One In The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Found this: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=30062. Check out the last post on the first page.

I'm pretty sure I read the book many years ago, and I don't recall it containing anything but the standard Oneness view that I had been familiar with (basically from David Bernard's books), so it seems like anything about Jesus being the visible form of God, the Logos, before the incarnation was removed.

If thats true shame on them.

[Michael The Disciple]

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410102...m/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410160...m/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Phillipians 2:6 is helpful in this respect. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Or in other words before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the Divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.

This being who prior to his visible birth was in the very form of God-the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God-this being God, at his incarnation took upon him the likeness of men.

Here is how it reads now:

"Philippians 2:6 is helpful in this respect: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In other words, before Jesus was born with His human nature He was the invisible God. He was in the form of God, but He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

At His incarnation God took upon Himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at His incarnation but did not cease to be God. Now, in addition to what He always was (Jehovah God), He was in possession of an assumed human nature."

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410102...m/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410160...m/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

Thank you! I've started reading it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Here is how it reads now:

"Philippians 2:6 is helpful in this respect: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In other words, before Jesus was born with His human nature He was the invisible God. He was in the form of God, but He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

At His incarnation God took upon Himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at His incarnation but did not cease to be God. Now, in addition to what He always was (Jehovah God), He was in possession of an assumed human nature."

Stunning. I hope Bernard is not so dishonest that he did this. But then again, who did?

It reads like this in Drysdales book.

"'Who being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God.' Or in other words, before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, 'He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.' this being, who prior to His physical birth, was in the very form of God -- the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God -- This Being, God, at His Incarnation took upon himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at his incarnation, but did not cease to be God..." (Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus, n.d., p. 7)

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Stunning. I hope Bernard is not so dishonest that he did this. But then again, who did?

It reads like this in Drysdales book.

Any book submitted to Word Aflame Press for publication is subject to their editorial process. The author of course can decline to have their book published if they disagree with the final edited manuscript. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Magee's book going from self-published to being published by Word Aflame, so I can't say if it was dishonest or not.

One thing that is interesting/odd to me is that I had never heard of the Logos doctrine that you believe till reading some of your posts within the last couple of years. I hadn't realized that there were other options in Oneness besides what I had encountered in Bernard's books. Since I had only read Magee's book as published by Word Aflame I didn't learn about this other view of the Logos from him.

It seems that there was more doctrinal diversity in early times than now in the UPCI.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It has no label or writing about Word Aflame Press. Neither any date. Just has what may be the authors PO Box in Pasedena, Texas. On pg 7 he writes a few sentences showing his belief God had a pre incarnate form.



He simultaneously held to the mind/word theory or ''ideal" pre existing of Christ. Pg 29.

He misunderstood Philippians 2, it has nothing to do with Jesus "before the incarnation". A very common error, and an example of numerous catholic, trinitarian traditions still holding people's minds captive.

It is a shame that his book has been rewritten and edited. I wonder if it includes a disclaimer noting that? I wonder if he or his estate knew/knows about the rewriting of his book? Strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It is a shame that his book has been rewritten and edited. I wonder if it includes a disclaimer noting that? I wonder if he or his estate knew/knows about the rewriting of his book? Strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

As far as I can tell there is no disclaimer. But the publishing house would have had to obtain his or his estate's consent before publishing the edited book. I'm not sure when Bro. Magee passed away, but the copyright for the Word Aflame edition is 1988.

Do you by any chance hold the same view of the Logos as Michael?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410102...m/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/200410160...m/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

So I've been reading the book and am finally to the place where he describes the Word being the visible form of God. It's stimulated a lot of thought.

Why do you think something that is seen would be described as "Word" when a word is something heard?

[Michael The Disciple]

Perhaps the "word" of God was to come through a form as opposed to the omnipresent spirit? It would seem God made most of his creation with a visible form. Is there ANY creature we know anything about that does not have a form?

Some groups and teachers have likened the form to the SPOKESMAN.