No Pre-existing Son... Before Christ's Birth?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Some folks just like being wordy. Neck's Dad who was known as a great Godehead teacher( I had one exception with him but I won't go into that here) was teaching on the subject in depth at a meeting. An AG lady was present and he was trying to reach her. After a couple of hours of excellent teaching on the subject he finished. Standing on the steps with the Pastor as folks were leaving the AG lady shook their hands and said I just don't understand what you were saying. He replied "God who is Spirit that is everywhere made a body and climbed in it so He could die for our sins and we could see Him." She said take me to the water. Sometimes the simplicity is overlooked. Being a teacher is NOT making the simple complicated but making the complicated simple.

Steve,
when it comes to overlooking simplicity, I am no match to Jason's disclaimer.

If your view is simple, please rip the words father and son out of your dictionary because they do not really mean anything that can be understood without a metaphysical journey to the origins of some hypostatic union.....and once you get there you will ask yourself (if honest) "How does this establish a FATHER and a SON using any normal SIMPLE word usage?" But if word usage is going to mess up a long standing doctrinal assertion....by all means, alter the word usage because your previous teachings must be preserved at all costs.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Steve,
when it comes to overlooking simplicity, I am no match to Jason's disclaimer.

If your view is simple, please rip the words father and son out of your dictionary because they do not really mean anything that can be understood without a metaphysical journey to the origins of some hypostatic union.....and once you get there you will ask yourself (if honest) "How does this establish a FATHER and a SON using any normal SIMPLE word usage?" But if word usage is going to mess up a long standing doctrinal assertion....by all means, alter the word usage because your previous teachings must be preserved at all costs.

I am perplexed and confused at what you are attempting to say?
But it is simple "God was manifest in the flesh" The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Father as the Eternal Spirit was the Father in every way to the Son and the Son who was the union between the Father and Mary was the Son in everyway. Both truly Father as to His divine nature and Son as to His human nature, God and Man in ONE uniquie glorious person.

[Michael The Disciple]

Steve Epley

Some folks just like being wordy. Neck's Dad who was known as a great Godehead teacher( I had one exception with him but I won't go into that here) was teaching on the subject in depth at a meeting.

Hi Steve! This would be a nice time for me to comment wouldnt it? Actually John Ekstat was the PREMEIR Oneness teacher of his day. His teaching on the Godhead is the most edifying, soul thrilling preaching I ever heard with no exception!

He would agree with you all there was no pre existing eternal Son. But he would be quick to point out that Jesus did preexist not merely as a thought in the mind of God but as the form of God, the angel of YHWH.

As God is manifest visibly today as the man Jesus Christ he was manifest from eternity as the angel of YHWH.

After hearing his teaching its hard to abide the Bernard type teaching of today.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Hi Steve! This would be a nice time for me to comment wouldnt it? Actually John Ekstat was the PREMEIR Oneness teacher of his day. His teaching on the Godhead is the most edifying, soul thrilling preaching I ever heard with no exception!

He would agree with you all there was no pre existing eternal Son. But he would be quick to point out that Jesus did preexist not merely as a thought in the mind of God but as the form of God, the angel of YHWH.

As God is manifest visibly today as the man Jesus Christ he was manifest from eternity as the angel of YHWH.

After hearing his teaching its hard to abide the Bernard type teaching of today.

I was expecting you. If Elder Ekstat would have left it as a theophany I would have no problem but in my mind he taught a PERSON or BEING apart from God which makes TWO, however in the incarnation and the resurrection somehow he ended up with ONE! So he was Arian to a point! And I realize you too are confused on the issue.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I was expecting you. If Elder Ekstat would have left it as a theophany I would have no problem but in my mind he taught a PERSON or BEING apart from God which makes TWO, however in the incarnation and the resurrection somehow he ended up with ONE! So he was Arian to a point! And I realize you too are confused on the issue.

Actually he as well as most of us who follow that view of Oneness do believe the Angel was a theophany. The difference is we understand there was only ONE GREAT THEOPHANY.

The tired doctrine that the burning bush and pillar of fire were theophanies instantly is exposed as false when its pointed out the ANGEL OF YHWH was Elohim's presence INSIDE THEM.

He was THE THEOPHANY. The LOGOS that was with God and at the same time was God. The preexisting image of the invisible God that he might be seen by Angels as he sat on Heavens throne!

Indeed it was THIS PART of God that became flesh. The Angel was the image until the incarnation. Thats Johns meaning of the LOGOS. Now that the Logos became flesh God is seen through the man Christ Jesus.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim. 2:5

[CC1]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Jason's diagram disclaimer supplied by Steven and affirmed by CC1 states the following:

A breakdown of Jason's disclaimer seems to reveal that SILENCE is GOLDEN in the establishment of philosophical opinion.

This diagram of the Son should not be understood to mean that God merely dwelt in Christ like a person dwells in a house.

Jason's assertion that it was not MERELY an indwelling requires he extend his opinion without scriptural witness to help ward off those who would think in terms of either INDWELLING of a person OR INDWELLING of a flesh suit.

While God was in Christ, the union of the divine and human natures surpasses that of mere indwelling.
It's nice to say SURPASSES but when the statement is done, it is fully established by Jason's opinion in the surroundings of academia, not an assertion established in scripture.


There was a metaphysical union of the divine and human natures to form one theandric existence;
It's a thoughtful concept, a deep philosophical dig, but it is a postion established from the silence of a man's imagination not witness of scripture.


a union that preserved the properties of each nature, yet united them into one person.
Supposition at very best. So many scriptural departures from this "preserved properties of each nature" that the next thing his disclaimer really should add is "the divine nature was so perfectly hidden from the human nature that neither had any real idea about the other".....maybe he'll insert that personal opinion later as well.


The metaphysical union is expressed in the diagram by the absence of the black line around the yellow circle (God).

I'm happy for the present confidence in the metaphysical union position and the fully preserved dual nature position because to hold these as establishing one's confidence will also force the proponents of this opinion to ask "How is Jesus my example? my kinsman redeemer"

Our Lord and Saviour is the Son of God.
Quoting the testimony of the voice that on two occasions directly spoke:

This is my beloved Son, in whom, I am well pleased.

With the testimony of the voice speaking from the cloud to back me up.....I am feeling strangely confident to declare God's Son was a person with a will of his own, separate from his father which begat him. But I do accept that all I have is the simple reading of scripture to confirm this position.

tbpew,

I am curious at to how you would differentiate God being in Jesus as opposed to God's Spirit being in us when we recieve the bpatism of the Holy Ghost. Obviously there is a difference but I am curious as to how you would state it.

It is figuring out the fusion of God and man that fascinates me and I have never completely felt comfortable with an explanation.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Actually he as well as most of us who follow that view of Oneness do believe the Angel was a theophany. The difference is we understand there was only ONE GREAT THEOPHANY.

The tired doctrine that the burning bush and pillar of fire were theophanies instantly is exposed as false when its pointed out the ANGEL OF YHWH was Elohim's presence INSIDE THEM.

He was THE THEOPHANY. The LOGOS that was with God and at the same time was God. The preexisting image of the invisible God that he might be seen by Angels as he sat on Heavens throne!

Indeed it was THIS PART of God that became flesh. The Angel was the image until the incarnation. Thats Johns meaning of the LOGOS. Now that the Logos became flesh God is seen through the man Christ Jesus.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim. 2:5

1 + 1 =2 on anyone's calculator. What happened to the body when God became incarnate?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

1 + 1 =2 on anyone's calculator. What happened to the body when God became incarnate?

It became flesh and dwelled among us

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It became flesh and dwelled among us

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The BODY became flesh???????????? Splain that to this simple preacher the BODY climbed into Mary's womb?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The BODY became flesh???????????? Splain that to this simple preacher the BODY climbed into Mary's womb?

Of course. You do understand Im talking about a spiritual body as opposed to a flesh one?

The omnipresent spirit simply reduced it down to the size of a seed and overshadowing Mary placed it in her womb.