Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

First, in Greek it is "an angel of God" (angelos tou theou) not "the angel of God" (ho angelos tou theou), the KJV's translation notwithstanding. And so modern translations render this "an angel."

Second, "of God" is directly modified by "the" and the phrase "to whom I belong and whom I serve" (NKJV); thus "an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve." In short, this is one angel of the multitudes in God's service who was sent to comfort Paul; it is not referring at all to the Angel of Yahweh who appears in the OT.

The Angel of the LORD is conspicuously absent from the NT. I believe Elder Drysdale et al would say the reason this is so is that the One who appeared in the OT as the Angel of LORD, i.e., the One who was the Word-Image of God and had a celestial body in the OT was the One who became incarnate as the Son of God. The One who had a celestial body now has a fleshly body.

Porque esta noche ha estado conmigo el ángel del Dios de quien soy y a quien sirvo

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

First, in Greek it is "an angel of God" (angelos tou theou) not "the angel of God" (ho angelos tou theou), the KJV's translation notwithstanding. And so modern translations render this "an angel."

Second, "of God" is directly modified by "the" and the phrase "to whom I belong and whom I serve" (NKJV); thus "an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve." In short, this is one angel of the multitudes in God's service who was sent to comfort Paul; it is not referring at all to the Angel of Yahweh who appears in the OT.

The Angel of the LORD is conspicuously absent from the NT. I believe Elder Drysdale et al would say the reason this is so is that the One who appeared in the OT as the Angel of LORD, i.e., the One who was the Word-Image of God and had a celestial body in the OT was the One who became incarnate as the Son of God. The One who had a celestial body now has a fleshly body.

You broke this down very clear brother. I appreciate it also, because where the KJV was foggy to my understanding you clarified. I can see that. I knew there was no way post incarnation the Son of God would be in Angelic form. It was the unclearness in the translation that made me say it. Because most claim they don't know what not who the Angel of the Lord theophany is. So I wanted to make sure we clarified there's no appearances after the glorification of Jesus.

I see it, I'm agreeing more and more with Elder Drysdales theory.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You broke this down very clear brother. I appreciate it also, because where the KJV was foggy to my understanding you clarified. I can see that. I knew there was no way post incarnation the Son of God would be in Angelic form. It was the unclearness in the translation that made me say it. Because most claim they don't know what not who the Angel of the Lord theophany is. So I wanted to make sure we clarified there's no appearances after the glorification of Jesus.

I see it, I'm agreeing more and more with Elder Drysdales theory.

I'm glad it was clear. There still are some things that are very unclear in my head regarding Drysdale's book. I'm going to need to read his book in full and probably reread it and reread it and think and pray about it because, frankly, it still strikes me as, I don't know, odd, because it is very different from anything I had read before.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You broke this down very clear brother. I appreciate it also, because where the KJV was foggy to my understanding you clarified. I can see that. I knew there was no way post incarnation the Son of God would be in Angelic form. It was the unclearness in the translation that made me say it. Because most claim they don't know what not who the Angel of the Lord theophany is. So I wanted to make sure we clarified there's no appearances after the glorification of Jesus.

I see it, I'm agreeing more and more with Elder Drysdales theory.

KJV is the book for thee.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I'm glad it was clear. There still are some things that are very unclear in my head regarding Drysdale's book. I'm going to need to read his book in full and probably reread it and reread it and think and pray about it because, frankly, it still strikes me as, I don't know, odd, because it is very different from anything I had read before.

YeaI can't say all of it, just this basic part of it. Although it needs better wording more Biblical phrasing. Calling the Logos the preincarnate Son sounds like eternal sonship and we should stay away from these clearly Trinitarian terms. Not only for confusion, but the Oneness brothers will reject that right off! I didn't even want to hear it at first because of the way it was worded. That needs to be changed.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

KJV is the book for thee.

Peradventure it 'tis thy sword!

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is the type of message that I would love to have the text.

Two months late, but you can order the syllabus (has all of the text from every session since it was more of a "scholarly presentation") at https://sotad.org/materials.

[jediwill83]

So is it a good thing to be "complex"?


Shouldn't veracity and simplicity be at the core of our doctrine?


Did He not choose the simple things to confound the wise?


Albert Einstein said "If you can't explain the topic to a 6 year old, you don't understand the subject well enough."


My beef isn't with Oneness...far from it...but are we lauding complexity over simplicity?


If I have a recipe for gumbo, the goal is to make an awesome tasting dish in the simplest way possible while still retaining the flavor and quality.


An excess of ingredients does not always a good pot of gumbo make.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So is it a good thing to be "complex"?


Shouldn't veracity and simplicity be at the core of our doctrine?


Did He not choose the simple things to confound the wise?


Albert Einstein said "If you can't explain the topic to a 6 year old, you don't understand the subject well enough."


My beef isn't with Oneness...far from it...but are we lauding complexity over simplicity?


If I have a recipe for gumbo, the goal is to make an awesome tasting dish in the simplest way possible while still retaining the flavor and quality.


An excess of ingredients does not always a good pot of gumbo make.

No complex is not good. Btw that was the worst explaination of the Godhead I've ever heard, I couldn't even keep up with him.

I just wanted to see what others said about it, and find out if someone would translate what was said into layman's terms lol. But apparently everyone who listened to it that said something, heard the exact things I did pick up on. So this is my most unfavorite Brother Wilson teaching ever.

Complex is never good!

In fact this one was much better if you ask me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It was too complicated for William Branham.