re trinity correspondence
"Tyler G. Nally" (tnally@csci.csc.com)
Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:24:25 -0600 (CST)
* [ post resurrection ]
* >I don't think that it's accurate to say he doesn't have flesh. His
* >resurrected body was significantly different than any of our is. Obviously
* >it looks human and it must appear to be the same physique as the Apostles
* >were used to otherwise they wouldn't have recognized him.
* >
* >Scripture also says in John 3: 13
* >
* > And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
* > heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
*
* The thrid part of that is generally known to be a recension.
I don't have a dictionary. What is recention? The re-ascention?
* >* I never said God the Son. I said the Son was PERSON who was not the same
* >* PERSON as God the Father. It's obvious.
* >
* >That's obvious when he wasn't walking and talking here on earth. But now
* >he's assumed the position of complete authority in heaven (the right hand).
* >There is literally one throne in heaven with a bodily figure in it. The
* >one whom inherited the name of Jesus from his Father is the one who sits
* >there.
*
* (1), The Father's name is not Jesus, which the Bible plainly tells us, and
The fathers name is JESUS. How do I know that? By finding two or three
scripture that declare it:
Heb 1: 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
The Son inherited his name from his FATHER. If the SON's name is JESUS
then his FATHER's name is likewise JESUS. We are baptized in what name?
JESUS. Why? First we are commanded to do all in that name... Second,
it identifies us with our FATHER. My name is NALLY. My father's name
is NALLY. His father's name is NALLY, etc.
* (2), Jesus is clearly depicted THROUGHOUT the Bible as 2nd to God.
He came to fullfill not to blaze a trail. Kinda like the TWO WILLS
thread right now. His way (Jesus) was the master plan all along.
The man Jesus couldn't deny the reason and purpose that he came.
Ever since I got the revelation on the oneness of God (which, to me,
super-simplifies any bible reading instead of complicating it) I think
of the manifestation of Jesus like a bananna. Huh?!? Yeah, a bananna.
A bananna isn't what is is on the outside. But the fruit on the inside.
When you peel back the skin of the bannana, the contents or banana doesn't
change. You still have "the bananna" or the fruit of the bannana. Same
way with Jesus. If you were to peel the skin of Jesus back, you'd see
the FATHER. The fruit contained in the skin is the FATHER.
God can't deny himself. For that reason. Jesus, how shall I say this,
was God's ambassador, executor, representive, with complete power of
attourney and proxy of the FATHER. That's why so often they are described
in scripture as separate.
Tell me, how could the FATHER pay for our sins on the cross? Can you
get the Spirit of God stretched out over a cross to be nailed? Of course
not. But, when the FATHER came to earth and manifested himself as the SON,
then he had a form in which the debt of sin, the unblemished lamb, could
be offered for sacrifice. The SON did the bidding of the FATHER certainly.
But in real life the SON is the FATHER contained in skin.
* >* One God AND One Person. One God IN One Person. Two people! Per John 8:16-18.
* >
* >I think that a lot of the verbiage of Jesus words in the NT was spoken in
* >a way that is simple enough to understand without being so complex that it
* >blows us out of the water.
*
* Right. So accept John 8:16-18 as TRUE. They are TWO MEN or PERSONS.
Two distinct manifestations of the same being. Seems like I just wrote
about that.
* My only question is, isn't the LITERAL word easier to accept than tons of
* this teaching?
I wasn't ever taught this. I grew up in a the trinitarian gobbledegook
of the Roman Catholic Church. I think I heard it over the pulpit a few
times before I received the revelation bringing understanding to me.
Prior to understanding, I accepted it and couldn't deny it. I just kinda
left it on a shelf as maybe-true maybe-false until a later time.
I think that the oneness of God, can be explained in great manner like
as has been done in this forum many many times. But, I truly don't
expect anyone to FULLY believe it to the point of investing their faith
in it until they receive the revelation on the NAME of JESUS (which is
hand-in-hand with the revelation on the ONENESS of God).
* >How would Jesus come off to the disciples if he came right out and always
* >referred to himself as the ONE almight all powerful ever-living God.
*
* Uhh... honest? he doesn't come off saying the opposite, which he did. John
* 7:16-18, etc., etc., etc.
That's right....
John 7: 16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but
his that sent me.
(That's right! Back to the peel and the fruit. You see the
one with the peel (of the fruit) talk. When the fruit (the
insides/essence/identity) is the one who determines what
the peel says (or what he does))
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
(Before Jesus was, God am. Before Tyler Nally was, I wasn't.
That's the funny thing about Jesus. Jesus's fleshly beginning
was at his conception and later birth in Bethlehem. However
God existed as a spirit prior to that prior to the beginning of
time. I don't believe in re-incarnation but for sake of
explanation, here goes.... If I were to say that Jesus is the
FATHER re-incarnated people would understand that. But, it's
not correct because the FATHER hadn't come before and lived
among men. So, Jesus is the FATHER incarnate. Jesus does
what the FATHER bids. Jesus says what the FATHER bids, etc.
When Jesus was walking and talking around on this earth some
2000 years ago, he didn't actively just make things up for
himself to do upon his own faculties. His steps are ordered.
However, me and you, don't have a prior existence or personality
that occupies our bags of flesh. This is our one chance.)
18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he
that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true,
and no unrighteousness is in him.
(same thing.... same thing...)
* >if he referred to himself as the Son and his Father thusly, it's much easier
* >to understand since, hey, we all have fathers. We all have the seed from
* >a father and mother that gave us live. Like and understandable terms.
*
* Easier? If I said, "My posts are not my own. They are posted for the one who
* sent me. If you knew me, you would know whether I posted this myself or if
* he posted it. Yet I am not alone, but the guy who sent me to do this post is
* wih me."
*
* You would think, "Gee! how SIMPLE to understand! Mike *IS* the guy posting!"
That's right. And when I see Jesus speak, I see the fruit speak.
"Gee! How SIMPLE to understand that the FATHER is speaking the words
that the SON mouths!" Why else would they be red-lettered?
I guess, I'm of the understanding that the flesh of the SON was nothing
more than a vessel that the FATHER used to personally occupy.
* Of course. Why aren't most UPC people WILLING to accept John 16:27-29 as the
* TRUTH?????
I think they (I really can't say because I'm not UPC) accept it as truth
under the illumination of the revelation of the NAME of Jesus and the ONENESS
of God.
Bro. Tyler
_ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
| || | || | || | | ___| |_| | ___ |_ _|_ _| ___| __ |
| /\ | /\ | /\ | | |___| _ | _ | | | | | | ___| _|
|_/\_|_/\_|_/\_| |_____|_| |_|_| |_| |_| |_| |_____|_|\_\
WWW Chatter - Tyler Nally - tgnally@prairienet.org back2nat@netmar.com
http://netmar.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~back2nat/Chatter
Chatter instructions via AutoResponder: back2spe@netmar.com