Who of the “trinity” became flesh?

@sonship said
@divegeester

I understand that you are against tritheism as I also do not believe in three
Gods.

The Modalistic Concept of the Trinity

According to the modalistic concept of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not equally and eternally co-existent, but are merely three successive manifestations of God, or three temporary modes of His activity. Modalism, which is actually a form of unitarianism, denies that God in His own inner being is triune. Rather, it claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are either temporary or successive roles adopted by God in carrying out the divine plan of redemption and that they in no way correspond to anything in the ultimate nature of the Godhead.1 Modalism does not recognize the independent personality of Christ, but regards the incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the Father.2 For the modalists, the Father, Son, and Spirit only refer to the way in which God reveals Himself, but bear no relation to His inner being.3

Look mummy, a link ^^

@divegeester
More interesting and substantive then your wink and smile - "We all know I am right. wink wink."

Sabellius taught that the revelation of the Son ends with the ascension and that the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification.26 Therefore, the trinity of Sabellius is not a trinity of essence, that is, of the inner being of God, but of revelation. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence reveals itself.27 Sabellius differs from orthodox doctrine mainly in making the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only temporary phenomena which fulfilled their mission and returned into an abstract entity.28 Sabellius denied that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally co-exist in the inner being of God. Rather, he insisted that the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely temporary and successive manifestations of the one Person of God. In the words of J. F. Bethune-Baker, a renowned scholar in the history of doctrine, for Sabellius, “There is no real incarnation; no personal indissoluble union of the Godhead with the Manhood took place in Christ. God only manifested Himself in Christ and when the part was played and the curtain fell upon that act in the great drama there ceased to be a Christ or a Son of God.”29

I’m not religious in the slightest, but this idea that there are three people existing in a single god doesn’t fit well with my general understanding of the Christian god. The whole thing is a little weird.

@mercury said
I’m not religious in the slightest, but this idea that there are three people existing in a single god doesn’t fit well with my general understanding of the Christian god. The whole thing is a little weird.

@sonship said
Are you interested in astrology?
Is that Zodiacal sign there indicate serious prognosticating with the stars?

@sonship said
@divegeester

https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/modalism-tritheism-or-the-pure-revelation-of-the-triune-god/

@sonship said
Are you interested in astrology?
Is that Zodiacal sign there indicate serious prognosticating with the stars?

@divegeester said
This is a link to a blog written by a member of your church (Ron Kangas), published in 1976, by the publishing arm of your own church (Living Stream Ministries) and supporting your own church’s doctrine.

Is this you essentially appealing to your own authority?

@sonship said

Since you wouldn't make your modalism as clear enough upon requesting

@divegeester

Aside from accusations of dishonesty (Dasa style) I am not getting from you what I need.

Now there are couple of threads. I asked you what is it that you say I am pretending to not understand. If I asked you that once I asked at least three times.

I asked a few times:
If I am pretending to misunderstand you, tell me in what you think this is the case.

Your way of dealing with that seems to be that you simply reiterate that I am pretending. Don't blame me if I went off to do some reading on modalism and unitarian theology.

Dive,
What is it that I am not understanding ?
And I am not looking for a wink that I am still pretending not to understand.

You say the office of the Son of God is not eternal and that there is no "eternal Son" in the Bible. How come in your zeal to uphold monotheism Christ is no longer the eternal God the Son?

@sonship said
@divegeester
Aside from accusations of dishonesty (Dasa style) I am not getting from you what I need.

@sonship said
Dive,
What is it that I am not understanding ?