Fw: BEAST OF REVELATION

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Jan spake thusly:
* 2) The oldest and most reliable NT texts have "he" not "God" there. 
* Even the Alexandrinus ms has "he" there in the original reading. It was 
* misread for centuries because of a "strikethrough" from the letters on 
* the other side of the page. This fact has been known since the 1700s.

Let's see what 1 Tim 3:16 looks like with a  "He" instead of "God":

     And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: He 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. 

To me, it doesn't alter the meaning of the scripture whatsoever.

* I take a little bit of offence at your style, Michael. Your opinions 
* about the nature of Christ and God are just fine. It's just that either 
* we admit it or not, the Bible -- even the NT alone -- is quite 
* ambiguous on Christology. 

I agree that an armchair christian would scan through the bible and probably
think/perceive the different manifestations of God as separate (like in a
trinitarian sense).  But for the oneness apostolic (or someone that is 
seeking the deeper things of God) mining Holy text for truths of God, much 
more is in store for the miner when God brings the gems of scripture to 
lignt.  Growing up in a Roman Catholic home, when I was deep in the 
catechism of the church, my mind wasn't open to the 
hidden-to-normal-eyes-truths.  I was open to confirmation, infant baptism, 
communion, confession.   After I had my fill of religion as a youth and was
willing to give it a try (and after wading through some terribly dead churches)
we landed in an apostolic church where we've been for the last 10+ years.
I would have never ever been open to understanding the oneness of God as
a youth.  I remember even a few months prior to getting the revelation and
before ever attending the apostolic church we now attend that God was dealing
with me and trying to tell me who his son really is.  I had a NIV bible.  And
I remember that scripture kept jumping out to me saying that Jesus was/is God
of the OT.  I willfully dismissed it thinking it was something I had fabricated
in my own mind.  I was not fully open to the truth God had for me.  The door
I used to allow understanding had conditions built in.  The identity of the
Christ was definitely something I would have never received had I continually
dismissed what God was trying to show me.

* It was not even a topic for serious 
* discussion in the first century, since questions about essence and 
* substance belonged in the world of Greek philosophy not in the oriental 
* world view of the Jews.

Who cares if it isn't a topic for 1st century people?  I'd guess that for the 
H.G. filled saints back then (and now) the revelation of the name of Jesus and
oneness of God was still given but just not written in scripture.

I find it amazing how the apostle Paul completely agreed with the Apostles in
Jerusalem even though Paul hadn't walked with Jesus during his 3.5 year 
ministry.  But, nonetheless Paul received all of what he knew by revelation
from Jesus personally in the desert over the same period of time.

* The NT does reveal a few hints:
* 
* * Jesus is divine. He is not explicitly stated to be divine in the 
* period between his birth and his resurrection. This may or may not be 
* important.

Sure it says he's divine.  What about the time when he was called "Good Master"
by the rich young ruler and he replied "There's none good but God".  Or how 
about the different times he forgave sins and was called a blasphemor for doing
only that which God could do.  Or about being the Lord of the Sabbath when
his disciples reaped grain in the field on the sabbath. etc.  I think that it's
clear the bible says jesus is divine (God).

* * Jesus is subject to God the Father during his life on Earth, and 
* later.

I'd say that Jesus was carrying out his own plan (as the manefested YHWH of
the OT).  Funny thing how YHWH can still exist in the heavens and also 
concurrently exist on earth.

* * In some sense, Christ preexisted his birth as a human.

Maybe as Melchisedec.  The high priest without father or mother or beginning
of days.  I wouldn't say the OT appearances of God were human.  They might
have appeared as human (ben guised as huma bi-ped) but since YHWH had not been
born of a woman, God hadn't fully experienced what it was like to be human.

* * Only Yahweh could be worshipped under the law. Jesus Christ is 
* clearly worshipped in the NT.

YHWH is still worshipped in Jesus.

* What I say is: take your pick. Considering the *difficulty* of this 
* field, a little bit of caution and humbleness is in order. 

I don't think there is so much difficulty as you say.  I think that
oneness theology can be taught by man.  But complete understanding only 
comes from God.

All manner of people that read the bible don't see the same meaning 
(in a manner like mine as youth above) because many aren't open to the
truth to what God can show them.  Spiritual truths are spiritually
discerned.

To present a trinitarian with the manifestations of God in a oneness sense
very rarely sees immediate results.  Sometimes the seeds of truth need to
die out in the soil they are planted in before they can spring forth and become
a mighty tree later.  The trinitarian will probably make all kind of wierd 
faces in an attempt to reason the oneness of God in a logical sense but
is missing the key of revelation the oneness saint posesses.

* What is TRUTH to you may not be to everybody else. There is no 
* proof either way, hardly even substantual evidence. 

I wish I could capture on some media revelations given.  So that by 
replaying the revelation (on this new media) people can experience
and fully comprehend what is being shown of God.  But, alas such a
device doesn't exist.  Probably never will.

Proof & Evidence ... that's what faith is alllllll about.  Faith is the 
substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.

* Please acknowledge that there may be valid counter-arguments to your ideas. 

Sure there are.  But when other arguments from the other arguee are missing
the key (revelation) and are trying to mentally explain or rationalize God's
manifestations ... there arguments though valid fall way short.  It's kinda
like an antique clock restorer talking to an engineer at Casio about time
keeping.  There's just a whole lot more to know, feel, and understand.

* Don't say, or imply, that 
* some hot eternity awaits those who happen to disagree with you. 

I've never done that.  I feel like many people are like Cornelius (the member
of the Italian band) in Acts.  Where he was a devout man of God, prayed alway,
gave alms, etc.  His prayers came up for a memorial before God.  God sent an
angel to him to tell him that there is one called Simon Peter who knows the
way he needs to go to be saved.  Many, many, are truly Corneliuses when they
currently believe they are a Peter.  They suffer from the illusion they can
be comfortable with their theology and not try and seek the deeper depths of
God.  So they stagnate.  They get set in their ways.  They argue their beliefs
they've reasoned.  They are convinced there is no other way.  To accept 1ness
theology would be a major hit on their pride and they would lose face with
those they've brought to a similar level of faith.  What's their choice then?
Do they go the right way and choose 1ness and possibly lose what they've 
labored over?  Are they willing to leave their traditions (and current 
comforts) to enter into a realm of where they are unsure?  Or do they just
dismiss the leading of the Holy Ghost and stay a Cornelius who never lets
the opportunity to have full salvation to come to his house?

To me, Cornelius was obviously a christian.  In born again terms, I'd say
that he could be classified as "in the birth canal".  Not having even broken
the water sack of birth yet.  Not fully understanding.  Not fully walking in 
the power of God.  Not fully living life as God has it for him.  Comfortable 
and warm in the little sack knowing that the outside is a noisier colder 
place to be.  I call this a fetal christian.  Cornelius obviously believed.
He just needed more.  Whether Cornelius decides to come out and take part
in the "born again" process is up to the willingness of Cornelius.  Would
stubborness of a fetal christian be considered sin if birth never happens?
I don't know.  And that's not for me to decide.  
 
* God may have other standards than us. Also remember that God is far 
* beyond any idea, doctrine or vision we may have about Him. Any attempt 
* to violently force God into our box-like ideas are presumtuous to the 
* extreme.

I'm not so sure about that either.  Seem like somewhere I read in scripture
that "We have the mind of Christ" and judge all things.  We can perceive and
know a lot but not all.  Seems like the last several verses of 1 Cor 2 speak
loudly in what the saint is given in understanding and discernment:

     9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither 
       have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath 
       prepared for them that love him. 
    
    10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit 
       searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
    
    11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man 
       which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but 
       the Spirit of God. 
    
       (things of a man known by men, things of God known by God)
    
    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit 
       which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely 
       given to us of God. 
    
       (freely given knowledge of God....)
    
    13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom 
       teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual 
       things with spiritual. 
    
       (the freely given knowlege we speak are not man's wisdom but that
        which is taught of the Holy Ghost comparing spiritual against spir.)
    
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: 
       for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, 
       because they are spiritually discerned. 
    
       (The natural man doesn't receive freely given knowlege because he
        can't discern them spiritually)
    
    15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is 
       judged of no man. 
    
       (He to who isn't natural (that has received of the free knowledge)
        forms opionions of all things yet is not condemned of no man)
    
    16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? 
       but we have the mind of Christ. 
    
       (We (those with the free knowledge) have the mind of Christ)

I should've just quoted the scripture at the end instead of writing this
huge post.  It (possibly enhanced by the Tyler commentaries in parenthesis)
says scripturally much of what I've written about today.

Bro. Tyler

     __     Bro. Tyler Nally On-Line Oneness Apostolic                  __    
  __|  |__  tgnally@prairienet.org (when playing)                    __|  |__ 
 |___  ___| tnally@csci.csc.com    (when working)                   |___  ___|
    |  |    back2nat@netmar.com (when answering q's about merchandise) |  |   
    |  |    http://www.prairienet.org/~tgnally/homepage.html           |  |   
    |__|    http://netmar.com/~back2nat (WWW eco-sensitive storefront) |__|   
            http://netmar.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~back2nat/Chatter            

            "When I was young, I was given a dollar to be good.
                       Now I'm good for nothing."