Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

What an awesome point!

You guys believe in eternal sonship?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You guys believe in eternal sonship?

No. Do you believe there is a Father and Son in Heaven?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

No. Do you believe there is a Father and Son in Heaven?

no

[Amanah]

I believe God manifest in the flesh is in heaven, and that Jesus is the everlasting Father.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You guys believe in eternal sonship?

What????

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

You guys believe in eternal sonship?

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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. :-)

[Michael The Disciple]

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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. :-)

What you have said in summation is IMO the closest we can get to bringing together all scripture, not just laying out certain verses and saying they are Oneness verses.

[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.