Oneness Pentecostalism

Pro: Sources for the interpretation of "Angel of the LORD" as "the Word of God" The "Angel of the LORD" appeared to Hagar, and was identified as YHWH God. The Jerusalem Targum reads: http://www.newadvent.org... Here is another opinion of the Targum. The authority of the Targums is called into question in this reference on the topic. This is still not substantial enough for this debate. We still do not have a web site to go and read the writing for ourselves. The passages you posted could have been slightly changed or taken out of context. I say this is possible not as slander, I looked at the web sites you posted in your profile for this site, but I have found some evidence of how easy it is to miss place a letter when writing, I do it all the time. Paul wrote: "All the fullness of the Godhead (Deity) dwelt "in Him (Christ, the Anointed One The verse actually says this; For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:8-9) Dwelleth and dwelt are two different words with two different definitions. Dwelleth; present. Dwelt; past tense. Pro: I never said that Jesus "never was fully human." Where do you get that from my words. He was God who became fully human, inhabiting or using a human brain as any man to experience a conscious human life. Inhabiting- Living in, dwelling in. But not becoming the actual residence. God inhabiting a human brain? I inhabit my house, have I become a house? God was using a human mind? I use this computer to send out my messages and desires to anyone that will listen. But I have not become my computer. PRO: However, the tradition of Philo and the Targums I addressed this issue of the Targums and Philo. Would you accept the "tradition" of a Protestant or Catholic teaching? If you do not then do you expect this "tradition" to stand? PRO: God did not exist in two consciousnesses until He became a man. So before the incarnation there was only one consciousness? So who chose to make Himself a servant and humble Himself taking on a human body? The Angel of the LORD that existed in the Old Testament was either a Theophany (a temporary manifestation of God) or the immutable God used the glorified Christ to represent His glory on the earth throughout all times. If Einstein's theory of time is correct, God could accomplish this feat. Yet, whether this occurred or not, the Apostle Paul believed that the ascension of Christ took Him to the "immutable beginning and ending"—the presence of God Himself. IF Einstein's theory of time is correct. Even if you accept this theory (a theory is just that, a theory) it still is not substantial enough to be considered reliable. Jesus could exist in Heaven after the ascension where time is not like ours. So yes Jesus (glorified) could be seen to people such as Abraham. Jesus was not glorified until His ascension, so He had to choose this at some point in time on, either on earth or in Heaven. Jesus came from the Father and He returned to the Father. John 16:28 28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. So some point He was with the Father, chose to become human becoming a servant and humbles Himself. Chose is something a "person" has, requiring a will that is also a quality of a "person". Philippians 2: (King James Version) 5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Kittle's. As the Targums and Philo this source is not considered reliable for this debate. Would you accept a Protestant or a Catholic the dictionary that could possibly be bias? So do you expect this resource that could be bias to be allowed in this debate? In a quick search of the internet you will not find any web site that allows you to see the definitions. Paul wrote that Jesus IS before all things. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" We also read that this "image" "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." You stated that this "image" The only way that this is possible is if he believed as all Jews of his day believed. This is that heaven always exists before all things—and Jesus (God incarnate in human flesh) ascended into heaven! Therefore, He is the image of God that was present with God in the beginning, in Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1—which used the term "Word"—which means "image"! This definition is according to an unsubstantiated source. I have been using "image" to keep the readers heads form exploding. But this "image" still had a will to decide that it was not robbery to be equal with God. And this image decided this and then chose to become a servant. This clearly shows that before the incarnation this "image" you describe had a choose. You say this is the "image" of God and I believe this is the SON OF GOD. Whose statement would be more likely according to scriptures? Here are to verses from scriptures that might help. In the Greek, this means that "equality with God was not something to be" "stolen" or "grasped." This means that God's image or form could not grasp equality with God. This scripture did not say this "image" COULD NOT grasp, the scriptures reads *THOUGHT* it not robbery! A thought process separate before the incarnation in the GODHEAD or GOD. Of course, God existing as a glorified man was in a state of being billions of times lesser than the omnipotent, omniscient Spirit of God. A second lesser GOD? TWO GODS???? In the words that follow, Paul identifies Christ with the angel of the LORD when He wrote: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: TOOK ON, He was not identified as an angel (though He was NOT identified as an angel) until after the incarnation. The choose HE CHOSE! Choose, will, mind, TWO! In this verse, the word "made" means "to copy." Were you made in to a human? Was Adam made? YES! This is what happens when you become Human. Jesus the SON OF GOD became a man, a human. "Jesus ‘CHOSE" to become this. Did the alter consciousness of God chose to do this? Or did the Image of God decide?" Again, I do not believe that God projected Himself into a different angelic consciousness before the incarnation, but that God really became a man, and therefore existed in a separate human consciousness in the Son of Man, who was transformed into a new creation, and ascended into heaven, which always exists before all things. Jesus did ascend into Heaven. But first He had to chose to humble Himself and become man. He chose to be made a little lower then the angels, first He had to be greater then the angels, only then could He become lower then the angels. You claim that Jesus was greater then the angels after His ascension, after He was glorified. Then, once ascended and a separate being or consciousness He could then go back (in Heaven) and then chose to do what He did not chose in the first place because at that point He was one conscious with God. But if He never chose to humble Himself in the first place how did he go back (in Heaven) if it required a chose to become lower then the angels and then to be glorified and made greater then the angels?