The Word, God's Visible Image

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I often wonder why contemporary Oneness thinking seldom if ever refers back the the Oneness literature from the 1900-1960 period. It may be difficult to purchase out of print early Oneness Pentecostal theology books, but it not impossible.

Paterson, Urshan, Yadon and Haywood are generally ignored, and I think that is sad.

For me, AFF is at it's best when the old thinking and customs and local history are remembered and celebrated.

Why do you ignore Harry Morse? Wasn't he a sabbatarian?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Having said that, there is ample Biblical data to suggest God has a location, of sorts. This would tie into the idea of the Angel of the Presence, or the Logos "in heaven". But I think the data is not enough to provide a clear and final simplified statement. We are after all talking about the most advanced complex Being in all existence... So there's room for mystery and paradox.

It seems these Oneness writers were pretty adamant that Yahweh always had an image/form in heaven, a visible manifestation that, among other things, was what angels interacted with and from which God had created everything. The bringing forth of this image was supposedly the beginning of God's creative work. I guess what I'm trying to understand about this view is that if, this visible form in heaven is the Word, and the Angel of the LORD is the Word, were there two forms, one still in heaven and one on earth when the Angel of the Lord appeared to someone on earth.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I often wonder why contemporary Oneness thinking seldom if ever refers back the the Oneness literature from the 1900-1960 period. It may be difficult to purchase out of print early Oneness Pentecostal theology books, but it not impossible.

Paterson, Urshan, Yadon and Haywood are generally ignored, and I think that is sad.

For me, AFF is at it's best when the old thinking and customs and local history are remembered and celebrated.

Why do you think it is sad? Do you regard their Christology as more compelling than current Oneness writers?

When a relative of mine passed away a few years ago, she left me some books, among which were Paterson's and Yadon's books mentioned in the original post and Urshan's book The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ. I also recently order a collection of G.T. Haywood's works from Amazon.

[Scott Pitta]

Oneness theological literature is in short supply. Keeping what we do have in print provides a theological context for current thought. Contemporary thought also has value.

Harry Morse was a teacher, a radio preacher and a denominational leader. But he was no a writer, so we have little understanding of what he believed.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Oneness theological literature is in short supply. Keeping what we do have in print provides a theological context for current thought. Contemporary thought also has value.

I agree.

The Oneness books that I am familiar with most (Bernard's) have no mention of the idea of the Word being God's visible form and means by which he expressed himself in the OT. Even if this view is perhaps erroneous, it's strange to me that he (and other contemporary Oneness writers, such as David Norris who wrote I Am) do not at least mention it in order to refute it, especially since it appears to have been a pretty common view in earlier Oneness. Ignore it and maybe it will just go away?

Reeves's books, which espouse this Word-Image idea, are still in print and published by the Pentecostal Publishing House, but I find his writing extremely difficult to follow, and I never hear anyone mentioning him.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If the Logos is merely a "personification" or "literary device" where does that leave THIS LOGOS.

1 John 5:7

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Or THIS Logos.

Rev. 19:11-16

11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Nothing to see here. Just a "literary device". Just a "personification".

Since you seem to be the main proponent of these ideas on this forum, I was hoping to get your input on the original post if you have time.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

1. God in Christ Jesus by John Paterson and Jehovah-Jesus by C.H. Yadon (at least edited by Yadon). I have been reading some in The Supreme Godhead by Kenneth Reeves and If Ye Know These Things by Ross Drysdale.

Drysdale includes quotes from some early Oneness leaders, like G.T. Haywood, who apparently taught the doctrine that the Word was God's visible form as well.

Thanks for answering. I have read some of Drysdale, but not the others. Are you familiar with Dr. Michael Heiser? He is a proponent of Logos as Visible Image. He expounds on the idea in his book The Unseen Realm.

2. Where God's throne is, around which his heavenly court gathers. (E.g., 1 Kings 22.19).

Again, thanks for answering. And where might this throne be located, where the heavenly court gathers? What are its dimensions? From what materials is it constructed?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Thanks for answering. I have read some of Drysdale, but not the others. Are you familiar with Dr. Michael Heiser? He is a proponent of Logos as Visible Image. He expounds on the idea in his book The Unseen Realm.

I have heard of him. I think maybe I watched a video a long time ago of him discussing Psalm 82 and his idea of God's entourage, the elohim, being the gods of the nations or something like that.

I will check out this book. Thanks for letting me know about it. What do you think of him?

Again, thanks for answering. And where might this throne be located, where the heavenly court gathers? What are its dimensions? From what materials is it constructed?

I don't know.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't know.

I ask these questions, not be be glib or coy, but to spark some thought. Does God have a literal throne, made up of material existence somewhere within definable, three dimensional space?

Or is the use of the word throne a symbol for the authority/rule of God over the cosmos?

As such, is heaven a place, per se, or likewise a symbol of a different dimension of reality?

If a symbol, potent as it is, then there is no real need to speak of God having a visible form in heaven that the angels can see. For what are angels? Are they not like God, that is, invisible spirits?

What need do angels have for eyes? Our eyes require natural or artificial light, shining upon our retinas, transmitting information through our optic nerves to portions of our brains.

This is true of angels?

Rather, the Logos as visible image of God, or the Angel of Jehovah, for that matter, happen on earth. God made Himself visible through the Logos or His Angel, upon earth for human benefit.

There is no need, as far as I can tell, for God to make Himself visible in an already invisible realm, where all is experienced, not through the physical senses, but through the heart and mind, that is, the invisible aspects of ourselves that make us who we are.

[Esaias]

If God is by nature beyond comprehension or perception by created beings, then they - both humans and angels - require God to manifest Himself in some way in order to be perceived. Thus the idea God has a "form" by which He interacts with His creation, including the angelic beings.