Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Costeon

No they don't.

I'm fairly new to Michael's ideas (but as I stated in a previous post, these ideas were present in the earliest Oneness movement), but this is how I understand what they're saying. You may already understand their views and are just asking this question rhetorically in your critique of their view.

Summary
-The Omnipresent Spirit who became the Son via the Word-Image is eternal.
-The Word-Image, the visible form or celestial body of the omnipresent Spirit, is not eternal but had a beginning. The Word-Image was the first born of all creation; that is, God expressed himself in this visible form as his first act of creation and from this visible form created the heavens and the earth.
-God appeared in this visible form at all times to the Angels and at times to human beings as the Angel of the Lord.
-The human Son of God is not eternal but had a beginning at his conception when the Word-Image became man.

[I]I respectfully disagree with the above comments, your saying that God created for himself an image and that created image formed the worlds. is that the understanding of your comment?
[/I]
Why posit that God created from a visible form? You had, I believe, asserted that the Son as the Image of God only had reference to the Man (which is how I have generally believed in the past). But Col 1.15-18 especially and also Heb 1.2-3 make it difficult to maintain this when they explicitly say that the Image was the agent of creation.

If you look at the subject of the verses you mention, the subject is the man Christ Jesus not an image in the heavens. all of the verses in Heb 1 refers to the Man not a spirit.
if you take a look at the Greek word for "by" in the later part of Heb1:2 the word your translation has as "through" can also mean on account of, and because of. it is my opinion that the most accurate meaning of "by" would be one of the other definitions "on account, of because of" if this were the case we could keep the subject and the context intact

Col 1.15-18: "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

also in Col the subject is the man Jesus. the man Jesus is the image. He "the man Jesus" who is being spoken of not preincarnation.

Heb 1.2-3a: "2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person. . . "

As stated elsewhere, when the writer of Hebrews says the Son created, he is speaking proleptically of the Son, that is, the One who was "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" and who created later became the Son.)

Again Heb is referring to the Messiah< Jesus the man is the brightness of his glory.

I have heard people try to explain these verses (and John 1.1-3) as "Well, as God of course he was the creator, but the Image only refers to when he became man." But these verses distinguish God from His Image while stating that the Image was the agent of creation.

The Image of God is said to be the Word in order to harmonize these verses with John 1.1-3 where the Word is distinguished from God and is the agent of creation.

The Word and Image are two ways of speaking of one reality: the expression or self-revelation of God. The Image in particular emphasizes the visible nature of this expression.

God and his Word or Image are not two distinct divine persons. Pre-incarnation, the Word-Image is not in any kind of personal relationship with God. He is simply the visible form of the omnipresent Spirit.

Post-incarnation, the Son, the Word-Image incarnate, is described as being in personal relationship with God (talking to each other, loving each other, the Son receiving information from the Father, etc.) and that's where all the real exegetical fun begins in trying to make sense of that. :-)

..

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Summary
-The Omnipresent Spirit who became the Son via the Word-Image is eternal.
-The Word-Image, the visible form or celestial body of the omnipresent Spirit, is not eternal but had a beginning. The Word-Image was the first born of all creation; that is, God expressed himself in this visible form as his first act of creation and from this visible form created the heavens and the earth.
-God appeared in this visible form at all times to the Angels and at times to human beings as the Angel of the Lord.
-The human Son of God is not eternal but had a beginning at his conception when the Word-Image became man.

I respectfully disagree with the above comments, your saying that God created for himself an image and that created image formed the worlds. is that the understanding of your comment?

First just to clarify, I'm not necessarily giving my personal opinion. I'm just trying to help you understand their teaching on the Word-Image. But, yes, since, for example, the passage in Colossians speaks of the Image being the first born of all creation, and since that Image created everything else, then it is taught that God first expressed himself in a visible form and from that form spoke the rest of creation into existence. It is this form that then sat on the throne in heaven in the presence of the mighty host of angels and was at times seen by human beings.

also in Col the subject is the man Jesus. the man Jesus is the image. He "the man Jesus" who is being spoken of not preincarnation.

If this is so, in effect it seems you're saying:
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.

I would imagine this is not what you believe, but that seems to be the conclusion to draw from what you've said.

[Michael The Disciple]

First just to clarify, I'm not necessarily giving my personal opinion. I'm just trying to help you understand their teaching on the Word-Image. But, yes, since, for example, the passage in Colossians speaks of the Image being the first born of all creation, and since that Image created everything else, then it is taught that God first expressed himself in a visible form and from that form spoke the rest of creation into existence. It is this form that then sat on the throne in heaven in the presence of the mighty host of angels and was at times seen by human beings.

Our magnificent YAH! The Logos who was made flesh!

If this is so, in effect it seems you're saying:
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.

I would imagine this is not what you believe, but that seems to be the conclusion to draw from what you've said.

This is what I also get out of what he has said.

[Apostolic1ness]

You know well that that is not my belief. You are correct on that. You simply can't leave the context and subject intact in heb1 and Colossians and conclude that the scriptures are not referring the the historical messiah not the Preincarnate Logos. So my view isn't misrepresented
1. God may have shown himself as an image in times Preincarnate. Yes I believe he may have.
2. I do not believe an appearance Of God preincarnation was the Son or an image of the Son.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You know well that that is not my belief. You are correct on that. You simply can't leave the context and subject intact in heb1 and Colossians and conclude that the scriptures are not referring the the historical messiah not the Preincarnate Logos. So my view isn't misrepresented
1. God may have shown himself as an image in times Preincarnate. Yes I believe he may have.
2. I do not believe an appearance Of God preincarnation was the Son or an image of the Son.

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.

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.

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."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

2. I do not believe an appearance Of God preincarnation was the Son or an image of the Son.

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
(Colossians 1:12-19)

This clearly says all things were created by the son. The One who is the "head of the body, the church" and who is "the firstborn from the dead" is the one "by whom all things were created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth."

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
(Isaiah 6:1-10)


But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
(John 12:37-41)

These two passages clearly teach that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ and spake about Him.

I could list many any more where Jehovah in the Old Testament, in His manifestations to men, is identified as Christ in the New Testament.

Now, nobody is saying that the OT appearances or interactions of God with men were appearances or interactions of a flesh and blood human born 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. What is being said is these OT appearances or interactions of God are in fact the interactions of the One who Incarnated 2000 years ago in Bethlehem.

So, that being established, it follows necessarily that those OT instances involved the Logos, since it is the Logos that was "in the beginning", "made all things", and then was later "made flesh" as the son.

Christ was in the beginning, made all things. The Logos was in the beginning, and made all things. Christ is the Logos "made flesh". Therefore, Christ was in the beginning and making all things AS THE LOGOS.

Which further shows the Logos is not limited to simply an idea in God's mind.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Very clearly, the apostle Paul says Christ was the "spiritual rock" with Israel in the wilderness. Which means that rock was in fact the Logos (for remember, Christ is the Logos made flesh, and in the wilderness the Logos had not yet been made flesh, therefore Christ in the wilderness of Sinai with Israel must be the preincarnate Logos). But what "spiritual rock" is being spoken of? An idea in God's mind?

Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
(1 Corinthians 10:9)

The syntax requires that Paul is saying the Israelites in the wilderness tempted Christ. *see footnote below This is especially shown by the fact that he just got done saying they were drinking from a spiritual rock which was Christ. So who did Israel tempt? Who sustained them in the wilderness? Who is the rock?

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deuteronomy 32:1-4)

The rock is Jehovah, and the spiritual waters are the doctrine, the prophetic utterances of the prophet. The prophetic "waters" flow from the spirit of YHVH, which according to the new testament is the spirit of Jesus, the spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost. So the rock in the wilderness is Jehovah, yet the apostle says it is Christ. And before Bethlehem the one we know as Jesus Christ was in fact the Logos or "word" of God. Which again was not only "with" God, but WAS GOD (Jehovah, the LORD).

So all of it ties together. The preincarnate Logos was not merely "an idea in God's mind", but was God himself, manifesting and revealing Himself to His people, interacting with them, leading them, sustaining them, guiding them.

So then the Logos is the manifestation of God, that is, God revealing Himself.

God revealing Himself in the Old Testament is also known as the Angel of the LORD or the Angel of His Presence. This is distinct from the angels that God sends, this is a manifestation or appearing of Jehovah Himself. Which in turn is Christ preincarnate, that is to say, the Logos or Word.

All these theophanies or manifestations or revealings or interactions can be ascribed to the son, because He who is the son is the one who was appearing. By saying the son created all things, Paul is saying Christ (the man from Galilee) is in fact the Logos or self revelation of Jehovah.

*Footnote: JFB Commentary -

tempt Christ — So the oldest versions, Irenaeus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read “Lord”; and one manuscript only “God.” If “Lord” be read, it will mean Christ. As “Christ” was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co_10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Num_21:5 it is “spake against God” (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co_10:9, “God,” to harmonize it with Num_21:5). As either “Christ” or “Lord” is the genuine reading, “Christ” must be “God.” Compare “Why do ye tempt the Lord?” (Exo_17:2, Exo_17:7. Compare Rom_14:11, with Isa_45:22, Isa_45:23). Israel’s discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the “Angel” of the covenant (Exo_23:20, Exo_23:21; Exo_32:34; Isa_63:9). Though they drank of “that Rock ... Christ” (1Co_10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Exo_17:2, Exo_17:7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, “the true manna,” “the bread of life”), they yet murmured, “Our soul loatheth this light bread.” In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh_8:56; Heb_11:26).

[Michael The Disciple]

And this is the Oneness truth so needed by the modern Oneness Church!

[Apostolic1ness]

Right this is all true in light of knowing that Jesus was God manifest in flesh. Of course the Logos created all things "there is only one God" yet I don't think we can say that God created a body in the heavens that he made all things from or through. Absolutely those in the wilderness tempted Christ, but did they tempt an image no, they tempted the spirit of God neither did they tempt a theophany. The issue is not whether the son is the image of God but are the appearances of God the image of the Son in the OT.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Right this is all true in light of knowing that Jesus was God manifest in flesh. Of course the Logos created all things "there is only one God" yet I don't think we can say that God created a body in the heavens that he made all things from or through. Absolutely those in the wilderness tempted Christ, but did they tempt an image no, they tempted the spirit of God neither did they tempt a theophany. The issue is not whether the son is the image of God but are the appearances of God the image of the Son in the OT.

If God is a Spirit why would He need to have a image to create all things through? I understand some of this argument, but this part I don't. Because in Colossians that's definitely all conceptual, it speaking ot foreknowledge. The only way we can break that up is saying that the Father and the Son is 2 different persons!

Since there is only One and we know titles Father and Son is relational and not denoting persons, then everything said here can be said as the Son being a concept also.

Give me something that can't be said about, and lets discuss it. But Colossians is ruled out, that can all be explained in a concept.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You know well that that is not my belief. You are correct on that. You simply can't leave the context and subject intact in heb1 and Colossians and conclude that the scriptures are not referring the the historical messiah not the Preincarnate Logos. So my view isn't misrepresented
1. God may have shown himself as an image in times Preincarnate. Yes I believe he may have.
2. I do not believe an appearance Of God preincarnation was the Son or an image of the Son.

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.