Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I agree with this. Because i can just as easily say that Heb 1 and Colossians is talking about the plan in the mind of God, a logic, or reason.

Although I might be inclined to want to say something like this, I don't think it can easily be said at all because the Image/Son is described in personal terms throughout the contexts of Col 1 and Heb 1--he is described as an actual person who has done specific concrete things to accomplish our redemption. Look at Col 1.13-20 again. The Son has a kingdom, he died on the cross and redeemed us by his blood, the Father dwelled in him and reconciled all things to himself, He is the head of the church, He is the first fruits of the resurrection, etc. In light of this, I don't think we can then say, "But regarding him being the Image of God who created all things, well, that is just referring to the plan in the mind of God, a logic, or reason." We can't switch to talking about abstract ideas when everything else in the context is concrete.

Even the same thing you say about God walking and talking with Adam In the cool ot the day by the preincarnate logo's, I can show just enough proof that it didn't mean that. i can walk and talk with Him, this day never seeing Him. We forget they had no fallen nature so, Adam was in tuned to the Spirit on a level we could never even fathom. The most Spiritual fallen person we know, would pale in comparison to Adam.

Yes we can walk and talk with the Lord, but we can't hear Him walking and talking, which is what Adam and Eve experienced. They didn't spiritually "hear" God in the Garden. They actually heard his voice audibly, and so it follows they actually heard the Lord walking in the Garden. It makes most sense to understand that the Lord was in a visible Form in the Garden.

I do think both sides have good points and I'll be honest the answer is probably between the 2 extremes, but some of this is at best trying to rationalize the "great mystery ot Godliness."

One of the good things about this forum is being able to consider the different views to help sharpen our understanding. I'm not trying to rationalize the mystery; I want to defeat trinitarianism and how we understand and explain the Logos/Image is crucial to this task.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding the context and it referring either to the Pre-incarnate Word or the historical Messiah, I don't think it is an either/or situation. Yes, Paul mentions his resurrection and the Father reconciling all things to himself through the Son, and so that points to the historical Messiah, but Paul of course also deals with the creation and asserts that the Image of God created all things. This of course occurred long before the historical messiah, so the context does not allow you to assign all this about the Image to the historical messiah. And since Paul clearly distinguishes the Image of God from the Father in this passage, you can't just say, "Well, as God he created and later was manifested in flesh as the Image of God." No, the Image of God created. In short it was the Pre-Incarnate Word-Image that created all things.

And so if you insist on keeping the following points as is, in particular point 1, the conclusion in point 3 stands.
1. Only the Man is the Image.
2. The Image created all things.
3. Therefore, the Man was in the beginning and created all things.

You have said you don't believe that the Man was in the beginning and created, but by insisting that the Image is only the Man, I don't think you can avoid the conclusion.

Regarding your point 1, there is no question God showed himself. Moses for example saw his form (Numbers 12.8).
Regarding your point 2, since God did in fact show himself, it could not have been the Father who was seen, since no man has seen him (John 1.18), and so it had to be the preIncarnate Word, the Image of God who was seen--who later became the Son at the incarnation.

Again the Father and His Word or Image are not two distinct divine persons. The Word-Image is the self-expression of the Father--it seems in visible form.

I'm very interested in your views and how you respond to what I've said in this post because all this about the Word-Image is pretty new to me, and I have generally believed like you in the past. I'm trying to learn all I can about this view, which does, to be frank, strike me as a bit strange because it is very different from what I have heard in the past. I was especially surprised to learn that this apparently was a common way that early Oneness Pentecostal writers explained the pre-incarnate Logos.

[1ofthechosen]

Ok well then what's being said here in Acts 27:23-24 "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee."

Is this the Angel of the Lord from the OT? At this point He was the Son of God, wouldn't you say? In light of this, how do you explain this. With the rest of Elder Drysdale's theory.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok well then what's being said here in Acts 27:23-24 "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee."

Is this the Angel of the Lord from the OT? At this point He was the Son of God, wouldn't you say? In light of this, how do you explain this. With the rest of Elder Drysdale's theory.

Maybe its the messenger of God, I say that because he makes reference to God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Maybe its the messenger of God, I say that because he makes reference to God.

So we all have personal angels we serve?

[Michael The Disciple]

So we do understand that YAH has millions of angels? They serve him? They are messengers? There are at least 100 million of them before his throne?

After the Logos was made flesh (became man) does he still not reign in Heaven? Angels do Gods will in Heaven. If not them, who?

So it would be very normal for him to send one of them at any given time to comfort the children of light here on Earth.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So we do understand that YAH has millions of angels? They serve him? They are messengers? There are at least 100 million of them before his throne?

After the Logos was made flesh (became man) does he still not reign in Heaven? Angels do Gods will in Heaven. If not them, who?

So it would be very normal for him to send one of them at any given time to comfort the children of light here on Earth.

I totally understand that Brother Michael but thats not what Paul is saying towards this Angel. Like Brother E.B. said "do we all have personal angels we serve?" Because that is never ok. Because Paul says "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve." What Brother Apostolic1ness has said is true. But I believe what Brother EB said would totally reject that theory. Matter of fact that's why I posted it, it just popped up in My Spirit last night I was reading Elder Drysdale's theory of the Angel of the Lord in the OT. This scripture then came to me, and I thought I should insert that on this thread because that's interesting. Because I doubt anyone would say the Son of God has become the Angel of the Lord again. Would anyone be safe saying that?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok well then what's being said here in Acts 27:23-24 "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee."

Is this the Angel of the Lord from the OT? At this point He was the Son of God, wouldn't you say? In light of this, how do you explain this. With the rest of Elder Drysdale's theory.

It is unlikely Paul is saying the angel is Christ, that seems unlike his usual manner of speaking (about post incarnate appearances of the Lord). So it is more likely this is one of God's angels sent to comfort and encourage him.

"Whose I am" refers to God, not the angel.

[Esaias]

Expositor's Greek Testament
Acts 27:23. παρέστη … ἄγγελος: on this Lucan phrase and description of angelic appearances cf. Luke 2:9; Luke 24:4, Acts 12:7 (Acts 23:11), and see above, Acts 1:10.—τοῦ Θεοῦ: “of the God whose I am, whom also I serve,” R.V., Ramsay, Rendall, not “an angel of God,” as A.V.; the R.V. rendering gives the force of the Greek more naturally in addressing a heathen; see also critical note.—λατρεύω, see on Acts 24:14; cf. Romans 1:9, and LXX, Jonah 1:9.

Vincent's Word Studies
The angel
Rev., correctly, an angel. There is no article.

Of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ)

Rev., correctly, supplies the article: "the God," added because Paul was addressing heathen, who would have understood by angel a messenger of the gods.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok well then what's being said here in Acts 27:23-24 "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee."

Is this the Angel of the Lord from the OT? At this point He was the Son of God, wouldn't you say? In light of this, how do you explain this. With the rest of Elder Drysdale's theory.

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.