Is Modalism just ‘Inverse Trinitarianism’?

[Soapy]

I hear about many claims about how the God of the Bible (YHWH) is supposed to be ‘Three persons as one God’, and also about the Man, Jesus, being ‘Three MODES of the One God’.

But neither of these definitions (albeit I didn’t define them precisely - I’ll leave that to you!) make any sense at all to me - except if I were watching a low grade ‘B’-Movie.

I’ve heard a lot about trinitarianism but Modalism is rarely discussed. Can anyone provide their view of modalism and how it contrasts (or not) with trinitarianism - please, with the emphasis on Modalism as the primary ideology.

 

[Starlight]

In the trinitarian doctrine God is eternally three different persons who share one Being. And have one divine will and action. The three persons in God can communicate with each other and is loving each other but at the same time they share the same Being.

Modalism is that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests himself. In modalism the different modes is not eternal. In modalism God is just one person who temporally manifest himself in three different modes or forms of activity (The Father, Son, Holy spirit).

 

[Soapy]

In the trinitarian doctrine God is eternally three different persons who share one Being. And have one divine will and action. The three persons in God can communicate with each other and is loving each other but at the same time they share the same Being.

Modalism is that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests himself. In modalism the different modes is not eternal. In modalism God is just one person who temporally manifest himself in three different modes or forms of activity (The Father, Son, Holy spirit).

So, are you saying that in trinitarianism, God is a committee, a business, a group… the TITLE of such… and the Father and the Son are EQUAL MEMBERS of this committee, group, company…? TWO PERSONS in one BUSINESS?
And the Spirit of ‘GOD’ is the policies, behaviours, the desired actions, strategies, the functional aspects… which are all primarily DIRECTED FROM the Father and actioned THROUGH the Son?

So when the world was created it was the Father who decided on the act of creation but it was the Son who carried it out BY MEANS of the Spirit of the organisation - it’s POWER!?

But in MODALISM GOD is a PERSON - A single being who wears three caps (so to say!) at different, and sometimes, the same time!!!?

Hence, in creation, it is true that GOD ALONE created all things - contrasting with trinity where TWO PERSONS are involved in creation?
———————————-

HOW do these two concepts express themselves in scriptures in verses such as ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased!’

I mean, like, if Jesus is God as trinity states, then why would the Father be ‘Pleased’ with GOD (the Son)…. Or in Modalism, the Father is ‘PLEASED with HIMSELF’ in another hat!!

 

[Starlight]

So, are you saying that in trinitarianism, God is a committee, a business, a group… the TITLE of such… and the Father and the Son are EQUAL MEMBERS of this committee, group, company…? TWO PERSONS in one BUSINESS?
And the Spirit of ‘GOD’ is the policies, behaviours, the desired actions, strategies, the functional aspects… which are all primarily DIRECTED FROM the Father and actioned THROUGH the Son?

So when the world was created it was the Father who decided on the act of creation but it was the Son who carried it out BY MEANS of the Spirit of the organisation - it’s POWER!?

But in MODALISM GOD is a PERSON - A single being who wears three caps (so to say!) at different, and sometimes, the same time!!!?

Hence, in creation, it is true that GOD ALONE created all things - contrasting with trinity where TWO PERSONS are involved in creation?
———————————-

HOW do these two concepts express themselves in scriptures in verses such as ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased!’

I mean, like, if Jesus is God as trinity states, then why would the Father be ‘Pleased’ with GOD (the Son)…. Or in Modalism, the Father is ‘PLEASED with HIMSELF’ in another hat!!

The trinity doctrine is three persons who share one Being. That God is only one divine Being.
The being or substance binds them together as one God. Because of this the three persons in God can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose, mind, will and action.

For example two humans who is Conjoined twins. They are always togheter as one because both two humans has one hand that is fused together in the other's hand, and they both has one leg that is fused togheter in the other persons leg. They also share the same blood literaly. The same blood passes through both of their bodies. And if doctor do surgery because he want to split the two humans apart they both die.

And yes i know this is a bad example because two humans is not God. God is pure spirit. God do not die. And God is spiritual not physical.

What you describe the christian hersey called tritheism. Tritheism is the belief that the three persons is three different beings, three different gods that work and live in unity

 

[Soapy]

The trinity doctrine is three persons who share one Being. That God is only one divine Being.
The being or substance binds them together as one God. Because of this the three persons in God can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose, mind, will and action.

So, in trinity, ‘God’ is a Divine Being who consists of three Divine Beings?

But then you say that God is a ‘Substance’?

So, put that elsewise: ‘God is a Being that binds the three Persons together? Does that make sense? That God is a Person that binds together three other Persons?

But if they are all the exact SAME Being / Substance… Why does it take three of them to be God? Is there something that one has or is (??) that the other two are not?

It makes no sense to me that there are three who do what it takes only ONE to do?

For example two humans who is Conjoined twins. They are always togheter as one because both two humans has one hand that is fused together in the other's hand, and they both has one leg that is fused togheter in the other persons leg. They also share the same blood literaly. The same blood passes through both of their bodies. And if doctor do surgery because he want to split the two humans apart they both die.

And yes i know this is a bad example because two humans is not God. God is pure spirit. God do not die. And God is spiritual not physical.

Yes, very bad example. It is not relatable to God as Spirit nor to Jesus since at no time is Jesus, prior being taken to Heaven, ever described, by any name or analogy, as ‘a Spirit’.

What you describe the christian hersey called tritheism. Tritheism is the belief that the three persons is three different beings, three different gods that work and live in unity

My question was pointed at the comparison between Trinitarianism and Modalism. But you are right on the trinitarian front that - and even though - they deny the description of Tritheism, they are nonetheless claiming absolutely such a theme. How would they describe the three fold Hindu Godhead?

They would distinguish differences between each Hindu ‘God’ while denying that the Father, the Son, and the spirit of God are themselves different in form and function, and power and authority… they allude to the NEW TESTAMENT to claim Jesus is EQUAL to the Father… despite the Father PROVIDING Jesus with the power, authority, teaching, and Will to perform:

• ‘Not MY (Jesus) WILL but YOUR (Father) WILL BE DONE!’
• ‘All those the Father gives me will come to me..’
• ‘I have given them the glory that you gave me’
• ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’
• ‘…to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’
• ‘And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom…’

In Modalism each of the above verses is a conundrum, a contradiction if Jesus is God since they claim Jesus as professing that he was GRANTED great things by the Father, that he did not have the authority, the ability, the positional rights to the situations such that the Father had to grant them to him.

But it seems to me that this also applies to trinity belief. Trinity claims Jesus IS God but Jesus did not have the power, authority, or capability until he was granted them by the Father - The Father who ALWAYS has power, authority, ability, and capability in all things.

But in every case, ONLY TWO PERSONS are ever alluded to: One (the Father) giving and the other (The Son) receiving … what of the third entity? Is IT granted or does IT grant?

In only one place I read:

• ‘When the [spirit of God] comes, IT will not speak of itself but will TAKE OF WHAT IS MINE and give it to you’ (paraphrased)

Why, in Modalism and/or Trinitarianism, does the spirit of God take from the Son and yet is God, or is equal to, the Son who is God, or even worse, take from Jesus as a man… God taking from man what God does not have?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’ve heard a lot about trinitarianism but Modalism is rarely discussed. Can anyone provide their view of modalism and how it contrasts (or not) with trinitarianism - please, with the emphasis on Modalism as the primary ideology.

Modalism is considered heresy by the Catholic Church. The protestants pretty much agree. That might be why it is rarely discussed.

As far as being a way to make Trinitarianism make some kind of sense, I think modalism is pretty decent. It actually shows HOW all three persons are (in fact) one. Most Trinitarians simply claim THAT the three parts of the Trinity are one. Modalism explains HOW.

I know this issue something you're really interested in, Soapy. (And I admire that.)

But my view is, you have ideas like the Trinity floating around because religion is largely about a few people making stuff up and then a whole lot of other people believing it. If you fix that problem about religion than your concerns about the Trinity (as well as a whole host of other theological problems) will simply vanish.

 

[Starlight]

So, in trinity, ‘God’ is a Divine Being who consists of three Divine Beings?

But then you say that God is a ‘Substance’?

So, put that elsewise: ‘God is a Being that binds the three Persons together? Does that make sense? That God is a Person that binds together three other Persons?

But if they are all the exact SAME Being / Substance… Why does it take three of them to be God? Is there something that one has or is (??) that the other two are not?

It makes no sense to me that there are three who do what it takes only ONE to do?

Yes, very bad example. It is not relatable to God as Spirit nor to Jesus since at no time is Jesus, prior being taken to Heaven, ever described, by any name or analogy, as ‘a Spirit’.

My question was pointed at the comparison between Trinitarianism and Modalism. But you are right on the trinitarian front that - and even though - they deny the description of Tritheism, they are nonetheless claiming absolutely such a theme. How would they describe the three fold Hindu Godhead?

They would distinguish differences between each Hindu ‘God’ while denying that the Father, the Son, and the spirit of God are themselves different in form and function, and power and authority… they allude to the NEW TESTAMENT to claim Jesus is EQUAL to the Father… despite the Father PROVIDING Jesus with the power, authority, teaching, and Will to perform:

• ‘Not MY (Jesus) WILL but YOUR (Father) WILL BE DONE!’
• ‘All those the Father gives me will come to me..’
• ‘I have given them the glory that you gave me’
• ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’
• ‘…to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’
• ‘And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom…’

In Modalism each of the above verses is a conundrum, a contradiction if Jesus is God since they claim Jesus as professing that he was GRANTED great things by the Father, that he did not have the authority, the ability, the positional rights to the situations such that the Father had to grant them to him.

But it seems to me that this also applies to trinity belief. Trinity claims Jesus IS God but Jesus did not have the power, authority, or capability until he was granted them by the Father - The Father who ALWAYS has power, authority, ability, and capability in all things.

But in every case, ONLY TWO PERSONS are ever alluded to: One (the Father) giving and the other (The Son) receiving … what of the third entity? Is IT granted or does IT grant?

In only one place I read:

• ‘When the [spirit of God] comes, IT will not speak of itself but will TAKE OF WHAT IS MINE and give it to you’ (paraphrased)

Why, in Modalism and/or Trinitarianism, does the spirit of God take from the Son and yet is God, or is equal to, the Son who is God, or even worse, take from Jesus as a man… God taking from man what God does not have?

No in the trinity doctrine God is only one being. God is one being shared by three persons.

So what about this verses?

• ‘Not MY (Jesus) WILL but YOUR (Father) WILL BE DONE!’
• ‘All those the Father gives me will come to me..’
• ‘I have given them the glory that you gave me’
• ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’
• ‘…to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’
• ‘And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom…’

Most Christians believe that the verses is said by the human part of Jesus ,not his divine part.

And your question
'God is a Being that binds the three Persons together? Does that make sense?

According to most christians is does make sense

By the way I do not believe in the trinity. I think the trinity is confusion and does not make sense. God is not the autor of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33

 

[Muffled]

I hear about many claims about how the God of the Bible (YHWH) is supposed to be ‘Three persons as one God’, and also about the Man, Jesus, being ‘Three MODES of the One God’.

But neither of these definitions (albeit I didn’t define them precisely - I’ll leave that to you!) make any sense at all to me - except if I were watching a low grade ‘B’-Movie.

I’ve heard a lot about trinitarianism but Modalism is rarely discussed. Can anyone provide their view of modalism and how it contrasts (or not) with trinitarianism - please, with the emphasis on Modalism as the primary ideology.

I believe modalism as a concept is Trinitarian. The metaphor used to describe modalism is false.

 

[Muffled]

In the trinitarian doctrine God is eternally three different persons who share one Being. And have one divine will and action. The three persons in God can communicate with each other and is loving each other but at the same time they share the same Being.

Modalism is that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests himself. In modalism the different modes is not eternal. In modalism God is just one person who temporally manifest himself in three different modes or forms of activity (The Father, Son, Holy spirit).

Sabellius used the word person in a different sense. Wikipedia failed to say what that was. The word person is not a reference to any of the definitions in the dictionary except the one that says a member of the Trinity. The Metaphor of characters in a play suggests persons but it fails to describe the Trinity. The persons as defined by ecclesiasticals is different from characters in a play

 

[Soapy]

No in the trinity doctrine God is only one being. God is one being shared by three persons.

I’m glad you stated ‘In the trinity doctrine’.

But once again you state God as a BEING (Sentient or Object?) who is SHARED by three BEINGS (clearly Sentient).

And you think that makes sense?

So if the three share the one, how is it the three are DIFFERENT in every way from each other and also perform different functions from each other?

Test: Three Fish (trinity three) share a bowl of water (God)… ok, a bowl of water isn’t sentient!! but it serves as SHAREABLE among the three fish…
Question: Does the water cause each fish to be different from each other and serve different purposes in the water?
———————————————
So what about this verses?

• ‘Not MY (Jesus) WILL but YOUR (Father) WILL BE DONE!’
• ‘All those the Father gives me will come to me..’
• ‘I have given them the glory that you gave me’
• ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.’
• ‘…to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’
• ‘And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom…’

The reason you ask is because you DO KNOW what they mean. They show that Jesus is provided with things BY THE FATHER. So Jesus is not the source of his power but is granted such. And his Will is to do the Will of the Father.

The verse quoted shows where Jesus subdues his own Will and places the Father’s Will ahead of his own. In the specific case, Jesus’ Will was to desire that the upcoming cruel punishment and death he was to suffer the next day be ‘taken away’ and that the salvation of mankind to be achieved in a different way…. But Jesus caught himself immediately and put the Will of God before his own and allowed himself to be subjected to his fate.

Most Christians believe that the verses is said by the human part of Jesus ,not his divine part.

And most Christian’s “travel the road that leads to destruction”, as a saying!

What is being claimed by Trinitarians is that Jesus is schizophrenic or is dual personality, ‘DID’ (Dissociative Identity Disorder)…
One moment, trinity says, he is Almighty God who knows all things and can do all things, is immortal, and faultless. The next moment he is man with all the failings of every human being except sinning.

How is this achieved? In any situation, how does Jesus decide which personality he should be? For instance, when asked when he is coming back he says he does not know because only God knows … but trinity says he IS GOD?

On another occasion he fails to fully heal first time two men afflicted by blindness!! Yet God made Moses’ hand leprous and then not leprous in a moment after talking with Moses. Jesus, in contrasts, performs miracles AFTER FIRST PRAYING TO GOD (for permission / for the spirit of God)!

It is the spirit of God that enables the act to be performed. God doesn’t ask for permission. Jesus does! Who’s spirit is it??

And your question
'God is a Being that binds the three Persons together? Does that make sense?

According to most christians is does make sense

By the way I do not believe in the trinity. I think the trinity is confusion and does not make sense. God is not the autor of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hear about many claims about how the God of the Bible (YHWH) is supposed to be ‘Three persons as one God’, and also about the Man, Jesus, being ‘Three MODES of the One God’.

But neither of these definitions (albeit I didn’t define them precisely - I’ll leave that to you!) make any sense at all to me - except if I were watching a low grade ‘B’-Movie.

I’ve heard a lot about trinitarianism but Modalism is rarely discussed. Can anyone provide their view of modalism and how it contrasts (or not) with trinitarianism - please, with the emphasis on Modalism as the primary ideology.

I've actually seen quite a few people in here who are Modalists. They tend to assume they are Trinitarians, but when you inquire more specifics, the details they give clearly indicate that they are Modalists.

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.

 

[101G]

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.

do not Isaiah chapter 53 teaches differently? question, "Who is the ARM of God?" .... figurately speaking.

101G.

 

[Soapy]

I've actually seen quite a few people in here who are Modalists. They tend to assume they are Trinitarians, but when you inquire more specifics, the details they give clearly indicate that they are Modalists.

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.

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.

My take on the whole of the Bible is that God created something unknown at the time: Physical elements. The realm of Heaven is a Spirit realm where nothing physical exists.

Having created a physical world, God desired it TK be ruled over by his greatest creation at the time: an image of himself in flesh, Adam.

Now, what does it mean to be ‘Image of God (in flesh)’? It means that the ‘Man’ was able to think like God, act like God, be like God… but limited by the constraints of the physics of the physical realm. He could create, destroy, love, forgive, design, create, has forethought, intelligence, leadership, etc., greater than any other animal in creation.

This Adam, was sinless, holy, and righteous. How could he be anything else since he was created by God. But he was subject to temptations - and God tested him by commanding him not to eat from two of the many trees that were in place in a specially designed area (a ‘Garden’ called Eden).

Adam was not ‘PERFECT’. God had designed him to GROW INTO PERFECTION -God didnt design him as a robot!! He designed MAN to have a free Will and follow the commands of God Willingly - not mechanically. This would show the true love (FOR GOD) that would be the main test.

So, the trees were not dangerous. There was nothing special about the fruit of the trees. It was the simply the fact that God told and trusted Adam not to eat from it (Has anyone seen those tests that are done with children in a room with a bowl of sweets…they are told not to eat any - then the teacher leaves the room…. There’s more but I guess you all know about this test!)

So when EVE (remember that it was ADAM whom God commanded not to eat!!) ate from the tree, she realised that it would not kill her (but God did not mean she would die IMMEDIATELY - he meant over many generations whereas MANKIND was meant to live eternally.)

Eve gave to her husband suggesting to him that God had lied to HIM and used the serpents twisted ideas that God wanted to keep MAN from living forever and becoming knowing good from bad. You can see here that Adam (and Eve) were IGNORANT about Sin like a child is likewise innocent by their lack of knowledge of goid and bad. But now they must atone for anything they did wrong because they were now no longer ignorant. Mankind turned to wickedness! This meant that ALL MANKIND, regardless of righteousness, if they sinned at all, would be eternally destroyed….

This so angered God that God sought to destroy mankind… but man is his image. He relented and proposed that if an offspring of Adam could be found who could atone for all mankind then the eternal death would be lifted. But even so, God set up a contingency - a last ditch: A new Adam… created not from the seed of the first Adam but from the seed of a woman - free from the spiritual sinfulness of the sperm of a an offspring of the FIRST ADAM.

The rest we all know!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

do not Isaiah chapter 53 teaches differently? question, "Who is the ARM of God?" .... figurately speaking.

101G.

Anyone and everyone who does God's will is the arm of God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

My take on the whole of the Bible is that God created something unknown at the time: Physical elements. The realm of Heaven is a Spirit realm where nothing physical exists.

Having created a physical world, God desired it TK be ruled over by his greatest creation at the time: an image of himself in flesh, Adam.

Now, what does it mean to be ‘Image of God (in flesh)’? It means that the ‘Man’ was able to think like God, act like God, be like God… but limited by the constraints of the physics of the physical realm. He could create, destroy, love, forgive, design, create, has forethought, intelligence, leadership, etc., greater than any other animal in creation.

This Adam, was sinless, holy, and righteous. How could he be anything else since he was created by God. But he was subject to temptations - and God tested him by commanding him not to eat from two of the many trees that were in place in a specially designed area (a ‘Garden’ called Eden).

Adam was not ‘PERFECT’. God had designed him to GROW INTO PERFECTION -God didnt design him as a robot!! He designed MAN to have a free Will and follow the commands of God Willingly - not mechanically. This would show the true love (FOR GOD) that would be the main test.

So, the trees were not dangerous. There was nothing special about the fruit of the trees. It was the simply the fact that God told and trusted Adam not to eat from it (Has anyone seen those tests that are done with children in a room with a bowl of sweets…they are told not to eat any - then the teacher leaves the room…. There’s more but I guess you all know about this test!)

So when EVE (remember that it was ADAM whom God commanded not to eat!!) ate from the tree, she realised that it would not kill her (but God did not mean she would die IMMEDIATELY - he meant over many generations whereas MANKIND was meant to live eternally.)

Eve gave to her husband suggesting to him that God had lied to HIM and used the serpents twisted ideas that God wanted to keep MAN from living forever and becoming knowing good from bad. You can see here that Adam (and Eve) were IGNORANT about Sin like a child is likewise innocent by their lack of knowledge of goid and bad. But now they must atone for anything they did wrong because they were now no longer ignorant. Mankind turned to wickedness! This meant that ALL MANKIND, regardless of righteousness, if they sinned at all, would be eternally destroyed….

This so angered God that God sought to destroy mankind… but man is his image. He relented and proposed that if an offspring of Adam could be found who could atone for all mankind then the eternal death would be lifted. But even so, God set up a contingency - a last ditch: A new Adam… created not from the seed of the first Adam but from the seed of a woman - free from the spiritual sinfulness of the sperm of a an offspring of the FIRST ADAM.

The rest we all know!

Just to let you know, I don't read really long posts.

 

[101G]

Anyone and everyone who does God's will is the arm of God.

101G did not ask you that , 101G asked, "Who is the ARM of God in Isaiah chapter 53... your answer please.

101G.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

101G did not ask you that , 101G asked, "Who is the ARM of God in Isaiah chapter 53... your answer please.

101G.

Isaiah 59:15-16
The Lord looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
16 He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm achieved salvation for him,
and his own righteousness sustained him.

I am no scholar of Isaiah 59, but it certainly appears to me that the person described in verse 16 is God. Not the messiah. It is a hard verse to parse because there is more than one person being mentioned using the pronoun "he." There is the he that is being saved and sustained, and there is the he that is doing the sustaining and saving. The latter appears to be God, since God is the subject being introduced in the second half of verse 15.

 

[101G]

Isaiah 59:15-16
The Lord looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
16 He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm achieved salvation for him,
and his own righteousness sustained him.

I am no scholar of Isaiah 59, but it certainly appears to me that the person described in verse 16 is God. Not the messiah. It is a hard verse to parse because there is more than one person being mentioned using the pronoun "he." There is the he that is being saved and sustained, and there is the he that is doing the sustaining and saving. The latter appears to be God, since God is the subject being introduced in the second half of verse 15.

(smile), 101G know the verse Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him." as well as this one, (which I gave), Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

God is the Messiah in Flesh, bone, and blood.

101G.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

(smile), 101G know the verse Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him." as well as this one, (which I gave), Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

God is the Messiah in Flesh, bone, and blood.

101G.

There is absolutely nothing in this verse saying either than the "mine own arm" applies to the messiah--as I already stated it refers to God, not the messiah -- nor is there anything in this verse indicating that the Messiah is God.

Move on.

 

[Soapy]

Just to let you know, I don't read really long posts.

Do you read the Bible? That’s an awfully long ‘post’.