of the Trinity”, and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143).

Aeg, the above is an example of the “Catholic Church records” to which you refer. The Apostles Creed was and is a creed of the Catholic Church that recognizes the Trinity.

PnP

 

[Aeg071]

Aeg -

With all respect, you are challenging the belief in the Trinity, held by 99% of Christendom. Do you have a source in the early Church or even from “Catholic Records” as your describe?

There is nothing in the Apostles Creed that denies the Trinity. In fact it upholds the Trinity as I reference below.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia below.
A few years before this (c. 390), the letter addressed to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213) supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum (“Creed of the Apostles”) in these striking words: “If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate.” The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the “Symbol of the Trinity”, and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143).

Aeg, the above is an example of the “Catholic Church records” to which you refer. The Apostles Creed was and is a creed of the Catholic Church that recognizes the Trinity.

PnP

The Apostle Creed that you just quoted is not trinnitarian. It mentioning Father Son and Holy Spirit does not make it Trinitarian. I believe just that. But I don’t believe the Ousia is shared among 3 hypostasis because the Creed did not say that. Now the proceeding councils did say the Ousia is shared.

The majority of Christendom are Trinitarian in name only especially Protestant Trinitarians, they view the Trinity from a as you guys would say Modalist perspective . You should research that. Most Trinitarians I know who not be considered orthodox. I understand what is considered Orthodox Christianity more than any Trinitarian I have spoken to in person…That could because I as a teenager went and studied it and church history because I wanted know why the majority of Christians were Trinitarian. Over the past 25 years my understanding has grown. I had some one on another site tell it was extremely refreshing to debate a Apostolic Pentecostal who understood the Trinitarian doctrine. So I can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared among others even tho that is what the Church decided the scriptures declared…

 

[Porknpie]

The Apostle Creed that you just quoted is not trinnitarian. It mentioning Father Son and Holy Spirit does not make it Trinitarian. I believe just that. But I don’t believe the Ousia is shared among 3 hypostasis because the Creed did not say that. Now the proceeding councils did say the Ousia is shared.

then the Council of Milan some 1,500 years closer in time to the apostles disagrees with you. They refer to the apostles Creed as Trinitarian.

The majority of Christendom are Trinitarian in name only especially Protestant Trinitarians, they view the Trinity from a as you guys would say Modalist perspective . You should research that. Most Trinitarians I know who not be considered orthodox.

what is your definition of Orthodox regarding belief in the Trinity? And which protestant churches do not hold an orthodox belief?

So I can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared among others even tho that is what the Church decided the scriptures declared…

it’s inconsistent to trust that The Church declared what was scripture, the writings that are in your bible, but not trust the same Church on the Trinity. If you believe The Church errored on the Trinity, then you have to be consistent and believe that the Church errored on what writings are inspired and inerrant.

PnP

 

[Darryl_B]

The majority of Christendom are Trinitarian in name only especially Protestant Trinitarians, they view the Trinity from a as you guys would say Modalist perspective . You should research that.

This is a very very very false observation of Christendom.

So I can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared among others even tho that is what the Church decided the scriptures declared…

I too can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared amoung others because that is what the Church teaches.

 

[Aeg071]

then the Council of Milan some 1,500 years closer in time to the apostles disagrees with you. They refer to the apostles Creed as Trinitarian.

what is your definition of Orthodox regarding belief in the Trinity? And which protestant churches do not hold an orthodox belief?

it’s inconsistent to trust that The Church declared what was scripture, the writings that are in your bible, but not trust the same Church on the Trinity. If you believe The Church errored on the Trinity, then you have to be consistent and believe that the Church errored on what writings are inspired and inerrant.

PnP

Let me clarify talking to the average Trinitarian protestant on the Trinity I find more often than not that their explanation is not the Orthodox definition of the Trinitarian dogma .What they end up explaining the Trinity to be, comes across as an answer Apostolic Pentecostals would give even tho by all accounts they are Trinitarian. I do believe that is because one would actually have to systematically be taught the doctrine of the Trinity .Average Christians reading the bible on their own usually would not draw the conclusion that scriptures declare the Ousia to be shared among 3 hypostasis. That has to be taught otherwise the average christian will and they do come to an Apostolic Pentecostal perspective of what the scriptures declares.Because of that I am not as obnoxious as Apostolic Pentecostals tend to come across when speaking about God’s nature.I know we will never see 3 individual subsistence Father,Son, Holy Spirit all sharing the Ousia . The doctrine makes God’s being out to be just like ours when it is not outside of the Logos made .flesh.

 

[Aeg071]

This is a very very very false observation of Christendom.

I too can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared among others because that is what the Church teaches.

What the Church teaches and what the Bible say by all accounts to some degree are two different things. For example nowhere in scripture does it say that Christ is God the Son the second person of the Triune God and that He was eternally generated from the Father. Yet the Universal Christian Church teach that. Nothing in scripture would lead me personally to believe such. I can’t see how one could be generated from that Which is from none and be co equal and co eternal unless of course that which is generated is in actuality HE who is from none. You guys say Christ is of the same substance(homoousios) as the Father. I believe He is the same substance(homoousios) as the Father.

 

[Darryl_B]

What the Church teaches and what the Bible say by all accounts to some degree are two different things. For example nowhere in scripture does it say that Christ is God the Son the second person of the Triune God and that He was eternally generated from the Father. Yet the Universal Christian Church teach that. Nothing in scripture would lead me personally to believe such. I can’t see how one could be generated from that Which is from none and be co equal and co eternal unless of course that which is generated is in actuality HE who is from none. You guys say Christ is of the same substance(homoousios) as the Father. I believe He is the same substance(homoousios) as the Father.

So the way you interpret the phrase “God manifest in the flesh”, would be along the lines of impersonator. eg You buy tickets to go see Elvis in concert but when you get there you are confronted with an Elvis impersonator.

On the other hand the Church would view it as you buy tickets to go see Elvis in concert but when you get there the lights are off and it is dark and you cannot see, but then the lights come on and you see the real Elvis.

To you Emmanuel means “God-like with us”, whereas the Church would view it as “God with us”.

 

[Porknpie]

Let me clarify talking to the average Trinitarian protestant on the Trinity I find more often than not that their explanation is not the Orthodox definition of the Trinitarian dogma .What they end up explaining the Trinity to be, comes across as an answer Apostolic Pentecostals would give even tho by all accounts they are Trinitarian.

Aeg -



That the average Catholic Christian or protestant Christian can not explain the Trinity has no bearing on what their Church professes as truth. There a lot of poorly catechized Catholics and non-Catholic’s alike. But if we look at what The Church professes, we can see Truth, even if the flock can not explain it or if they explain it in error. Ninety-nine percent of Christendom holds to the Trinity, even if 99% of those in the pews can not explain it. Now I don’t believe that the latter number is true but I use that to make a point only: scripture says The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Best to find out what The Church professes and believes and hold to that, rather than asking layman to explain this concept to you.

Per my earlier post, history records The Church through the Council of Milan that the Apostles Creed is Trinitarian. You can argue that The Church errored in believing so but from what source do you argue? Your argument would be strongest if you can find a Church document that says that the Apostles Creed was not Trinitarian. I’m still waiting for you to provide any document from The Church that takes a position counter to the Trinity.

PnP

 

[Aeg071]

So the way you interpret the phrase “God manifest in the flesh”, would be along the lines of impersonator. eg You buy tickets to go see Elvis in concert but when you get there you are confronted with an Elvis impersonator.

On the other hand the Church would view it as you buy tickets to go see Elvis in concert but when you get there the lights are off and it is dark and you cannot see, but then the lights come on and you see the real Elvis.

To you Emmanuel means “God-like with us”, whereas the Church would view it as “God with us”.

NO God manifest in the Flesh to me means the Almighty creator of all things who is unseen I might add, by His Logos took the form of a servant and came in mans likeness.Christ is the Logos that was with God and that was God Himself.For Jesus to be the express image of God (the immaterial) is actually God’s image(material) which would make Him God Himself. Before the world was The Lamb(Christ) was slain before it’s very foundation As to your Emmanuel reference, being that it was The Most High who tabernacled the virgin albeit a man only The Most High would come from the virgin. I have a saying" “A Son(man) was born, but it was God who came HIMSELF. In the words of a modern Trinitarian theologian " God is distinguishable in thought,but not separable in Fact.”

 

[Aeg071]

Aeg -



That the average Catholic Christian or protestant Christian can not explain the Trinity has no bearing on what their Church professes as truth. There a lot of poorly catechized Catholics and non-Catholic’s alike. But if we look at what The Church professes, we can see Truth, even if the flock can not explain it or if they explain it in error. Ninety-nine percent of Christendom holds to the Trinity, even if 99% of those in the pews can not explain it. Now I don’t believe that the latter number is true but I use that to make a point only: scripture says The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Best to find out what The Church professes and believes and hold to that, rather than asking layman to explain this concept to you.

Per my earlier post, history records The Church through the Council of Milan that the Apostles Creed is Trinitarian. You can argue that The Church errored in believing so but from what source do you argue? Your argument would be strongest if you can find a Church document that says that the Apostles Creed was not Trinitarian. I’m still waiting for you to provide any document from The Church that takes a position counter to the Trinity.

PnP

I did not say the majority of Christians were not Trinitarians ,what I said was the majority of Christians understanding of the Trinity is modalistic and viewed as Apostolic Pentecostals view God’s very being…

 

[andrewstx]

The Apostle Creed that you just quoted is not trinnitarian. It mentioning Father Son and Holy Spirit does not make it Trinitarian. I believe just that. But I don’t believe the Ousia is shared among 3 hypostasis because the Creed did not say that. Now the proceeding councils did say the Ousia is shared.

The majority of Christendom are Trinitarian in name only especially Protestant Trinitarians, they view the Trinity from a as you guys would say Modalist perspective . You should research that. Most Trinitarians I know who not be considered orthodox. I understand what is considered Orthodox Christianity more than any Trinitarian I have spoken to in person…That could because I as a teenager went and studied it and church history because I wanted know why the majority of Christians were Trinitarian. Over the past 25 years my understanding has grown. I had some one on another site tell it was extremely refreshing to debate a Apostolic Pentecostal who understood the Trinitarian doctrine. So I can say safely that I do not believe the scriptures declare God’s Essence and Being is shared among others even tho that is what the Church decided the scriptures declared…

You might just have the tinyist of points there. Sometimes I question the orthodoxy and Christology of some Protestants who always call Jesus the Son of God, but never call Jesus God the Son.

 

[Aeg071]

Originally Posted by Porknpie View Post
Aeg

I’m still waiting for you to provide any document from The Church that takes a position counter to the Trinity.

Any church records show the History and development of the Trinity and all the controversy that went with it. Up until councils Decreed the doctrine.

The church can’t teach me about God’s being, with that said I know what the Church. teaches. I also know what the church teaches must be consistent with scripture.I believe the idea that God’s very Essence and Being are shared among 3 hypostasis to be inconsistent with scripture.

Can any of you Catholics riddle me this. When the Jews took up stones to stone Christ. Can you say beyond a shadow of a doubt the Jews did so because Christ claimed to be God the Son the 2nd hypostasis of the Triune God. Can you say with certainty that is what the Jews believed Christ to claim. .

I generally know what the Church say, The Bible say and the traditions of men. Of course I will take The Holy Bible every time.

 

[fbl9]

Originally Posted by Porknpie View Post
Aeg

I’m still waiting for you to provide any document from The Church that takes a position counter to the Trinity.

Any church records show the History and development of the Trinity and all the controversy that went with it. Up until councils Decreed the doctrine.

The church can’t teach me about God’s being, with that said I know what the Church. teaches. I also know what the church teaches must be consistent with scripture.I believe the idea that God’s very Essence and Being are shared among 3 hypostasis to be inconsistent with scripture.

Can any of you Catholics riddle me this. When the Jews took up stones to stone Christ. Can you say beyond a shadow of a doubt the Jews did so because Christ claimed to be God the Son the 2nd hypostasis of the Triune God. Can you say with certainty that is what the Jews believed Christ to claim. .

I generally know what the Church say, The Bible say and the traditions of men. Of course I will take The Holy Bible every time.

Is it not written; God said “let us make mankind in our image and likeness:…”
Of interest if the Holy Spirit, The Son and The Father are one and the same just different operating modes how do the apostolic pentacostal explain the baptism of Jesus As written by St.Luke We have Jesus separate from the Holy Spirit and Jesus is also standing on earth when the voice from heaven comes.

 

[Darryl_B]

NO God manifest in the Flesh to me means the Almighty creator of all things who is unseen I might add, by His Logos took the form of a servant and came in mans likeness.Christ is the Logos that was with God and that was God Himself.For Jesus to be the express image of God (the immaterial) is actually God’s image(material) which would make Him God Himself. Before the world was The Lamb(Christ) was slain before it’s very foundation As to your Emmanuel reference, being that it was The Most High who tabernacled the virgin albeit a man only The Most High would come from the virgin. I have a saying" “A Son(man) was born, but it was God who came HIMSELF. In the words of a modern Trinitarian theologian " God is distinguishable in thought,but not separable in Fact.”

Thanks for clarifying, you were stating arguments that were Arian in nature, since you had in effect only really been stating “what is wrong with Trinitarian view” type arguments and only really making the statement “my view is correct” without any substantiation, other than thetime spent on your credibility.

So are you a modalist? As in the Oneness Pentecostal movement?

 

[Aeg071]

Is it not written; God said “let us make mankind in our image and likeness:…”
Of interest if the Holy Spirit, The Son and The Father are one and the same just different operating modes how do the apostolic Pentecostal explain the baptism of Jesus As written by St.Luke We have Jesus separate from the Holy Spirit and Jesus is also standing on earth when the voice from heaven comes.

If the Father ,So and Holy Spirit are sharing the Ousia then they would be by all accounts modes of the Ousia.

If one reads let us make man in our image and conclude that One hypostasis called God the Father turns to the eternally generated hypostasis called God the Son and then turns to the eternally proceeding hypostasis called God the Holy Spirit and say that. Then Joseph Smith Founders of the Mormons vision of the Father Son and Holy Spirit appearing before individually in unity and purpose is the same as the Trinity.

God’s means of self disclosure is by His Logos and His Spirit. That which belongs to God Himself. And by His Logos and His Spirit simultaneously a Voice could come from heaven, Christ could come up out the water and a dove can descend without requiring the Ousia to be shared among 3 hypostasis. I say this I believe what the Church teaches on the Logos is inconsistent with scripture. I will post a quote of what I believe to be consistent with scripture written by a Trinitarian Theologian imagine that.
"As the Logos, Jesus Christ is God in self-revelation (Light) and redemption (Life). He is God to the extent that he can be present to man and knowable to man. The Logos is God ] as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God.
Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God. God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical.
In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action.
The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not “exhaust” God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one and also, "the Father is greater than I.The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God’s Word to us humans; he is the Word.] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person.

 

[Darryl_B]

If the Father ,So and Holy Spirit are sharing the Ousia then they would be by all accounts modes of the Ousia.

If one reads let us make man in our image and conclude that One hypostasis called God the Father turns to the eternally generated hypostasis called God the Son and then turns to the eternally proceeding hypostasis called God the Holy Spirit and say that. Then Joseph Smith Founders of the Mormons vision of the Father Son and Holy Spirit appearing before individually in unity and purpose is the same as the Trinity.

God’s means of self disclosure is by His Logos and His Spirit. That which belongs to God Himself. And by His Logos and His Spirit simultaneously a Voice could come from heaven, Christ could come up out the water and a dove can descend without requiring the Ousia to be shared among 3 hypostasis. I say this I believe what the Church teaches on the Logos is inconsistent with scripture. I will post a quote of what I believe to be consistent with scripture written by a Trinitarian Theologian imagine that.
"As the Logos, Jesus Christ is God in self-revelation (Light) and redemption (Life). He is God to the extent that he can be present to man and knowable to man. The Logos is God ] as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God.
Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God. God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical.
In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action.
The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not “exhaust” God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one and also, "the Father is greater than I.The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God’s Word to us humans; he is the Word.] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person.

You are still using Arian arguments (they aren’t very good ones) but they are still Arian.

If God is modal (which you still have not claimed to be, but you still have not denied it) then, to reiterate, if God is modal it is only for our benefit and observance not His own. The mode only needs to exist because we exist and observe it. So when God said let us make in our image, who’s benefiting from the relative modes? The angels? No, they would know God was being modal and say “you don’t need to do those modes for us, we know that already”.

So when Justin Martyr states that it was God the Son Jesus Christ who appeared to Moses at the burning bush, then according to the modal view, it makes no difference because the mode was not formally defined. If modal was correct when Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven and disappeared from our eyes, He no longer had any reason to be a mode, he would cease to exist, he was no longer manifest, and no longer exists as a mode. So when Paul says in Philippians 2 when God the Son though in form God, did not seek to usurp that, but instead chose to let it go and humbled himself (to who? Me? No. God? Yes).

There is also the distinct problem that modal allows for any number of modes chosen. Here’s a new mode, this is a new mode too. The Trinity cannot change as God states.

 

[Aeg071]

You are still using Arian arguments (they aren’t very good ones) but they are still Arian.

If God is modal (which you still have not claimed to be, but you still have not denied it) then, to reiterate, if God is modal it is only for our benefit and observance not His own. The mode only needs to exist because we exist and observe it. So when God said let us make in our image, who’s benefiting from the relative modes? The angels? No, they would know God was being modal and say “you don’t need to do those modes for us, we know that already”.

So when Justin Martyr states that it was God the Son Jesus Christ who appeared to Moses at the burning bush, then according to the modal view, it makes no difference because the mode was not formally defined. If modal was correct when Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven and disappeared from our eyes, He no longer had any reason to be a mode, he would cease to exist, he was no longer manifest, and no longer exists as a mode. So when Paul says in Philippians 2 when God the Son though in form God, did not seek to usurp that, but instead chose to let it go and humbled himself (to who? Me? No. God? Yes).

There is also the distinct problem that modal allows for any number of modes chosen. Here’s a new mode, this is a new mode too. The Trinity cannot change as God states.

Arian you Catholics don’t know too much I see because Arians deny that Christ is The Almighty God. which I do not so don’t insult me please…I will repeat myself again understanding seems to escape you. Because the Church teaches God" Logos and His Spirit are second and third hypostasis in a Trinity when according to scriptures they are just, His Logos and His Spirit. God said let there be light and it was light. Was One Immaterial being talking to another Immaterial being. I think not. Let us make man in our Image does not Imply that One Immaterial being was actually turned to another Immaterial being saying let us make man in our image. God disclose,expresses,reveals,manifest Himself by His Logos and His Spirit so the vision your painting when you ask that question is impossible.

Justin Martyr I believe is the one who decided that the Logos was a 2nd Divine being as oppose to God’s means of self disclosure. Whenever God appeared in the Old Testament it was the Logos(Christ)) the express image that we are created in…

And He says to the Son your throne o God is forever.So I don’t understand why you would ask me when Christ ascend to heaven why would that mode not just cease…
The questions that you ask and the manner that you ask them are primitive and comes across as if your unlearned.