Is Modalism just ‘Inverse Trinitarianism’?

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe I am both a Trinitarian and a Modalist. Did you think three in one was not a Christian concept?

I believe God is not a man as the scriptures say but I also believe God can be in a man and is in me. I believe the reason you wish that not to be is that you want to keep God as far away as possible. I am a little too close for comfort.

You cannot be both a trinitarian and a modalist at the same time. The two theologies are incompatible. Apparently you don't understand what the terms mean. I am not a chrisitan, but have studied the issue, so I will do the best I can, but I encourage you to get books on the subject and read.

Trinitarianism is the believe that there is only one God, one essense, but that this essence is three distinct persons. Modalism believes that there is one God who is ONE PERSON (not three) and that person is known as the father son and holy spirit depending on the mode of what is happening. Because you cannot say that God is only one person and also three persons at the same time (cannot be x and not x at the same time) it is impossible to be both Trinitarian and Modalist.

there is neither Trinitarianism nor Modalism, nor Unitarianism, or anything else that is not of sound doctrine.

God is the "ECHAD" of himself in flesh and Bone. the TRUE Man.

101G.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the doctrines of Trinitarianism and Modalism don't exist? Or are you just saying they are both wrong?

 

[101G]

You cannot be both a trinitarian and a modalist at the same time. The two theologies are incompatible. Apparently you don't understand what the terms mean. I am not a chrisitan, but have studied the issue, so I will do the best I can, but I encourage you to get books on the subject and read.

Trinitarianism is the believe that there is only one God, one essense, but that this essence is three distinct persons. Modalism believes that there is one God who is ONE PERSON (not three) and that person is known as the father son and holy spirit depending on the mode of what is happening. Because you cannot say that God is only one person and also three persons at the same time (cannot be x and not x at the same time) it is impossible to be both Trinitarian and Modalist.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that the doctrines of Trinitarianism and Modalism don't exist? Or are you just saying they are both wrong?

all of them are wrong.

101G.

 

[Soapy]

ERROR, Philippians 2:6 negate that, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

now, listen up, while on earth in a body of blood he, the "Lord" Jesus was in Heaven. supportive scripture, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

101G.

The words, ‘who came down from heaven’ were ADDED by the trinitarian translators who were made to do so to make trinity seem real… failed!

The verse is saying that no one has ever gone into Heaven who did FIRST DIE… that is ‘DESCEND INTO THE GRAVE’.

And the only person who has ever gone into Heaven is Jesus Christ who DIED and then was resurrected again and then entered Heaven.

Did Jesus say he was going BACK to the Father?

Does any verse say Jesus WENT BACK to Heaven, went back to where he was before (careful here:If this is a valid verse then note that Jesus says ‘The Son of Man’… ‘The Son of Man’ is a Human Being and therefore would not be the same as ‘God’ (Spirit Jesus) - GOD never leaves Heaven so would never need to GO BACK!)

 

[101G]

The words, ‘who came down from heaven’ were ADDED by the trinitarian translators who were made to do so to make trinity seem real… failed!

personal opinion? see. your IGNORANCE proceeds you, for the Lord Jesus, God, himself said he came down from Heaven,
John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

you do believe the Lord Jesus right?

101G.

 

[Soapy]

personal opinion? see. your IGNORANCE proceeds you, for the Lord Jesus, God, himself said he came down from Heaven,
John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

you do believe the Lord Jesus right?

101G.

No. Each time the translators ADDED the words ‘came down from Heaven’ to try to propagate the trinity ideology.

Jesus only says that the Father sent him. This ‘sent’ is after Jesus was anointed with holy spirit and tempted by Satan.

Jesus states thus after reading the relavrnt passage from the Torah in the synagogue:

• “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,” (Luke 42:18)
• ‘He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 42:1)

 

[101G]

No. Each time the translators ADDED the words ‘came down from Heaven’ to try to propagate the trinity ideology.

Jesus only says that the Father sent him. This ‘sent’ is after Jesus was anointed with holy spirut and tempted by Satan.

Jesus states thus after reading the relavrnt passage from the Torah in the synagogue:

• “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,” (Luke 42:18)
• ‘He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 42:1)

John 13:3 "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"

John 16:28 "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."

again, you do believe the Lord Jesus. we suggest you look up how "come" and "Sent" are used in context.... (smile)... Oh dear.

101G.

 

[Soapy]

John 13:3 "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"

John 16:28 "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."

again, you do believe the Lord Jesus. we suggest you look up how "come" and "Sent" are used in context.... (smile)... Oh dear.

101G.

‘I came forth from’ is exactly the same as ‘I was sent by’.

 

[Windwalker]

As a Jew, both Trinitarianism and Modalism are offensive to me, since in both cases a man is made out to be God. The Tanakh clearly teaches that God is not a man.

You don't see it possible that God could take the form of a human? What about all those theophanies in the stories of the Bible? Aren't those God 'clothing' himself in physical forms? Then why is it such a stretch as to say God took on the form of a human, or became incarnate in human form?

It seems the precedent was already set. What really is the difference, other than the form itself? Burning bush, versus human child? I don't believe any Christian assumes the flesh and bone body of Jesus was what God is. Do you think they do? Can you kill God? No Christian believes that.

 

[Soapy]

You don't see it possible that God could take the form of a human? What about all those theophanies in the stories of the Bible? Aren't those God 'clothing' himself in physical forms? Then why is it such a stretch as to say God took on the form of a human, or became 'incarnate' in human form?

It seems the precedent was already set. What really is the difference, other than the form itself? Burning bush, versus human child?

The burning bush incident is not YHWH God. God SENDS HIS ANGELS to speak His words and do his deeds.

It is like a king sending a servant or an ambassador or an emissary to speak on his behalf. The King never leaves his throne for such activities… and God is greater than any human king.

In the beginning, God sent angels. Then he sent humans (prophets, holy men)…

In the case of angels, they speak AS THOUGH it were God himself, therefore it maybe that they might say, ‘I’, or ‘Me’. But the holy men would say, ‘The Lord says….’.

So, no. God never ‘puts on flesh’!

 

[Windwalker]

I promote the truth that Jesus is a man born sinless, holy, and righteous as was the first man God made, Adam. This is upheld, in my view, by Jesus being termed, ‘The Last Adam’ since no other ‘Adam’ would ever be created.

So this is your view? All that on one verse of scripture which uses Adam as a figure of speech, as a metaphor? Adam literally means "human", and it is used in scripture that way to speaking of humankind or humans.

Adam[c] is the name given in Genesis 1-5 to the first human.[4] Beyond its use as the name of the first man, adam is also used in the Bible as a pronoun, individually as "a human" and in a collective sense as "mankind".[4] Genesis 1 tells of God's creation of the world and its creatures, including adam, meaning humankind; in Genesis 2 God forms "Adam", this time meaning a single male human, out of "the dust of the ground", places him in the Garden of Eden, and forms a woman,​

​

Adam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

The "last Adam", as a figure of speech, as a metaphor means the 'perfect human', versus the flawed human that happened at first. Where as the first Adam failed, the last Adam did not. And we are all to strive to be like that "last Adam", created by God which didn't fail. It means to be a spiritual human aligned with the will of God, not the desires of the flesh. It means "human", not "the person Adam reincarnated as Jesus!

And you think the doctrine of the Trinity is strange???

Adam was not ‘PERFECT’. God had designed him to GROW INTO PERFECTION

So you are saying that when God said of his own creation "It is good", he meant "It could be good"? God created it is "almost perfect" and really meant to say, "It is good enough"??

And the Lord look upon his creation and said, "It is good enough. I hope they make it".

 

[Windwalker]

The burning bush incident is not YHWH God. God SENDS HIS ANGELS to speak His words and do his deeds.

You don't understand scripture. "The Angel of the Lord", is what is considered a theophany. It is God, manifesting in a physical way. The burning bush said, "I AM" to Moses. If it were an emissary, and not God, as you suggest, it would have say "He is", not I AM.

Theophany (from Ancient Greek (ἡ) θεοφάνεια theophaneia,[1] meaning "appearance of a deity") is a personal encounter with a deity, that is an event where the manifestation of a deity occurs in an observable way.[2][3] Specifically, it "refers to the temporal and spatial manifestation of God in some tangible form."[4]​

​

Theophany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is like a king sending a servant or an ambassador or an emissary to speak on his behalf. The King never leaves his throne for such activities… and God is greater than any human king.

Do you believe God is Infinite in being, or finite in being? Can God "leave" heaven, or "leave" anywhere? Also, do you believe that God can "manifest" his presence in anyway where someone can see God through that manifestation? Yes or no?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't see it possible that God could take the form of a human? What about all those theophanies in the stories of the Bible? Aren't those God 'clothing' himself in physical forms? Then why is it such a stretch as to say God took on the form of a human, or became incarnate in human form?

It seems the precedent was already set. What really is the difference, other than the form itself? Burning bush, versus human child? I don't believe any Christian assumes the flesh and bone body of Jesus was what God is. Do you think they do? Can you kill God? No Christian believes that.

The burning bush was not God. An angel of the LORD spoke through the burning bush. Big difference.

No, basically the Tanakh teaches FOUR TIMES that God is not a man. The idea is simply foreign to my religion.

 

[Windwalker]

The burning bush was not God. An angel of the LORD spoke through the burning bush. Big difference.

Did you not understand what I meant by a theophany?

Theophany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, basically the Tanakh teaches FOUR TIMES that God is not a man. The idea is simply foreign to my religion.

Even Christians do not believe God is a man. You don't understand the idea of the incarnation, do you? Clearly, God cannot die, yet Jesus died. So you think Christians aren't aware of that?

So do you believe God ever manifests himself in or through any forms? Yes or no? If yes, then explain that to us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did you not understand what I meant by a theophany?

Theophany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even Christians do not believe God is a man. You don't understand the idea of the incarnation, do you? Clearly, God cannot die, yet Jesus died. So you think Christians aren't aware of that?

So do you believe God ever manifests himself in or through any forms? Yes or no? If yes, then explain that to us.

Yes I do. And the burning bush was NOT a theophany, contrary to what many christians believe. The messenger aka angel of the LORD is just that -- a messenger, not God himself. Do you see h ow it would make no sense to say "the messenger of Indigo Child" is "Indigo Child"?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes I do. And the burning bush was NOT a theophany, contrary to what many christians believe.

This isn't what just Christian believe. It's what the Jewish scholars say as well: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14363-theophany

THEOPHANY:​

By: Kaufmann Kohler, M. Richtmann​

Table of Contents​

• The Sinaitic Theophany.
• In Isaiah and Ezekiel.
• In the Psalms.

Manifestation of a god to man; the sensible sign by which the presence of a divinity is revealed. If the word is taken in this sense, and the passages which merely mention the fact of a revelation without describing it are separated from those which speak of the "angel of God," only four theophanies will be found in the Bible. Kautzsch (in Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." xv. 538) interprets the term in a broader sense, and divides theophanies into three classes, as follows: (1) those related as historical facts; (2) those which are the subjects of prophetic vision or annunciation; and (3) those which consist in purely poetic fancy. This classification may be applied to the four theophanies. The Sinaitic revelation is historical; the passages relating the divine inspiration of Isaiah (Isa. vi.) and of Ezekiel (Ezek. i.) represent subjects of prophetic vision; and Ps. xviii. 4-16 is poetic description.​

​

The Sinaitic Theophany.​

​

The Sinaitic revelation is related in calm, simple language in Ex. xix. 16-25. The manifestation is accompanied by thunder and lightning; there is a fiery flame, reaching to the sky; the loud notes of a trumpet are heard; and the whole mountain smokes and quakes. Out of the midst of the flame and the cloud a voice reveals the Ten Commandments. The account in Deut. iv. 11, 12, 33, 36 and v. 4, 19 is practically the same; and in its guarded language it strongly emphasizes the incorporeality of God. Moses in his blessing (Deut. xxxiii. 2) points to this revelation as to the source of the special election of Israel, but with this difference: with him the point of departure for the theophany is Mount Sinai and not heaven. God appears on Sinai like a shining sun and comes "accompanied by holy myriads" (comp. Sifre, Deut. 243). Likewise in the song of Deborah the manifestation is described as a storm: the earth quakes; Sinai trembles; and the clouds drop water. It is poetically elaborated in the prayer of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.); here past and future are confused. As in Deut. xxxiii. 2 and Judges v. 4, God appears from Teman and Paran. His majesty is described as a glory of light and brightness; pestilence precedes Him. The mountains tremble violently; the earth quakes; the people are sore afraid. God rides in a chariot of war, with horses—a conception found also in Isa. xix. 1, where God appears on a cloud, and in Ps. xviii. 11, where He appears on a cherub.​

​

In Isaiah and Ezekiel.​

Isaiah and Ezekiel receive their commissions as prophets amid glorious manifestations of God. Isaiah supposedly sees God on a high and lofty throne. In reality, however, he sees not Him but only His glorious robe, the hem and train of which fill the whole temple of heaven. Before the throne stand the seraphim, the six-winged angels. With two wings they cover their faces so as not to gaze on God; with two they cover their feet, through modesty; and with the remaining two they fly. Their occupation is the everlasting praise of God, which at the time of the revelation took the form of the thrice-repeated cry "Holy!" (Isa. vi.).​

​

Boy oh boy, that's not saying anything about messengers or emissaries, is it? That is from here, not a Christian site, but a Jewish site: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14363-theophany

The messenger aka angel of the LORD is just that -- a messenger, not God himself.

Not according the Jewish site about theophanies I just cited for you. Maybe you're right and they're wrong about what they believe and teach?

Do you see h ow it would make no sense to say "the messenger of Indigo Child" is "Indigo Child"?

Do you see how it makes no sense to say it's not God manifesting in a form? Your argument isn't with me. It's with those of your own religion.

 

[Soapy]

So this is your view? All that on one verse of scripture which uses Adam as a figure of speech, as a metaphor? Adam literally means "human", and it is used in scripture that way to speaking of humankind or humans.

Adam[c] is the name given in Genesis 1-5 to the first human.[4] Beyond its use as the name of the first man, adam is also used in the Bible as a pronoun, individually as "a human" and in a collective sense as "mankind".[4] Genesis 1 tells of God's creation of the world and its creatures, including adam, meaning humankind; in Genesis 2 God forms "Adam", this time meaning a single male human, out of "the dust of the ground", places him in the Garden of Eden, and forms a woman,​

​

Adam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

The "last Adam", as a figure of speech, as a metaphor means the 'perfect human', versus the flawed human that happened at first. Where as the first Adam failed, the last Adam did not. And we are all to strive to be like that "last Adam", created by God which didn't fail. It means to be a spiritual human aligned with the will of God, not the desires of the flesh. It means "human", not "the person Adam reincarnated as Jesus!

And you think the doctrine of the Trinity is strange???

So you are saying that when God said of his own creation "It is good", he meant "It could be good"? God created it is "almost perfect" and really meant to say, "It is good enough"??

And the Lord look upon his creation and said, "It is good enough. I hope they make it".

God did not create Man as a robot. Anything that is designed to grow, develop, increase in capacity of knowledge and ability, skill and realisation of things, is, by definition, imperfect!

Perhaps there is another word that conveys the meaning better than ‘imperfect’. Did Adam know what disease was, did he know what blood was actually used in the body for, did he know how to do algebra and calculus, did he… No! Because he did not need to know since God provided everything for him IF he followed the commands of God. But he didn’t and as such he started to grow in knowledge of what was good and bad in a way God did not create him to do… by his own understanding - warts and all - beneficial and destructive.

Man LEARNT to make use of animals and plants, of the events: wind and water, fire and ice. Perfection would mean he already knew … but God designed man to learn and shape things the way man desired. Perfection would mean there was no room for man’s own input into and over the word God created FOR HIM.

Are we not STILL GROWING in knowledge, are we not developing abilities unknown to the ancients: medicine; technology; biology; language and literature… etc? Are we not still working our way towards perfection (albeit three steps forward and one step back!!?)

 

[Soapy]

This isn't what just Christian believe. It's what the Jewish scholars say as well: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14363-theophany

THEOPHANY:​

By: Kaufmann Kohler, M. Richtmann​

Table of Contents​

• The Sinaitic Theophany.
• In Isaiah and Ezekiel.
• In the Psalms.

Manifestation of a god to man; the sensible sign by which the presence of a divinity is revealed. If the word is taken in this sense, and the passages which merely mention the fact of a revelation without describing it are separated from those which speak of the "angel of God," only four theophanies will be found in the Bible. Kautzsch (in Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." xv. 538) interprets the term in a broader sense, and divides theophanies into three classes, as follows: (1) those related as historical facts; (2) those which are the subjects of prophetic vision or annunciation; and (3) those which consist in purely poetic fancy. This classification may be applied to the four theophanies. The Sinaitic revelation is historical; the passages relating the divine inspiration of Isaiah (Isa. vi.) and of Ezekiel (Ezek. i.) represent subjects of prophetic vision; and Ps. xviii. 4-16 is poetic description.​

​

The Sinaitic Theophany.​

​

The Sinaitic revelation is related in calm, simple language in Ex. xix. 16-25. The manifestation is accompanied by thunder and lightning; there is a fiery flame, reaching to the sky; the loud notes of a trumpet are heard; and the whole mountain smokes and quakes. Out of the midst of the flame and the cloud a voice reveals the Ten Commandments. The account in Deut. iv. 11, 12, 33, 36 and v. 4, 19 is practically the same; and in its guarded language it strongly emphasizes the incorporeality of God. Moses in his blessing (Deut. xxxiii. 2) points to this revelation as to the source of the special election of Israel, but with this difference: with him the point of departure for the theophany is Mount Sinai and not heaven. God appears on Sinai like a shining sun and comes "accompanied by holy myriads" (comp. Sifre, Deut. 243). Likewise in the song of Deborah the manifestation is described as a storm: the earth quakes; Sinai trembles; and the clouds drop water. It is poetically elaborated in the prayer of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.); here past and future are confused. As in Deut. xxxiii. 2 and Judges v. 4, God appears from Teman and Paran. His majesty is described as a glory of light and brightness; pestilence precedes Him. The mountains tremble violently; the earth quakes; the people are sore afraid. God rides in a chariot of war, with horses—a conception found also in Isa. xix. 1, where God appears on a cloud, and in Ps. xviii. 11, where He appears on a cherub.​

​

In Isaiah and Ezekiel.​

Isaiah and Ezekiel receive their commissions as prophets amid glorious manifestations of God. Isaiah supposedly sees God on a high and lofty throne. In reality, however, he sees not Him but only His glorious robe, the hem and train of which fill the whole temple of heaven. Before the throne stand the seraphim, the six-winged angels. With two wings they cover their faces so as not to gaze on God; with two they cover their feet, through modesty; and with the remaining two they fly. Their occupation is the everlasting praise of God, which at the time of the revelation took the form of the thrice-repeated cry "Holy!" (Isa. vi.).​

​

Boy oh boy, that's not saying anything about messengers or emissaries, is it? That is from here, not a Christian site, but a Jewish site: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14363-theophany



Not according the Jewish site about theophanies I just cited for you. Maybe you're right and they're wrong about what they believe and teach?

Do you see how it makes no sense to say it's not God manifesting in a form? Your argument isn't with me. It's with those of your own religion.

There is no such thing as incarnation nor Theophany in scriptures. You said it yourself (or through your link) that the concepts are from the GREEK MYTHOLOGY beliefs.

The Israelites and initial Christians did not believe that God manifested as a human. The only ‘manifestations’ were angels who put on TEMPORARY human-like bodies so as not to frighten humans. If you notice, no description is given about these manifested angels apart from their appearance is human and their apparel is white - bright white (signifying purity and sinlessness).

There was one occasion in scriptures in which a third of the angels of Heaven were envious of the debauched behaviour of humans on the earth. These angels manifested human-like bodies for themselves, against the desire of God, and procreated offspring with human females. But these angels (now called ‘fallen ones’, or Demons) were DOING WRONG - doing badness.
God does not do wrong nor badness!!

Further, for God to put himself in flesh is an impossibility seeing that there is no amount of created material that could hold the power of God… it is completely irrational that the creator of matter should become matter, himself… The POWER of God created material matter - how can God become part of his own creation?
Can a watch maker become part of a clock that he made?

 

[Sargonski]

God did not create Man as a robot. Anything that is designed to grow, develop, increase in capacity of knowledge and ability, skill and realisation of things, is, by definition, imperfect!

Perhaps there is another word that conveys the meaning better than ‘imperfect’. Did Adam know what disease was, did he know what blood was actually used in the body for, did he know how to do algebra and calculus, did he… No! Because he did not need to know since God provided everything for him IF he followed the commands of God. But he didn’t and as such he started to grow in knowledge of what was good and bad in a way God did not create him to do… by his own understanding - warts and all - beneficial and destructive.

"So if Man does not act as a Robot (following God's Commands) God does not provide everything"

1) The above makes no sense - and
2) contradicts your claim that God did not create man as a Robot... "Act as a Robot or else everything not provided" what ever that means.

In a way God did not create him to do

So God made a mistake is what you are saying -- the Bible agree's with you on this...

 

[Windwalker]

God did not create Man as a robot. Anything that is designed to grow, develop, increase in capacity of knowledge and ability, skill and realisation of things, is, by definition, imperfect!

Howso? Are you saying that being perfect means you have quit growing and are fully static? I wouldn't define perfect that way. I'd define that as dead. Only the dead do not grow.

Yet, you have scripture that speaks of creation as originally designed by God, that grows and reproduces and bears offspring, which grow and mature and produce their own offspring as "good". When God says something is good, I think we are safe to consider that as perfect, as God is Perfection. Right?

Perhaps there is another word that conveys the meaning better than ‘imperfect’.

Yes. Out of balance. Out of step with nature and the design that God or Nature creates. Imbalance is the better word. Nature by design is perfect. It is designed to survive and thrive.

It's only us who impose our silly notions about what is perfect upon it, assuming that means we should never change and everything stays the same so we don't have to grow or adapt. And when we do that, it is us who are calling good evil. We are calling God's creation, imperfect, or not good.

Did Adam know what disease was, did he know what blood was actually used in the body for, did he know how to do algebra and calculus, did he… No! Because he did not need to know since God provided everything for him IF he followed the commands of God.

I suppose you could say when Adam decided the Garden wasn't good enough, and tried to impose his own will upon it and create Eden in his own image, that the Fall occurred. In other words, humans screwed themselves by getting out of touch with the balance built into nature through the natural cycles of life that God created. And here we are today.

Man LEARNT to make use of animals and plants, of the events: wind and water, fire and ice. Perfection would mean he already knew … but God designed man to learn and shape things the way man desired. Perfection would mean there was no room for man’s own input into and over the word God created FOR HIM.

It is perfect, if we would learn how to use the gifts of our mind and genius to harmonize with the natural order, rather than trying to alter it for financial profit or to promote our egos above the way of Nature created by God.

Are we not STILL GROWING in knowledge, are we not developing abilities unknown to the ancients: medicine; technology; biology; language and literature… etc? Are we not still working our way towards perfection (albeit three steps forward and one step back!!?)

But this is not working our way towards perfection, or the balance with God's creation. It is working our way further from it. We are becoming more out of step with it. More dissociated. More disconnected. More anxious. More neurotic.

"Always learning yet never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth". I believe that is what this means at its heart. While we may be growing in knowledge, we are detaching further away from Wisdom, which is the Perfection of this natural order which God created and called "good".

The first Adam in essence said it was not "good", it was not perfect. And he needs to fix it. I think the goal is to recognize that is is in fact "good", or perfect and learn its ways. "I am the Way", God says.

 

[Windwalker]

There is no such thing as incarnation nor Theophany in scriptures. You said it yourself (or through your link) that the concepts are from the GREEK MYTHOLOGY beliefs.

The concept existed in both Greek, and Jewish theologies, which was adopted by later Christian theologians.

The only ‘manifestations’ were angels who put on TEMPORARY human-like bodies so as not to frighten humans.

Those are what the Jews and the Greeks referred to as theophanies. Exactly what I said. They were "temporary forms", in order for the hidden invisible God to manifest and make itself visibly seen and known in and through a form. So, you are saying exactly what I said.

If you notice, no description is given about these manifested angels apart from their appearance is human and their apparel is white - bright white (signifying purity and sinlessness).

Yes, you are still in agreement with me. God clothed himself in these temporary forms, yet we should not say that God is an angel, or a burning bush, or a thundering voice. These are theophanies, temporary forms to clothe the Infinite Divine in order to be seen and known by those who need some physical form to see God.

Do you have any problem with that explanation?

Further, for God to put himself in flesh is an impossibility seeing that there is no amount of created material that could hold the power of God… it is completely irrational that the creator of matter should become matter, himself…

Do you believe that when God manifest himself in and through the form of an angel or a burning bush, that God "left heaven", and wasn't there anymore, but was now in that one localized form only?

Think about that a minute. I think it's probably safe to assume you believe that God is Infinite, correct? That means God is everywhere at all times. There is no place that God is not. "Where shall I flee from your Spirit", says the psalmist. So then when God manifests as a theophany, or a temporary material form, that does not mean God is nowhere else but there. Right?

So then why is it "impossible" for God to manifest in the temporary form of a human being? Do you believe any Christian believes that while Jesus was on earth, as the incarnation of God, that God was only on earth for those 30 years???

I mean seriously. No Christian thinks that. And if they did, they have some serious misunderstanding of the nature of God there.

The POWER of God created material matter - how can God become part of his own creation?

Are you saying God is not part of his own creation?

The heavens declare the glory of God;​

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.​

Day after day they pour forth speech;​

night after night they reveal knowledge.​

They have no speech, they use no words;​

no sound is heard from them.​

Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,​

their words to the ends of the world.​

Psalm 19

Can a watch maker become part of a clock that he made?

Is God a human watchmaker?