Logos Doctrine And The UPC

[Esaias]

Remember this, TJ?

Originally Posted by Esaias

I asked you for Scripture, and you conclude the discussion is over?

lol

Well, that tells me all I need to know.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Dude. Please. Read this carefully:

I HAVE POSTED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE EARLY 1900S AND EVEN EARLIER THAT THERE WERE PENTECOSTALS BAPTISING IN JESUS' NAME BELIEVING IN THE NEW BIRTH OF WATER AND SPIRIT AND BELIEVING WHAT WE NOW GENERALLY CALL "ONENESS" LONG BEFORE ARROYO SECO, THE AOG, EVEN BEFORE AZUSA STREET.

BUT I REFUSE TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. Use the search function.

There were Oneness believers. There were those who baptized in Jesus name. There were those who spoke in tongues tho Im not aware of any historical groups that taught it was THE initial evidence.

I have not seen DOCUMENTATION on any particular group that taught all these things in package form as we do today.

I remember seeing some things you posted about groups that believed part of these things but NONE that believed them all together. I would really like to see if you have DOCUMENTATION.

Its not that I dont WANT it to be true. I am a Oneness Pentecostal myself and I could use it in my teaching.

When I say Ewart was the founder of the modern Oneness movement I dont infer he invented the doctrine or was even the one to teach it. I mean that he was considered at least early on as the "leader".

In his autobiography put out by the Pentecostal Publishing House, The Phenomenon Of Pentecost pg 67.

In relating these events I am trying to assume the viewpoint of an unbiased historian. However since it is widely known that I was THE RINGLEADER OF THE ONENESS CROWD and that I consider the revelation of the Oneness of God to be fundamental to participation in the "faith once delivered to the saints" my job is difficult and most unenviable.

So if the UPC had any objection of him calling himself the leader of the Oneness movement from its beginning maybe they would have edited it.

Anyway my point in using him in this discussion is it seems he believed the Pre existing Logos was more than a mere "thought" or "plan" in the mind of God. Same as some of us today.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Getting back to the subject at hand.

This is like the third Logos thread and like the previous ones it lacks any Scriptural documentation showing the Word was created, begotten, or made.

Contra that claim, I assert the following:

God is uncreated, not made, not begotten.

The Word was God.

Therefore, the Word was uncreated, not made, not begotten.

Your serve.

Was God the Logos? If God was the Logos that means God was a thought in his own mind according to the majority of Oneness teachers today. Do we define God as a thought in his own mind?

True God is uncreated not made or begotten.

However you must not understand that God can exist in more than one mode of being simultaneously.

God as omnipresent eternal Spirit had no beginning. But in the beginning of creation he made himself a form. This form was from himself to represent himself to creation.

In one mode of being he was invisible, in another he was visible.

The Logos (form) was with God. And the Logos was God. The image was himself.....in visible form. The Logos was everything the eternal Spirit was EXCEPT in a reduced image to fit inside creation and to sit on a throne and talk with angels and men.

Think of a company that has a "logo". It is a design of some kind the company creates. They want the potential customer base to think of their company when they see the logo.

I heard years ago "logo" is derived from "Logos".

It works the same way.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Was God the Logos? If God was the Logos that means God was a thought in his own mind according to the majority of Oneness teachers today. Do we define God as a thought in his own mind?

True God is uncreated not made or begotten.

However you must not understand that God can exist in more than one mode of being simultaneously.

God as omnipresent eternal Spirit had no beginning. But in the beginning of creation he made himself a form. This form was from himself to represent himself to creation.

In one mode of being he was invisible, in another he was visible.

The Logos (form) was with God. And the Logos was God. The image was himself.....in visible form. The Logos was everything the eternal Spirit was EXCEPT in a reduced image to fit inside creation and to sit on a throne and talk with angels and men.

Think of a company that has a "logo". It is a design of some kind the company creates. They want the potential customer base to think of their company when they see the logo.

I heard years ago "logo" is derived from "Logos".

It works the same way.

So, there is God, and then there is His holy space suit the logos?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Was God the Logos? If God was the Logos that means God was a thought in his own mind according to the majority of Oneness teachers today. Do we define God as a thought in his own mind?

True God is uncreated not made or begotten.

However you must not understand that God can exist in more than one mode of being simultaneously.

God as omnipresent eternal Spirit had no beginning. But in the beginning of creation he made himself a form. This form was from himself to represent himself to creation.

In one mode of being he was invisible, in another he was visible.

The Logos (form) was with God. And the Logos was God. The image was himself.....in visible form. The Logos was everything the eternal Spirit was EXCEPT in a reduced image to fit inside creation and to sit on a throne and talk with angels and men.

Think of a company that has a "logo". It is a design of some kind the company creates. They want the potential customer base to think of their company when they see the logo.

I heard years ago "logo" is derived from "Logos".

It works the same way.

I must not understand modes of Divine being? Who are you kidding?

The Word was God. Therefore the Word was uncreated, not made, not begotten.

You however, have "The Word was God, the Word was created etc".

The Logos is NOT merely "the form". This is where you do err. You are saying the Logos is a suit God made for Himself. But then the Logos would NOT be God, it would be a created vehicle for God. Scripture teaches otherwise. The Logos WAS GOD and then became a Man. When Jacob wrestled with the angel the Logos wasn't just the skin he touched, it was THE PERSON OR BEING he was wrestling with, who appeared as a man.

You are confusing the self-revelatory Person of God with the mere accidentals of the physical substance He used to express Himself.

God is Spirit, with a particular FORM, in and of Himself. That FORM is the Divine Mind, Idea, Consciousness, or LOGOS, it is God expressing Himself, the PERSON(ality) of God. That expression is as eternal and uncreated as God Himself, because THAT IS GOD. And that Word became flesh. Not "hopped into a flesh suit" but became a genuine human being, JESUS the Christ, the Son of God.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Most of the midwest preachers are twosees!

They believe in the Eternal Father God and the God Son heresy.

Name one please.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Name one please.

He can't do that.

Good grief.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Remember this, TJ?

I always give you scripture and you always reject it. Nonetheless I will not as you have said to me tell you to do your own homework. For the benefit of others I will be posting it. Perhaps you may see it this time around.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I always give you scripture and you always reject it. Nonetheless I will not as you have said to me tell you to do your own homework. For the benefit of others I will be posting it. Perhaps you may see it this time around.

Nonsense. Besides my post was directed to the other guy.

I have asked you for the scripture which says the Logos is created, you have repeatedly failed to do that.

The homework thing had to do with me posting historical references.

I do not reject Scripture. I reject your misinterpretation and eisegesis. Big difference.

[Michael The Disciple]

God is Spirit, with a particular FORM, in and of Himself. That FORM is the Divine Mind, Idea, Consciousness, or LOGOS, it is God expressing Himself, the PERSON(ality) of God. That expression is as eternal and uncreated as God Himself, because THAT IS GOD. And that Word became flesh. Not "hopped into a flesh suit" but became a genuine human being, JESUS the Christ, the Son of God.

What do you mean a particular form? Do you believe he had a personal form-image from creation to Bethlehem?

But then you say the form was divine mind, idea, or consciousness.

Can you explain? Form or no form?