**Further, I thought modalism teaches God is the Father at one point, then he became the Son and after that the Spirit.**
Just as there are people, in any particular organizational church structure, that really are to some degree or another unqualified to teach doctrine, Modalism is a poor way to define God. Mainly because God the Father never has, and never will cease to be God the Father. Not even for a minute. Some oneness preachers (and organizations) use the feeble ‘three manifestations’ description. I don’t.
And the Trinity is a poor way to define God, seeing that it promotes using unscriptural definitions, such as ‘God the Son’, and ‘God the Holy Spirit’.
Unfortunately, every attempt to define God, in an ‘our own words’ condensation, is just a weak attempt, without using the scriptures. Jesus Christ’s words on the subject are probably a third of the Gospel of John alone. A church organization’s statement of faith (which MUST include doctrine) is almost always a feeble attempt at abbreviation.
There is so MUCH to learn. Jesus Christ spent 3 years training the disciples, and then told them they would later be filled with the Spirit, which would lead and guide them into all truth. Anyway......
The Son of God was made to be the earthly express image of the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient invisible God (as pointed out in Col. 1:15, and Heb. 1:3. And one of the shortest overall descriptions (certainly not a detailed one) of the Godhead, imo, is 1Tim. 3:16:
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
And if God is three co-equal individual, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient ‘persons’, why does one need the other for anything? One thing is certain. How ever one wants to try and numerically define God, the fullness of the Godhead is found bodily in Christ (Col. 2:9), including the seven Spirits of God (Rev. 3:1).
1Cor. 15:20-28 “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept”....”Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”.....
....”And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Also himself be subject?.....and to HIM that PUT all things under him? That would be God, even the Father (see vrs 24).
You see, God the Father completely empowered a complete man (body and soul, that he made) to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), by dwelling in him.
Here’s a thought provoker:
Jesus Christ to Nathanael: ...”Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Jn 1;50,51
You’ve no doubt heard the commercials or seen the labels on computers that say: powered by Intel. Well, imo, no matter how you look at it, the Son of God is powered by God the Father.
Bed time. (I’m not normally a night owl. I just usually sleep some in the evening, then wake up in time to welcome home my wife the nurse, from her very draining second shift job. She appreciates having someone to talk to at the end of her day. The Obozocare effect has cut the staff at all the nursing homes in our area, making the job much tougher.)
Using any language is a poor way to define any infinite being as God.
But since we must use language as it is how God decided to reveal Himself to us.
The problem I see with what you are proposing is you take a verse here or there and try to build a theology around it, and read all other verses thru the lense of those verses.
Historical Chrisitanity is able to take all the verses and harmonize them perfectly.
For example, you keep stressing God the Father was in Jesus and that is true. But that doesn’t negate the Son’s deity separate from the Father. For example, John 1 declares the Word was God, it doesn’t say the Father was in the Word.
In Revelation, Jesus declares He is the first and the last, the exact phrase used in the OT of God. It doesn’t say he was the first and the last because the Father was in him.
Acts 5 declares the Holy Spirit to be a person by calling him he and states he is God.
These verses don’t make any sense with your interpretation, only the Trinity is able to make each verse harmonize with the whole Bible and the Apostolic Tradition received from the Apostles.