Anybody ever heard of Ross Drysdale

[stmatthew]

IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS. (http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm)

NOW ON-LINE


A ONENESS RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGE OF NEO-TRINITARIANISM
Written by Ross Drysdale. It is a rebuttal against Gregory Boyd's book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Bro. Drysdale exposes Trinitarian error, and discusses all doctrinal beliefs held by the major Oneness movements: UPCI and PAW. You can read it by clicking on the book title above.


http://inglisfpc.com/

[stmatthew]

bump

[BrotherEastman]

I've clicked it and nothing happens.

[The Mrs]

I've clicked it and nothing happens.

Strange...me either. :winkgrin

[Old Paths]

I have a friend whose Dad pastored in Inglis many years ago, but after looking at his picture, I don't THINK there's a connection. :D

[mfblume]

I typed the entire book for Drysdale for online viewing. My site was the first to have that book online. Bro Drysdale is with the PAW in Florida. It is no longer on my site, but I still have all the files. He is a bit crass with his approach, and pops an attitude against trinitarians which has turned some folks off the book.

[BrotherEastman]

I typed the entire book for Drysdale for online viewing. My site was the first to have that book online. Bro Drsydale is with the PAW in Florida. It is no longer on my site, but I still have all the files.
link please.

[mfblume]

link please.

Like I said, I no longer have it on my site. I can email the files.

[mfblume]

http://www.amazon.com/If-ye-know-these-things/dp/B0006F4488

Gary (Cohen) Reckart later published it, and it is at Amazon.

[mfblume]

From Amazon's site:

Those who are outside of Oneness Pentecostal cirlces believe that Oneness Pentecostals deny the Father and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). They also teach the Oneness Pentecostals believe in a Gospel where salvation is earned through works. This book well written by Elder Ross Drysdale puts those myths to rest and gives a clear explanation of the core beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals. Whether you are Oneness or Trinitarian in doctrine this book is a must read for anyone who wishes to get a better understanding of the "core" doctrinal beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals. This book is scholarly yet anyone reading it would be able to understand what is being presented. It is one of the best books written on Oneness Pentecostals.

[The Mrs]

I've clicked it and nothing happens.

Link is fixed. :thumbsup

[mfblume]

http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm

[FRINGE_NUTTER]

I remember Don Drysdale, pitcher for the LA Dodgers back in the 60s. Any relation? :killinme

[Sam]

Wasn't Mr. Drysdale the banker on The Beverly Hillbillies?

[Michael The Disciple]

The Book by Drysdale is BY FAR the greatest teaching on the Godhead I have ever read in my 27 years of Oneness study. His teaching on the Angel Of The Lord connection with the Logos enables an accurate belief on the pre existence of Christ.

[mfblume]

The Book by Drysdale is BY FAR the greatest teaching on the Godhead I have ever read in my 27 years of Oneness study. His teaching on the Angel Of The Lord connection with the Logos enables an accurate belief on the pre existence of Christ.

A lot of early UPC ministerws believed this Angel of the Lord doctrine, but the overall fellowship filtered it out after a few years.

[Michael The Disciple]

A lot of early UPC ministerws believed this Angel of the Lord doctrine, but the overall fellowship filtered it out after a few years.

And by rejecting the truth their movement stalled out just like all the other short sighted denominations.

[mfblume]

And by rejecting the truth their movement stalled out just like all the other short sighted denominations.

I would not be so strong in terms to say they rejected the truth. As far as preteism is concerned, yes they did. lol.

But the flaw I see in Angel of the Lord doctrine is that it is supposed to indicate a pre-existent Christ in physical form, which is refuted by the fact that Paul saw the Angel of the Lord well after the cross while on the ship in which he was shipwrecked in the book of Acts.

The doctrine teaches Christ was physically seen in the form of the Angel of the Lord. And since they propose the Angel of God became the Son of God, how did Paul see this Angel in Acts if it became the Son long before?

Also Hebrews teaches that no "ANGEL" was ever told he would be God's Son. And I know the term ANGEL in their doctrine does not refer to heavenly angels like Gabriel, but still the passage in Hebrews uses the same term ANGEL. So no ANGEL in any form would ever be called SON. I personally reject the Angel of the Lord doctrine.

[Michael The Disciple]

I would not be so strong in terms to say they rejected the truth. As far as preteism is concerned, yes they did. lol.

But the flaw I see in Angel of the Lord doctrine is that it is supposed to indicate a pre-existent Christ in physical form, which is refuted by the fact that Paul saw the Angel of the Lord well after the cross while on the ship in which he was shipwrecked in the book of Acts.

The doctrine teaches Christ was physically seen in the form of the Angel of the Lord. And since they propose the Angel of God became the Son of God, how did Paul see this Angel in Acts if it became the Son long before?

Also Hebrews teaches that no "ANGEL" was ever told he would be God's Son. And I know the term ANGEL in their doctrine does not refer to heavenly angels like Gabriel, but still the passage in Hebrews uses the same term ANGEL. So no ANGEL in any form would ever be called SON. I personally reject the Angel of the Lord doctrine.

So now Oneness teaches the ridiculous doctrine that God never had a body or form until Bethlehem. Or that God was a pillar of fire or a burning bush. Without the understanding of the pre existing WORD Oneness doctrine falls short of true Biblical revelation.

[Sam]

...
But the flaw I see in Angel of the Lord doctrine is that it is supposed to indicate a pre-existent Christ in physical form, which is refuted by the fact that Paul saw the Angel of the Lord well after the cross while on the ship in which he was shipwrecked in the book of Acts.

The doctrine teaches Christ was physically seen in the form of the Angel of the Lord. And since they propose the Angel of God became the Son of God, how did Paul see this Angel in Acts if it became the Son long before?
...


There are a couple of ways to look at Acts 27:23

In the KJV it says, "there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve." The Syriac Peshitta and J.B. Phillips also read that way. Other versions that I have checked (Amplified, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, ISV, Moffatt, NEB, Jerusalem Bible, CJB, NAS, NASB, NCV, CEV, NIV, NLT, Wuest's Expanded, and Apostolic Bible Polyglot) may differ in all their wording here but basically all say, "an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve." It seems to me that most versions call the being who appeared to Paul an angel not the angel and that Paul did not belong to nor serve the angel who appeared to him.

Another possibility if we use the wording of the KJV and a couple of others is that Jesus appeared to Paul and Paul referred to Him as the angel God and that Jesus/the Angel was the God that Paul served and to whom he belonged. And in Galatians 4:14, Paul says that the folks in Galatia had previously received him "as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" (KJV). In this verse it could be taken that Paul was calling Jesus the Angel of the Lord.

[Michael The Disciple]

Its obvious that Jacob (Israel) believed his God was an Angel.

15: And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Gen. 48:15-16

The Patriarchs of the faith did not know Elohim any other way.

[Sam]

Its obvious that Jacob (Israel) believed his God was an Angel.

15: And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Gen. 48:15-16

The Patriarchs of the faith did not know Elohim any other way.

and in Hosea 12:3-4 it speaks about Jacob struggling/wrestling with God as the Angel.

[Sam]

If you go to
http://web.archive.org/web/20040704085254/mikeblume.com/drysd15a.htm
you will find a lengthy article on the Angel of YHWH.
I've never read it completely so I can't say I agree or disagree with it.

[Michael The Disciple]

If you go to
http://web.archive.org/web/20040704085254/mikeblume.com/drysd15a.htm
you will find a lengthy article on the Angel of YHWH.
I've never read it completely so I can't say I agree or disagree with it.

I have read it various times. As I said without THIS revelation the doctrine is incomplete. Of course Mike Blume typed the whole thing out and had it on his site (where I found it) and disagrees with it.

So Mike did God have a spirit body in the OT? Why did Jacob say his Elohim was an Angel?

Hey I disagree with Drysdale on the standards myself. But I give him credit on this. Truth be known it was no doubt passed on to him by one of the old Pioneers of Oneness doctrine.

[Sam]

http://www.amazon.com/If-ye-know-these-things/dp/B0006F4488

Gary (Cohen) Reckart later published it, and it is at Amazon.

I went to the Amazon site and it said the book is not available.

[mfblume]

So now Oneness teaches the ridiculous doctrine that God never had a body or form until Bethlehem. Or that God was a pillar of fire or a burning bush. Without the understanding of the pre existing WORD Oneness doctrine falls short of true Biblical revelation.

No. It is taught that THEOPHANIES occurred in the Old Testament. They are physical forms in which God manifested. I believe the ANGEL OF THE LORD was such an occurrence. But nothing in the Bible explicitly teaches that the Angel of the Lord was a consistent single form of God's Word that became Son of God at Bethlehem, as the doctrine Drysdale proposed.

[Steve Epley]

No. It is taught that THEOPHANIES occurred in the Old Testament. They are physical forms in which God manifested. I believe the ANGEL OF THE LORD was such an occurrence. But nothing in the Bible explicitly teaches that the Angel of the Lord was a consistent single form of God's Word that became Son of God at Bethlehem, as the doctrine Drysdale proposed.

True.

[Michael The Disciple]

Jesus taught us that God always had a bodily presence.

10: Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 18:10

The Angels in Heaven have always seen his face.

18: Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.
19: And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20: Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21: And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 2 Chronicles 18:21

YHWH has counsels with the Host of Heaven. They are on his right hand and his left.

The word theophany is not in the Bible. If he was not manifest in Angelic form please teach me what form this was.

[Neck]

Its obvious that Jacob (Israel) believed his God was an Angel.

15: And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Gen. 48:15-16

The Patriarchs of the faith did not know Elohim any other way.

For those who are visited by God today. Do they not call this visitation an Angelic visitation? The concept is not what they think they saw but in how they described the image.

It was to share their visitation with who they spoke the encounter about.

So they described the image or being an Angel.

You have to dig into the pages much deeper and understand more of the Old Testement to know their complete view on God.

Daniel 3:25 and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. The form.

It took a heathen king to name the form...

The Jews themselves at one point because of religion forgot how to speak the name of God.

[mfblume]

Jesus taught us that God always had a bodily presence.

10: Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 18:10

The Angels in Heaven have always seen his face.

Then why do we read that the incarnation was when He was seen of angels?

1Ti 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


The idea of beholding the face of God is an allusion taken from the eastern tradition of being allowed into the courts of a king to be close to Him. Special favour.

18: Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.
19: And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20: Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21: And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 2 Chronicles 18:21

YHWH has counsels with the Host of Heaven. They are on his right hand and his left.

Right and left are terms indicating good and evil. The devils are those on his "left". That is why we read of sheep on the right and goats on the left. These were never meant to be taken overly-literally and so woodenly.

The word theophany is not in the Bible. If he was not manifest in Angelic form please teach me what form this was.

Oh please. Lol. Something described in the bible and given a term that is not in the bible does not mean the term is a proposition of false doctrine. The word "Oneness" is not in the bible either. Neither is "Pentecostal" or "apostolic". Let's not be so wooden with terms.

We cannot form a detailed doctrine from assumptions derived from verses that ar enot clealry taught as doctrine in the bible. It reminds me of the funny doctrine that teaches we should not use the term CHRIST any more, that we heard about here lately -- Or the trinity doctrine that is supposed to be core to the Christian faith when the bible never said anything about it in plain language.

[Neck]

Jesus taught us that God always had a bodily presence.

10: Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 18:10

The Angels in Heaven have always seen his face.

18: Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.
19: And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20: Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21: And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 2 Chronicles 18:21

YHWH has counsels with the Host of Heaven. They are on his right hand and his left.

The word theophany is not in the Bible. If he was not manifest in Angelic form please teach me what form this was.

Is seeing an image of God the same as God having bodily pressence?

An image of God was not spoken as being a body until the new Testement.

Where Jesus was described in the NT as "In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead Bodily.

Without the Birth of Jesus the Fullness was not full.

It took his body to have the Fullness of the Godhead.

Oh and , We are complete in Him, because of the fullfillment of this fullness at his birth, death on the cross and His resurrection...

[Michael The Disciple]

Is seeing an image of God the same as God having bodily pressence?

An image of God was not spoken as being a body until the new Testement.

Where Jesus was described in the NT as "In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead Bodily.

Without the Birth of Jesus the Fullness was not full.

It took his body to have the Fullness of the Godhead.

Oh and , We are complete in Him, because of the fullfillment of this fullness at his birth, death on the cross and His resurrection...

Thank God your Father kept the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord alive in his day!

[Michael The Disciple]

Mblume

Then why do we read that the incarnation was when He was seen of angels?

In his humanity he was seen of Angels. Before then he was always seen by them.

Mblume

Right and left are terms indicating good and evil. The devils are those on his "left". That is why we read of sheep on the right and goats on the left. These were never meant to be taken overly-literally and so woodenly.

What? This is talking about God and his hosts. I would rather be to his left than to be in Hell. This hyper allegorical method has led some good men down the wrong road.

[Steve Epley]

In his humanity he was seen of Angels. Before then he was always seen by them.



What? This is talking about God and his hosts. I would rather be to his left than to be in Hell. This hyper allegorical method has led some good men down the wrong road.

While I do agree with all Elder Blume said are you saying the angels were beholding a FACE in Heaven while Jesus was on the earth??? If so that is 2 FACES thus two persons. Do you believe that?

[mfblume]

In his humanity he was seen of Angels. Before then he was always seen by them.

It was speaking of GOD in 1 Tim 3:16. GOD wa smanifest in floesh and GOD was seen of angels. Context, bro.


What? This is talking about God and his hosts. I would rather be to his left than to be in Hell. This hyper allegorical method has led some good men down the wrong road.

If you were on his left, you'd be a demon. Like I said, let's not be so wooden in our terms.

[Esther]

While I do agree with all Elder Blume said are you saying the angels were beholding a FACE in Heaven while Jesus was on the earth??? If so that is 2 FACES thus two persons. Do you believe that?

That was my question as well.

[Steve Epley]

While I do agree with all Elder Blume said are you saying the angels were beholding a FACE in Heaven while Jesus was on the earth??? If so that is 2 FACES thus two persons. Do you believe that?

Bump. And I meant to say I do NOT agree with all Elder Blume posted.

[FRINGE_NUTTER]

Bump. And I meant to say I do NOT agree with all Elder Blume posted.

:killinme
I thought HeavenlyOne, the resident proofreader, would have spotted that one. I did, but thought it funny to let it slide. See post #34 above for the blooper.

Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax were two of the best pitchers of the old era!

[Sam]

Neckstadt,
Michael the Disciple stated in a post directed to you:
"Thank God your Father kept the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord alive in his day!"
How did your Dad teach about the Angel of YHWH or the theophanies of the Old Testament? I'm curious because from what I understand, your Dad was quite a teacher and taught on the subject of "the Godhead."

[Michael The Disciple]

No. It is taught that THEOPHANIES occurred in the Old Testament. They are physical forms in which God manifested. I believe the ANGEL OF THE LORD was such an occurrence. But nothing in the Bible explicitly teaches that the Angel of the Lord was a consistent single form of God's Word that became Son of God at Bethlehem, as the doctrine Drysdale proposed.

Teach me here Bro. Can you produce a Theophany that WASN'T the Angel of YHWH?

[Michael The Disciple]

Neckstadt,
Michael the Disciple stated in a post directed to you:
"Thank God your Father kept the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord alive in his day!"
How did your Dad teach about the Angel of YHWH or the theophanies of the Old Testament? I'm curious because from what I understand, your Dad was quite a teacher and taught on the subject of "the Godhead."

I got the doctrine specifically from John Eckstat.

[mfblume]

Teach me here Bro. Can you produce a Theophany that WASN'T the Angel of YHWH?

A theophany is a physical form of YHWH beforfe incarnation occurred. Simple as that. And it would indeed be called the Angel of the Lord. But to say there was one consistent form that was distinctly created for God to use from the beginning is something that goes beyond explicit scriptural teaching. Yes, the ANGEL OF THE LORD was God as a theophany. But to say that it BECAME the Son of God is something else.

[mfblume]

Bump. And I meant to say I do NOT agree with all Elder Blume posted.

What do you not agree with? I never siad there were two faces, by the way. I do not believe Christ's words about the angels always beholding the face of the Father was literal. Don't let others put words in my mouth. lol

[Michael The Disciple]

What do you not agree with? I never siad there were two faces, by the way. I do not believe Christ's words about the angels always beholding the face of the Father was literal. Don't let others put words in my mouth. lol

And why would his words not be literal? Simply to fit the frail doctrine that YHWH never had a spiritual body of his own!

When YHWH said let us make Man in OUR IMAGE that should show that he had an image that was just as consistent as those (angels) he was addressing.

And then this slam dunks the truth that GOD HAD HIS OWN PERSONAL IMAGE.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:27

God was not simply "popping up here and there occasionally" as the modern Oneness teaches. He was actively involved with his creation from its beginning. See Gen. 1:26-27

He actually had a GLORIOUS THRONE with angelic beings worshipping him.

1: 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.
2: 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.
3: And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. Isaiah 6:1-3

22: And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
23: And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24: And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
25: And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26: And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
27: And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. Ezekiel 1:22-28

YHWH had a glorious spiritual body that looked like a MAN. Verse 25

Remember:

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[mfblume]

And why would his words not be literal? Simply to fit the frail doctrine that YHWH never had a spiritual body of his own!

Truth is not truth because of there being a need to contrast itself from one of many millions of errors. :)

When YHWH said let us make Man in OUR IMAGE that should show that he had an image that was just as consistent as those (angels) he was addressing.

I disagree. He was not addressing angels, for one thing, I believe. And, also, His right hand opened the Red Sea. Does that mean a physical hand reached down from a physical Angel of the Lord, with an arm stretching up into space, just because it said RIGHT HAND? Also, does the passage that reads of his eyes going to and fro through the earth demand that it is referring to physical eyes of the Angel of the Lord? Of course not. God has "eyes" that are not physical. Those references to His hand are not indicating it is necessarily physical either. And that is what He referred to in saying his Spiritual realities of Himself are mirrored physically in man, hence, God's image.

We all know the biblical idioms used with RIGHT HAND, as in the case of the Son standing on the right hand. If you were consistent, you would require that the right hand is physical, since you think it would be overly allegorical to say otherwise, which would, in turn, make you say that there is an Angel of the Lord literally standing at the right hand of the Angel of the Lord, thus making TWO Angels of the Lord at the same time! All because you demand every instance of references to body parts be hyper-literal.

If not, then why do you insist the IMAGE reference has to be physical and not the Right Hand of God?

Slam-dunk, back on ya! :D

And then this slam dunks the truth that GOD HAD HIS OWN PERSONAL IMAGE.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:27

God was not simply "popping up here and there occasionally" as the modern Oneness teaches. He was actively involved with his creation from its beginning. See Gen. 1:26-27

Who said He was not actively in involved just because there was no physical form all the time?

He actually had a GLORIOUS THRONE with angelic beings worshipping him.

...With a right hand, and all, to which ANOTHER Angel of the Lord must stand later, as Son, right?

1: 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.
2: 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.
3: And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. Isaiah 6:1-3

22: And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
23: And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24: And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
25: And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26: And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
27: And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28: As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. Ezekiel 1:22-28

John also saw a vision of the Son as a Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns. Your rule does not stick consistently. Did John inform us that the Lord actually appears as a LAMB now?

YHWH had a glorious spiritual body that looked like a MAN. Verse 25

Remember:

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

No problem with any of those verses and my view!

God bless!

[Michael The Disciple]

A theophany is a physical form of YHWH beforfe incarnation occurred. Simple as that. And it would indeed be called the Angel of the Lord. But to say there was one consistent form that was distinctly created for God to use from the beginning is something that goes beyond explicit scriptural teaching. Yes, the ANGEL OF THE LORD was God as a theophany. But to say that it BECAME the Son of God is something else.

Explicit scriptural teaching? Hmmm. Does that hold for the doctrine that "tongues is the initial evidence"? Where is that verse EXPLICITLY?

Or is it an assumption on our part because of the scriptural cross references?

[mfblume]

Explicit scriptural teaching? Hmmm. Does that hold for the doctrine that "tongues is the initial evidence"? Where is that verse EXPLICITLY?

Or is it an assumption on our part because of the scriptural cross references?

Let's not get off the subject. :) Does the Angel of the Lord stand physically to the left of the Son of God, so we will see TWO physical forms, at least? Mustg be, if every reference to body parts is hyper-literal. Sounds like it is getting pretty trinitarian, to me. How many will YOU see in heaven? Two?

[Michael The Disciple]

Let's not get off the subject. :) Does the Angel of the Lord stand physically to the left of the Son of God, so we will see TWO physical forms, at least? Mustg be, if every reference to body parts is hyper-literal. Sounds like it is getting pretty trinitarian, to me. How many will YOU see in heaven? Two?

Here is how it is:

14: That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16: Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 1 Tim. 6:14-16

God as omnipresent spirit, unapproachable light, has never been seen. Nor ever will be. That being true he gave Jesus his son to be his visible image in this age. He alone is what we will see of God.

The same was true from creation to Bethlehem. God was ominpresent spirit, unapproachable light. He was seen by Angels and Men throughout scripture in Angelic form.

The Angel was the image of the invisible God.

7: I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
8: For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9: In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Isaiah 63:7-9

[mfblume]

Here is how it is:

14: That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16: Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 1 Tim. 6:14-16

God as omnipresent spirit, unapproachable light, has never been seen. Nor ever will be. That being true he gave Jesus his son to be his visible image in this age. He alone is what we will see of God.

The same was true from creation to Bethlehem. God was ominpresent spirit, unapproachable light. He was seen by Angels and Men throughout scripture in Angelic form.

The Angel was the image of the invisible God.

7: I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
8: For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9: In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Isaiah 63:7-9

You may be correct, but your previous argument about image and face failed, because if you take that in all cases, in order to be consistent in your defense, you must admit there are two physical forms since Stephen saw the Son standing at the RIGHT HAND of the Father.

So you need to show an argument that can convince me, because none have yet. Like I said, you may be right. I just cannot see an argument that shows it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mblume

You may be correct, but your previous argument about image and face failed, because if you take that in all cases, in order to be consistent in your defense, you must admit there are two physical forms since Stephen saw the Son standing at the RIGHT HAND of the Father.

What do you mean?

[mfblume]

What do you mean?

Your argument was that the IMAGE of God must be physical, since you consider the only way for an IMAGE to be transferred to humanity is for God to be physical in some form. And you said that the reference to beholding the FACE of the Father cannot be taken allegorically, so that FACE means a literal FACE. Using that same logic, RIGHT HAND can only mean a literal RIGHT HAND in your estimation. So, that leaves you with the conclusion that the SON standing at the RIGHT HAND of the Father is LITERAL and not a non-literal expression. This, in turn, leaves you with a PHYSICAL Son standing literally on the right side of a PHYSICAL FATHER. That leaves TWO PHYSICAL FORMS of God in heaven. And you implied MY teaching proposes TWO FACES.

[Steve Epley]

A theophany is a physical form of YHWH beforfe incarnation occurred. Simple as that. And it would indeed be called the Angel of the Lord. But to say there was one consistent form that was distinctly created for God to use from the beginning is something that goes beyond explicit scriptural teaching. Yes, the ANGEL OF THE LORD was God as a theophany. But to say that it BECAME the Son of God is something else.

Again we agree. The Pillar of fire was a theophany.

[Steve Epley]

Micheal it sounds as if you are teaching two persons in the Godhead??? What happened to that form when God was made flesh???????????????

[Michael The Disciple]

Your argument was that the IMAGE of God must be physical, since you consider the only way for an IMAGE to be transferred to humanity is for God to be physical in some form. And you said that the reference to beholding the FACE of the Father cannot be taken allegorically, so that FACE means a literal FACE. Using that same logic, RIGHT HAND can only mean a literal RIGHT HAND in your estimation. So, that leaves you with the conclusion that the SON standing at the RIGHT HAND of the Father is LITERAL and not a non-literal expression. This, in turn, leaves you with a PHYSICAL Son standing literally on the right side of a PHYSICAL FATHER. That leaves TWO PHYSICAL FORMS of God in heaven. And you implied MY teaching proposes TWO FACES.

Only problem the second part of your argument is YOUR LOGIC not mine. To ME the right hand in context of Yeshua at the right hand of God means he is Gods "right hand man".

I never said there are NO symbolisms in scripture. They all have to be taken in context. Some things are some are not.

And again it is NOT changing the subject to remind you that no explicit scripture teaches that tongues in the only initial evidence of the spirit baptism.

The Logos/Angel of YHWH doctrine is accepted on the same basis as the evidence doctrine. Comparing scripture with scripture. It is the same with most doctrines.

Also in review not all the cases of angels appearing are to be taken as YHWH personally appearing.

[Steve Epley]

Only problem the second part of your argument is YOUR LOGIC not mine. To ME the right hand in context of Yeshua at the right hand of God means he is Gods "right hand man".

I never said there are NO symbolisms in scripture. They all have to be taken in context. Some things are some are not.

And again it is NOT changing the subject to remind you that no explicit scripture teaches that tongues in the only initial evidence of the spirit baptism.

The Logos/Angel of YHWH doctrine is accepted on the same basis as the evidence doctrine. Comparing scripture with scripture. It is the same with most doctrines.

Also in review not all the cases of angels appearing are to be taken as YHWH personally appearing.

Micheal I do NOT think anyone is denying The Angel of the Lord is a theophany. But we are denying God made a permanent form that was His image alone. He appeared in more than one form in the OT The pillar of fire was a form etc. However what happened to THAT permanent form at the incarnation??????

[Michael The Disciple]

Again we agree. The Pillar of fire was a theophany.

Hi Steve,

This is where Apostolics miss it. The pillar of fire was NOT a theophany.

Notice:

19: And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
20: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
21: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
23: And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.
24: And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,
25: And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. Exodus 14: 19-25

Notice the context. Verse 19 tells us the ANGEL OF GOD was going before Israel. He was IN THE CLOUD.

Verse 24 then says YHWH looked at the Egyptians THROUGH THE CLOUD!

The THEOPHANY was not the cloud. It was the Angel of God INSIDE THE CLOUD. Then we are told EXPLICITLY who the Angel of God was. YHWH looked through the cloud!

Once we understand the Angel of YHWH WAS YHWH we are ready to receive a greater revelation in the mystery of Christ.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mblume

I disagree. He was not addressing angels, for one thing, I believe

Me:

To whom did YHWH say "Let us make man in our image" if not the angels? I submit to you there was no other beings in existence except them.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mblume

Your argument was that the IMAGE of God must be physical, since you consider the only way for an IMAGE to be transferred to humanity is for God to be physical in some form

I never said the Angel was physical. Physical as far as I no would mean of flesh and blood. The Angel was obviously SPIRIT. In cases such as when he met Abraham for supper THEN he has changed to human form.

[Michael The Disciple]

Micheal it sounds as if you are teaching two persons in the Godhead??? What happened to that form when God was made flesh???????????????

There is only one God. Yet there is that of the one God that is omnipresent and there is that which is visible. That which is visible is WITH GOD. Yet that which is visible is God .

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

The greater revelation is that now we can understand the LOGOS/MEMRA John wrote about.

The Logos was the EXPRESSION of the invisible omni present God.

What happened to the form? It was made flesh and dwelt among us.

[Michael The Disciple]

As far as two persons in the Godhead absolutely not. But I have no real problem thinking there is one person of God and one person of Man in the case of Jesus.

He is THE GOD. At the same time he also is THE MAN. Perhaps the same way in the OT. God and Angel.

[mfblume]

Only problem the second part of your argument is YOUR LOGIC not mine. To ME the right hand in context of Yeshua at the right hand of God means he is Gods "right hand man".

You are not getting it. You are being inconsistent. I agree it is right hand man. But you insisted that it is hyperallegorical to say that a reference to the FACE of the Father is not a literal face. But you say the right hand is not a literal right hand now. On what basis do you say right and is not literal but face is? What rule of thumb allows for one and not the other?

I never said there are NO symbolisms in scripture. They all have to be taken in context. Some things are some are not.

And who said that FACE had to be literal? The fact is that in eastern cultures it was common to refer to intimacy when using the terms "beholding the face". It meant you had rare access to a king. That metaphor is factual and genuine in the old east. Moses also saw God FACE TO FACE. This is not literal. It is a metaphor of intimacy

This is taken from the practice of earthly courts. To be admitted to the presence of a king; to be allowed to see his face continually; to have free access to him at all times, was deemed a mark of special favor 1Ki_10:8; Est_1:14, and was esteemed a security for his protection. So, says our Saviour, we should not despise the obscurest Christian, for he is ministered to by the highest and noblest of beings by beings who are always enjoying the favor and friendship of God.


Hence, among the Jews, the angels were styled מלכי פנים, malakey panim, angels of the face, and Michael is said to be סר הפנים, sar ha-panim the prince of the face. This is an allusion to the privilege granted by eastern monarchs to their chief favourites; a privilege which others were never permitted to enjoy. The seven princes of Media and Persia, who were the chief favourites and privy-counsellors of Ahasuerus, are said to see the king’s face. Est_1:14; see also 2Ki_25:19, and Jer_51:25. Our Lord’s words give us to understand that humble-hearted, child-like disciples, are objects of his peculiar care, and constant attention.

do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven: ...our Lord's argument is, that if such excellent creatures as the angels in heaven, who are continually favoured with being in the presence of Christ's heavenly father, honoured with so high a station, as always to stand before him, as ministers of his; if these are the guardians of these little ones, if they are committed to their care, and they have the oversight of them, then they ought not to be despised: and besides, since the angels that have the care of them are so near the throne, it should deter everyone from having their charge in contempt, or doing any injury to them; since they arc capable of lodging accusations and complaints against them; and, when leave is given, have power of executing the sorest judgments upon men. This description of angels agrees with what the Jews say of them, especially of the chief of them. Michael, they say (h), is the first and principal of the chief princes, רואי פני המלך "that behold the face of the king"; that is, the King of kings, the Lord of hosts. Suriel, which, with them, is another name of an angel, is called (i), שר הפנים, "the prince of faces", who is always in the presence of God; and, as the gloss says, is "an angel that is counted worthy to come before the king."


And again it is NOT changing the subject to remind you that no explicit scripture teaches that tongues in the only initial evidence of the spirit baptism.

It is INDEED changing the subject and implies your inability to deal with the issue at hand.

The Logos/Angel of YHWH doctrine is accepted on the same basis as the evidence doctrine. Comparing scripture with scripture. It is the same with most doctrines.

MOST? MOST? Brother, Most doctrines are explicitly taught in scripture.


Also in review not all the cases of angels appearing are to be taken as YHWH personally appearing.

I agree totally.

[mfblume]

I never said the Angel was physical. Physical as far as I no would mean of flesh and blood.

No, physicaldoes not mean flesh and blood. It simply means VISIBLE. The laws of PHYSICS are qualified by this ANGEL to appear VISIBLY, that is, seen physuically by the naked eye. Our flesh can only sense touch, taste, sight, sound and smell. The PHYSICal things of existence can all be sensed by at least ONE of those senses. Hence, PHYSICS are involved.


The Angel was obviously SPIRIT. In cases such as when he met Abraham for supper THEN he has changed to human form.

Spiritual things can still be PHYSICAL, such as in the case of a SPIRITUAL BODY into which our MORTAL PHYSICAL bodies shall be changed. 1 Cor 10 speaks of SPIRITUAL meat and bread, which were quite physicalm but termed spiritual due to their typology. In the case of the Angel of the Lord, it was PHYSICAL but SPIRITUAL as well.

Why do people think spiritual things cannot be physical?

[mfblume]

Mblume

I disagree. He was not addressing angels, for one thing, I believe

Me:

To whom did YHWH say "Let us make man in our image" if not the angels? I submit to you there was no other beings in existence except them.

Watch the pattern throughout Genesis 1 and note that GOD SPEAKS TO SOMETHING in His work of creation. Since He alone made man, and not the angels with Him, He was using a plurality to refer to His mind and Himself. Ezra used the same idea:

Ezr 4:18 KJV The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.


And note that Jesus words here do not imply two persons:

Luk 12:19 KJV And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.


For that reason we do not read in the next verse in Genesis that God and the angels created man in their image:

Gen 1:27 KJV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Angels cannot create.

[mfblume]

Hi Steve,

This is where Apostolics miss it. The pillar of fire was NOT a theophany.

Notice:

19: And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
20: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
21: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
23: And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.
24: And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,
25: And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. Exodus 14: 19-25

Notice the context. Verse 19 tells us the ANGEL OF GOD was going before Israel. He was IN THE CLOUD.

Verse 24 then says YHWH looked at the Egyptians THROUGH THE CLOUD!

The THEOPHANY was not the cloud. It was the Angel of God INSIDE THE CLOUD. Then we are told EXPLICITLY who the Angel of God was. YHWH looked through the cloud!

Once we understand the Angel of YHWH WAS YHWH we are ready to receive a greater revelation in the mystery of Christ.


You pick at details and miss the overall point that the ANGEL was a THEOPHANY, whether it included the cloud or was IN it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mblume

You are not getting it. You are being inconsistent. I agree it is right hand man. But you insisted that it is hyperallegorical to say that a reference to the FACE of the Father is not a literal face. But you say the right hand is not a literal right hand now. On what basis do you say right and is not literal but face is? What rule of thumb allows for one and not the other?

No I am endeavoring to be consistent with OTHER scripture as well as the leading of the Spirit. It is wrong to try to spiritualize away the FORM (not just face) of God when scriptures tell us he has one. Simple.

You are the first person I ever heard say this should not be taken literally.

10: Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 18:10

Upon what basis would one say it is NOT LITERAL? Just because Later times Oneness says God had no form before Bethlehem?

Originally Posted by Clarke
Hence, among the Jews, the angels were styled מלכי פנים, malakey panim, angels of the face, and Michael is said to be סר הפנים, sar ha-panim the prince of the face

Whoever Jews said this do err. Michael means "like the Lord" or something similar. The Angel of the face is YHWH himself. Face is the meaning given in Hebrew for PRESENCE. See Exodus 33:14-15, Isaiah 63:9

Originally Posted by Gill
do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven: ...our Lord's argument is, that if such excellent creatures as the angels in heaven, who are continually favoured with being in the presence of Christ's heavenly father, honoured with so high a station, as always to stand before him, as ministers of his; if these are the guardians of these little ones, if they are committed to their care, and they have the oversight of them, then they ought not to be despised: and besides, since the angels that have the care of them are so near the throne, it should deter everyone from having their charge in contempt, or doing any injury to them; since they arc capable of lodging accusations and complaints against them; and, when leave is given, have power of executing the sorest judgments upon men. This description of angels agrees with what the Jews say of them, especially of the chief of them. Michael, they say (h), is the first and principal of the chief princes, רואי פני המלך "that behold the face of the king"; that is, the King of kings, the Lord of hosts. Suriel, which, with them, is another name of an angel, is called (i), שר הפנים, "the prince of faces", who is always in the presence of God; and, as the gloss says, is "an angel that is counted worthy to come before the king."

Gill is NOT doing like you and denying that ELOHIM had a throne where he sat surrounded by Angels.

Mblume

MOST? MOST? Brother, Most doctrines are explicitly taught in scripture.

Oh really? Why is everyone divided then? Pre, post or pret? Soul sleep or instant Heaven? 3 step or 1 step? Millenium or not? Baptism in whose name? Veil or hair?

No doctrines are not all that explicit. There is MUCH INFORMATION in scripture and it must be RIGHTLY DIVIDED to arrive at the true meaning.

You pick at details and miss the overall point that the ANGEL was a THEOPHANY, whether it included the cloud or was IN it.

What? I thought thats the point I am making here! It is Apostolic Pentecostal later day Teachers who claim the cloud was a Theophany. That is false but the Angel in it was. Thats the point I made to Steve. He said the cloud was a theophany. I say there was no theophany EXCEPT the Angel/Logos.

Quote:
Ezr 4:18 KJV The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.

This proves nothing. Who READ the letter before him? Someone in his high court. He includes them because they have his favor. Same reason God said let us make man to them. You know good and well we do not teach Angels created man. We teach he included them out of courtesy.

We do the same thing. I say to my wife "Let us go get a pizza". We both go but it is assumed I myself will buy the pizza.

Watch the pattern throughout Genesis 1 and note that GOD SPEAKS TO SOMETHING in His work of creation. Since He alone made man, and not the angels with Him, He was using a plurality to refer to His mind and Himself. Ezra used the same idea:

Does Elohim have more than one mind? More than one self? :nah

Here is a simple question. If God had no form-spiritual body how did he conduct buisness with the Angelic hosts?

[mfblume]

Thats the point I made to Steve. He said the cloud was a theophany. I say there was no theophany EXCEPT the Angel/Logos.

Bro., you missed his whole point, as you missed mine in several other notes in your response, with which I will not even bother now. Once again... The ANGEL was a theophany whether it was in the cloud or included the cloud. Who cares if Bro Epley said it was the cloud. His point was that the ANGEL was a THEOPHANY.

This proves nothing. Who READ the letter before him? Someone in his high court.

Brother, you missed my point again. The US and the ME are all speaking of the King. It is a COMMON eastern custom for kings to refer to themselves as the royal WE. Queen Victoria always did that. It is an ancient custom as evidenced by the bible.


Here is a simple question. If God had no form-spiritual body how did he conduct buisness with the Angelic hosts?

Just like He does with us right now without us seeing Him. :) By SPIRIT.

[Steve Epley]

Again WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT FORM AT THE INCARNATION?
Again the passage you cited about the angels beholding his face was when Jesus was on the earth WAS THERE A FACE IN HEAVEN AND ALSO ON THE EARTH AT THE SAME TIME and if so how is that NOT two persons????????????

[Michael The Disciple]

Again WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT FORM AT THE INCARNATION?
Again the passage you cited about the angels beholding his face was when Jesus was on the earth WAS THERE A FACE IN HEAVEN AND ALSO ON THE EARTH AT THE SAME TIME and if so how is that NOT two persons????????????

Steve,

I said the form became flesh and dwelt among us. As to whether there was a form in Heaven the 30 some years Jesus was here I assume for that time it was as you all say. Then he was present "spiritually".

[Steve Epley]

Steve,

I said the form became flesh and dwelt among us. As to whether there was a form in Heaven the 30 some years Jesus was here I assume for that time it was as you all say. Then he was present "spiritually".

Both seemed to be a dodge to me???

How was the FORM made flesh???????????????????????
Being present "spiritually" did he have a FORM at that time??????? If so that is TWO forms at ONE time. Thus TWO persons.

[mfblume]

Steve,

I said the form became flesh and dwelt among us. As to whether there was a form in Heaven the 30 some years Jesus was here I assume for that time it was as you all say. Then he was present "spiritually".

Spiritually does not mean no physical form. :)

[Steve Epley]

Spiritually does not mean no physical form. :)

True. He has a 'spiritual body' today that was resurrected but a literal body.

[mfblume]

True. He has a 'spiritual body' today that was resurrected but a literal body.

Exactly. This is precisely where full preterists went off, I believe. People think "spiritual" means non-physical. They never reserached the term and its meaning, but just seem to think that and run with it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Both seemed to be a dodge to me???

How was the FORM made flesh???????????????????????
Being present "spiritually" did he have a FORM at that time??????? If so that is TWO forms at ONE time. Thus TWO persons.

Here is the reference that the form was made flesh.

6: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Phil. 2:6-7

Which sounds a lot like this:

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Steve,

I will post my study on the Logos here again. I think I have presented this to you all 3 or 4 times but nonetheless if you want to know what I believe on the issue here it is again.

[Michael The Disciple]

Part 1

1 John 4:12...No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 Timothy 6:16...Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen

Several places in the word of God we are told God has never been seen.

Isaiah 6:1-5...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 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 fully 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.

So the question must be asked who or what did Isaiah and various others see when they proclaimed they had seen God? In the revelation of this mystery we will discover a truth that will honor Yeshua to the highest place in the universe.

1 Kings 8:27...But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Solomon recognized that in his essence as ominipresent spirit God was bigger than the universe he created. Before creation he dwelt alone in indescribable power and glory with himself. Since he never had a beginning he had an eternity to plan the creation of the universe. Since he as omnipresent spirit would be bigger than creation itself he desired to find a way to come inside what he would make and be part of it.

John 1:1-3...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Before the beginning God had no need of a form. He was omnipresent spirit dwelling alone so there was no one else to have seen him. But since he desired to be seen in his creation it was necessary for him to create a visible manifestation of himself.

This form or visible manifestation would be everthing that he himself was except in reduced, visible form. This was not another person who was God but God himself dwelling in the visible form. This form he took would be the same as the angels who he would later create. That way when they were created he would be sitting there on his throne and would explain to them who they were and what he was. So they would not be seeing him as omnipresent spirit, they would be seeing him in angelic form as the image of the invisible God.

The Greek for WORD in these scriptures is LOGOS. Many meanings are given for this word in Strong's concordance. In context the one that seems to fit here is THE DIVINE EXPRESSION. For this visible angelic manifestation of the ominpresent spirit of God would be the full expression of his character and glory. Today certain companies will have a little picture or design stamped on their product and we call that a logo. The purpose of the logo is that when people see it the actual company itself will come to mind. In the same way God's (logos) or WORD is what he has given creation as a small yet all-powerful expression of his own person.

So when we are told in the beginning was the Word it means the beginning of time. The Word existed from the beginning of time but the one who dwelt in the Word existed from eternity. So at creation the WORD spoke and the omnipresent spirit moved to bring all things into being. We are told the Word was with God. It was a separate PORTION of his own being. So when John says and the WORD was God he is not implying the existence of two God's. Rather he is showing that the image of the invisible God is the ETERNAL GOD HIMSELF. Now we will show powerful proof that WORD was an angelic form that God used to manifest himself visibly to creation.

[Michael The Disciple]

Part 2

Exodus 3:1-4...Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the ANGEL OF THE LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off they feet, for the place where on thou standest is holy ground. Morever he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

When God introduced himself to Moses we are told the Angel of the Lord is what he saw in the bush. Yet, even though what he saw was the Angel of the Lord yet we are told it was God who called to him out of the bush. So this is how Moses knew God face to face. He saw him in the person of the Angel of the Lord.

Isaiah 63:7-9...I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord, and the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses. For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

Who was it that carried Israel? Who was it that was afflicted in all their afflictions? Who was their Saviour? Isaiah the prophet tells us it was the Lord. Yet, it was the Lord doing all these things through the ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE. When the angel of the Lord was present, the Lord Himself was present. As Israel saw the angel of his presence, they saw him, that is God Himself.

Genesis 32:24-30...And Jacob was left alone: and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? and he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blesed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

So here we have the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. Yet upon remembering this event, he said he had seen God face to face. Why? Because the angel of God WAS GOD.

Hosea 12:3-5...He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strenth he had power with God. Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is him memorial.

Here Hosea reiterates the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel. It says by his strength he had power WITH GOD. And why did he make supplication to the angel? Because he was THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.

Genesis 48:15-16...And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads: and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

On his death bed Jacob says plainly the ANGEL OF GOD who had been with him all his life was God himself. So what is our point in all of these scriptures? The biblical writers tells us "no man hath seen God at any time". So what is it about God no one has ever seen? Is it not his essence of omni-present spirit? In his omni-presence God fills the whole universe and even beyond, because it is too small to contain him!

So what is it about God that men claim to have seen? In his wisdom the omnipresent creator formed an angelic image of himself as his visible expression that he may have personal, face to face, communication with that which he has created.

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Angel of the Lord was the Word. The Word was the Angel of the Lord in Old Testament times.

John 1:14...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

When the time came for God to redeem fallen mankind, something happened to the Word. The Word had always dwelt in unapproachable light (omni-present spirit). To become our Saviour he would have to have a human nature including a body of flesh. At just the right moment, the onmi-present Holy Spirit transformed the Word into a seed small enough to fit into the womb of a young virgin named Mary.

Matthew 1:18...Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35... And the Angel (Gabriel) answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Notice that in both of these verses it is the Holy Ghost (omni-present spirit) who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. All during the years of his life when he spoke of, and prayed to his Father he was talking about the Holy Ghost. Now the Word which was God's visible image had been changed from spirit to flesh. And Gabriel told Mary that holy thing shall be called THE SON OF GOD. So this child who was born, this son who was given, had pre-existed as the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. Now Yeshua had two natures. Or to modes of existence.
John 3:13...And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that come down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

As a human being on earth he was a man, the Son of God. At the same time in heaven he still remained God-the Everlasting Father. He was what is called fully man and fully God at the same time. While he was here as a human being he knew the same limitations and temptations as any other man yet without sin. Yet the nature of the heavenly Father also dwelt in the body of the Son. So even though in Christ there are two separate natures or modes of existence he still tells us they are somehow linked together. The mighty works healing and casting out of devils and prophetic visions were done through his connection to the Father.

John 14:10...Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

This is what Yeshua meant when he said MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I. The God nature that he still held in his heavenly existence was greater than his human nature.

[timlan2057]

Have I ever heard of Ross Drysdale?

Yeah.

He had a great fastball and he wasn't afraid to shave a batter's chin with it if the batter crowded the plate.

He and Sandy Koufax made a pretty good 1-2 punch for the Los Angeles Dodgers for a few years.

Ooops.

Wait.

Wrong Drysdale.

Was this one Jed Clampett's banker?


****Edit*****

Never let it be said that I don't admit when I'm a day late and a dollar short.

Looks like Fringe Nutter and Sam beat me to the punch here.

[TRFrance]

I typed the entire book for Drysdale for online viewing. My site was the first to have that book online. Bro Drysdale is with the PAW in Florida. It is no longer on my site, but I still have all the files. He is a bit crass with his approach, and pops an attitude against trinitarians which has turned some folks off the book.

How can I buy the book? Do you have it for sale or know any place I can get it?

[Michael The Disciple]

You can read it here:

http://inglisfpc.com/bookcopy/inglisfpc.org%20copy/indexx.htm

[OneAccord]

I met him once. He was pastor of the church at Inglis, Florida that was started by B.H and Ruby Hawthorne, I think. Good man, a little stand offish, I would say.

[TRFrance]

I found out the book is available online at http://www.booksurge.com/
for $26.99

Also on amazon If Ye Know These Things (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/141964579X/ref=lp_g_1/002-4937379-4735206)

[OneAccord]

I have a friend whose Dad pastored in Inglis many years ago, but after looking at his picture, I don't THINK there's a connection. :D


Brother Ross Drysdale did pastor the church at Iglis. The church was started by B.F. and Ruby Hanthorne. I met Bro. Drysdale once.

[Praxeas]

I know someone that tries to use Drysdale's book to prove the Son is not God...

Yet Drysdale says

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016002809/http://www.mikeblume.com/drysd8a.htm
Therefore:
The Father has omnipresence, the Son does also (John 3:13).
The Father has life in Himself, the Son does also (John 5:26).
The Father knows all things, the Son does also (John 21:17).
The Father has all power, the Son does also (Matthew 28:18).
The Father has divine nature, the Son does also (Titus 2:13).
Every aspect of His deity is the result of the incarnation of the Father in his flesh.

[pelathais]

Drysdale seems to have some bumpy and incoherent theology at times. He also chops up Scripture to try and make it say what he wants it to say. For example:

"CORNERSTONE OF ONENESS

"Trinitarians are correct when they refer to our teaching concerning the Fatherhood of Christ as the "Cornerstone of Oneness Theology." No one is truly in the message until they acknowledge Christ as Father. A person may proclaim Jesus as Lord from the "rising of the sun to the going down of the same," but until they can say, like Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), they have made only half a confession. And to call Him God, and not mean God the Father, is a distorted confession, "for to us there but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor. 8:6). The chain cannot be broken. If He is Lord, then He is God. And if He is God, then He is Father. And He is! This is the line drawn in the sand, and the true litmus test of Biblical Christology. Anything else is a contradiction of Christ's own statement."

(from Prax's link above - I've added the bold highlight).

The problem here for Drysdale is that 1 Corinthians 8:6 reads:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

He wants Jesus to be "the Father" but he ignores the fact that Paul is making a distinction here between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. He not only ignores this, he tries to hide it from his readers.

[Michael The Disciple]

The problem here for Drysdale is that 1 Corinthians 8:6 reads:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

He wants Jesus to be "the Father" but he ignores the fact that Paul is making a distinction here between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. He not only ignores this, he tries to hide it from his readers.

Drysdale is not wrong. If indeed Paul is making a distiction here between God and Lord then obviously Oneness doctrine is false because this verse would be teaching there are two Creators.

The Greek would actually be tying God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ into ONE.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; EVEN one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

This reading shows Jesus as both Lord and God exactly the point Drysdale is making.

Thomas said "My Lord and my God".

The two Apostles believed the same thing.

Also no one has ever said there is no distinction between Jesus as the Father and Jesus as the Son. Oneness has always taught Jesus is both. Its part and parcel of our doctrine that Jesus is the Son.

Very few have been deluded into teaching he is the Father only.

[Michael The Disciple]

Drysdale

"Trinitarians are correct when they refer to our teaching concerning the Fatherhood of Christ as the "Cornerstone of Oneness Theology." No one is truly in the message until they acknowledge Christ as Father. A person may proclaim Jesus as Lord from the "rising of the sun to the going down of the same," but until they can say, like Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), they have made only half a confession. And to call Him God, and not mean God the Father, is a distorted confession, "for to us there but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor. 8:6). The chain cannot be broken. If He is Lord, then He is God. And if He is God, then He is Father. And He is! This is the line drawn in the sand, and the true litmus test of Biblical Christology. Anything else is a contradiction of Christ's own statement."

Again Drysdale is right. The real test of Oneness doctrine is indeed Is Jesus the Father?

If not there is no purpose for Oneness teaching as it would be false.

[Praxeas]

Again Drysdale is right. The real test of Oneness doctrine is indeed Is Jesus the Father?

If not there is no purpose for Oneness teaching as it would be false.
But what does he mean when he says "Jesus is the Father"? or what does any other OP mean?

From my experience the don't all mean the same thing and infact some OPs mean the Son is the Father...The Son is both God and man...Father as God

[Sabby]

True.


:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

[Brother Lee]

I typed the entire book for Drysdale for online viewing. My site was the first to have that book online. Bro Drysdale is with the PAW in Florida. It is no longer on my site, but I still have all the files. He is a bit crass with his approach, and pops an attitude against trinitarians which has turned some folks off the book.

Brother MFBUME, I have been searching for an affordable copy in any format of the "If Ye Know These Things" by Ross Drysdale, I can not however afford the $357.99 that Amazon.com lists it for. I can't really understand why anyone would price it that high, if they wanted anyone (everyone) to read it.
Howsoever, finding your thread here, I was pleased to register my membership into this forum. Thank you for your work, in this.
And I would like to ask you to please email me the files which you stated that you have.
I would also like any info which you (or others in this forum) which might know of a cheaper source for his book, or other medium formats of it.
Respectfully Brother Lee

[MawMaw]

Have I ever heard of Ross Drysdale?

Yeah.

He had a great fastball and he wasn't afraid to shave a batter's chin with it if the batter crowded the plate.

He and Sandy Koufax made a pretty good 1-2 punch for the Los Angeles Dodgers for a few years.

Ooops.

Wait.

Wrong Drysdale.

Was this one Jed Clampett's banker?

****Edit*****

Never let it be said that I don't admit when I'm a day late and a dollar short.

Looks like Fringe Nutter and Sam beat me to the punch here.

No, that would've been Milburn Drysdale! :heeheehee
sigh, am I bored or what??? :heeheehee

[navygoat1998]

No, that would've been Milburn Drysdale! :heeheehee
sigh, am I bored or what??? :heeheehee

MawMaw :foottap

[MawMaw]

MawMaw :foottap

wut? :D

[navygoat1998]

wut? :D

I like it! MawMaw of 7 :happydance

[MawMaw]

I like it! MawMaw of 7 :happydance

Thank ya! :)
I got tired of the other name! LOL!! :p

[mfblume]

Saw this 15year old email address. Still in effect?

gulfview_inglis@hotmail.com

[Esaias]

But what does he mean when he says "Jesus is the Father"? or what does any other OP mean?

From my experience the don't all mean the same thing and infact some OPs mean the Son is the Father...The Son is both God and man...Father as God

Well, the Son is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father. So "He Who is the Son is the same He Who is the Father".

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.amazon.com/If-ye-know-these-things/dp/B0006F4488

Gary (Cohen) Reckart later published it, and it is at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/If-ye-know-these-things/dp/B0006F4488

Wow, that bit of a hefty price tag.

I wonder if the Cohen is the one selling the book?

[houston]

It is currently unavailable.

[Michael The Disciple]

Well, the Son is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father. So "He Who is the Son is the same He Who is the Father".

:yourock

[mfblume]

http://www.amazon.com/If-ye-know-these-things/dp/B0006F4488

Wow, that bit of a hefty price tag.

I wonder if the Cohen is the one selling the book?

I contacted Drysdale to see if he wants me to help him get it out on a book-on-demand system where I get mine done. Hope that email still works.

[Esaias]

http://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm

[thephnxman]

Well, the Son is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father. So "He Who is the Son is the same He Who is the Father".

I knew a person who claimed that he was the son of Pancho Villa, and also his
father! Can you imagine that?

[Esaias]

I knew a person who claimed that he was the son of Pancho Villa, and also his
father! Can you imagine that?

I can't imagine what that has to do with anything?

[thephnxman]

I can't imagine what that has to do with anything?

The person's father and his son were BOTH named Pancho Villa!

Some folks believe that it pleased the Father to call Himself YAH (SAVIOR); and to call the Son by the same NAME (YAH= SAVIOR). So yes, Jesus is God; and yes, God is Jesus.

It's in the NAME, folks!

[Esaias]

The person's father and his son were BOTH named Pancho Villa!

Some folks believe that it pleased the Father to call Himself YAH (SAVIOR); and to call the Son by the same NAME (YAH= SAVIOR). So yes, Jesus is God; and yes, God is Jesus.

It's in the NAME, folks!

So two persons but having the same name? That means Jesus is God, Jr.

That is neither Oneness doctrine nor Bible doctrine.