"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #164]

Again, I can certainly understand why someone came up with the saying, "you cannot make this stuff up." I mean, on the one hand you freely admit to us that you do not have the ability to interpret scripture (and you certainly demonstrate this to be the case) and then on the other hand you use the scripture you claim not to be able to interpret in order to defend your position. There is no way in the world you can make such nonsense make sense in your mind.

Jack, just because a person admits to not being able to interpret scripture ON THEIR OWN - does not mean they have not been able to understand what has been given them to understand.

There are also things that are straightforward - that may require no interpretation at all.

**
Why would I go ahead and give MY OWN interpretation/understanding - without waiting on my Lord, the Spirit? Christ is the One who is the Truth - I need Him. Not the other way around.

For some reason, you cannot understand that. That's fine. I don't understand people who rely upon THEIR OWN interpretations. How can you be so confident in yourself?

What I shared is not wrong simply because you disagree with it.

Correct! However, and again, you claim not to be able to understand scripture, and yet you give us an interpretation. It is unreal.

See above.

The fact is, one or the both of us are in error. Either Jesus was only referring to the "house of Israel" when He said, "come unto me all you who are weak and heavy laden." Or He was also referring to the Jehova Witnesses as well, as you suggest.

This is a similar issue as 'walk by faith, not by sight.'

Paul might have been referring to himself and company when he said 'we' (or he might have been speaking of Christians in general.) But regardless of who he was physically addressing at that moment - the words themselves APPLY to all disciples and Christians.

You argued for pages that 'I was wrong'. I didn't even quote Paul, I just said that Christians are called to walk by faith and not by sight. But when I asked you if you thought instead that Christians are meant to walk by sight instead of faith, you replied that 'you never said that.' So it seems Jack that you KNOW those words apply to more than just Paul and company. They apply to all Christians. Same as 'come to me all you who are weary and burdened' applies to more than just the Jews at that time.

Your problem is the fact that even Jesus Himself said that His earthly ministry was "only to the house of Israel." The fact of the matter is, Jesus referred to the Gentiles as "dogs" and you have Him as referring to the Jehova Witnesses when He says, "come unto me all you who are weak and heavy laden." I mean, the fact that the Gentiles (which would include anyone who is not a Jew) was excluded from what Jesus is saying is the fact that even the apostles after the Resurrection were under the impression that the Gospel was only intended for the Jewish people.

He had more than just an 'earthly ministry' right?

Christ came for the lost sheep of Israel. First the Jews (then also Samaritans because they are also descendants of Israel), but then also Gentiles after Israel rejected Him (though not all of Israel of course.)

But the Body of Christ is made up of people from EVERY tribe, nation, tongue. Not just the 12 tribes of Israel. And what about His invitation (written in Revelation) inviting anyone who is thirsting and anyone who wishes to 'Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life."

Jack, why would He not have compassion on His sheep today - including those who are weary and burdened?

His yoke is light for such ones also - He will also give such ones rest - He is calling for such ones to come to Him.

This is exactly what I am saying. When you take a passage like this, and attempt to apply it to others, you are doing great damage to the text.

What damage do you think is being done? Where are you coming from with this?

If that invitation does apply to others, then saying He is not calling such ones is doing damage to the truth.

Same as arguing against 'walking by faith, and not by sight.'

Jesus came only to the "house of Israel" begging them to let go of their own efforts at keeping the law. So then, if Jesus Himself said that He came "only to the house of Israel" then what He says there applies to the house of Israel He was speaking to at the time and has nothing whatsoever to do with the JW since they were not even heard of at the time.

Jack, do you think He (Jaheshua) stopped calling people two thousand years ago?

I will give an example from the one I know (it doesn't mean it is the only one) - the WTS/JW religion. They have many 'laws' that must be obeyed (and fear, shame, guilt, punishment, etc - that come with failure to obey the 'laws' they have imposed upon their members.) There are many in that religion who are fine with it. Those ones may not feel burdened or weary from these heavy loads.

I understand all of this, but none of this changes the fact that Jesus was addressing the Jewish people at the time. Jesus cannot possibly be addressing the Gentiles, since He Himself said that He was sent only to the house of Israel, and He referred to the Gentiles as dogs.

Little dogs (not meant as an insult) - and He also granted that woman her request, if you recall.


The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

This is not for Jews only. This is for the one who thirsts (anyone), the one who wishes (anyone).

From any tribe, nation, people, tongue.



Peace again to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #0]

This would be SO, SO FUNNY if it wasn't so sad. I don't care if you first heard of Jesus from your mother, nor does it matter about the Catholic priest, nor your born-again pastor. The fact still remains that you would have never known, nor ever heard the Name Jesus if it had not been for the Bible. You know, I know, and anyone who reads this knows that your mother, the priest, and the pastor got the information from the Bible in some sort of way concerning Jesus. Ergo, and again, you would have never known the name of Jesus if it were not for the Bible. PERIOD! End of argument.

The whole point is it is not as though you were of some other religion, or atheist who had never heard the name of Jesus and this Jesus revealed Himself to you giving His identity as Jesus. Rather, you already knew all about Jesus, and it just so happens that it was this Jesus who revealed Himself to you, and it just so happens to be the same Jesus spoke of in the Bible, and this Jesus reveals to you nothing whatsoever to you that cannot already be found in the Bible, and it is this same Bible which you claim to be full of errors. You really cannot make this stuff up!

the biblical basis of knowing Jesus shifted to the Godlical way of knowing Him

And yet, this Jesus told you nothing whatsoever that cannot be read in the Bible, so how in the world is there any difference, since both the Bible, and this revelation you claim to have say the same exact thing? As we have already demonstrated, it is because of the Bible that you knew who Jesus is, and now you claim to have some sort of "Godlical way of knowing Jesus" when you have given us nothing that we cannot already know by reading the Bible. Do you want to know why I use the screen name "realworldjack?" It is because of the fact that there are a whole lot of folks who are in some sort of make-believe world.

Why would you presume/assume that hearing from the Lord Jesus today would be coupled with capability to perform miracles or to heal the sicks, were you the Lord Jesus Christ?

You need to read more carefully. I did not say a thing about anything being coupled. Rather, I am talking about the fact that anyone can claim to hear from Jesus directly and there would be little any of us could do to verify this to be the case. However, we are having very little trouble demonstrating that what you claim to have heard from Jesus directly any of the rest of us can read from the Bible. On the other hand, if you were claiming to perform the signs and wonders the apostles performed, this would be something we could verify. Ergo, you choose to go with the one you are under the impression that we cannot falsify. But the thing is, the more you type, the more we see the falsehood in your claims.

Bear in mind that you acknowledge to have never heard anything yet from the Lord Jesus Christ

What I know about Jesus comes from the apostles, and or those close to the apostles which is contained in the Bible. Your claim is to have heard from Jesus directly and you say the same things I can read in the Bible.

for you to resort to presumption and assumption about the Lord

I am not resorting to "presumption and assumption about the Lord." Rather, I am reading it straight out of the Bible. When I read what you claimed to have received from Jesus directly, it is no different than what I read in the Bible. SO???????? What am I presuming and or assuming since we are coming to the same Jesus? The only difference seems to be, I am reading what is contained in the Bible, while you are claiming to hear from Jesus directly the same thing I am reading.

Also, always put to remembrance that the bible is not the Lord God and Jesus Christ for you to treat/convert anything written in it to 'commands' or 'messages' that God is asking of you to perform whenever you read and study your bible.

I can assure you that I am not under the impression that the Bible is God, and or Jesus. In fact, I am on record here on this site as saying that "I wish the Bible had never been composed." Since this is the case, so much for you assuming I worship the Bible. I am however under the impression that you claim to hear from Jesus directly, and all of what you claim He had to say can be found in the Bible which you claim is not God or Jesus.

So then?????? Let us think about this. If I am on record here on this site as saying that "I wish the Bible had never been composed" this absolutely demonstrates I do not have a high regard for the Bible, and therefore I cannot be holding it up as an idol. On the other hand, if we have one who claims to here from Jesus directly, and all of what they claim to have heard from Jesus can be found right there in the Bible, is it possible that this one may be holding up their idea of a direct line to Jesus as an idol?

Wittingly or unwittingly, you're definitely putting the Lord God, Christ Jesus, in a box (bible) by your narrative above, as well as elevating the bible in the stead of God.

I have already demonstrated that I do not hold the Bible in high regard. With that being said, you are correct to say that I cannot put God in a box. However, God can, does, and has put Himself in a box. In other words, God has ordained means in which we can experience Him, and those ordained means are the written word, baptism, prayer, the preached word, and communion. When there are those who are not satisfied with the means God has supplied to experience Him, they will create their own means, such as a direct communication.

Allow me to give you an example of how God has put Himself in a box for our protection. If you will recall, Moses wanted a real experience with God. Moses wanted to see God. Did God allow this to happen? No! Rather, God Hid Himself. In other words, Moses wanted to see God outside the box, but God kept Himself inside the box in order to protect Moses. So then, while it is true that I cannot put God inside a box, this does not mean that God does not put Himself inside a box in order to protect us from Him. In other words, there are those who are satisfied with the means God has supplied in order to experience Him, while there are others who insist to see God in the nude.

Well, I am going to leave it here for now because you have enough to chew on. You can leave it here and I will get to the rest. Or you can respond to this and we will go from there.

[POI]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

I'm not quite sure. However, it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #172]

...and this Jesus reveals to you nothing whatsoever to you that cannot already be found in the bible..

Could you point me to where in the Bible we can read the following [today's] teachings of the Lord Jesus?

The Lord says to all:

"I am the Pastor, I am the Good Pastor. Remember, no one else will teach you except Me. If you explain to one another, it's only according to your own will, according to your own thoughts. So remember, anyone who stands as a pastor, who stands as a leader of My church, is working iniquity and stealing My place as the Good Pastor. Because you are only human, you who are pastors, you who teach and stand before people, you who work iniquity, you who cast out demons in My name, remember that when I return, many will call out to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we do mighty works and cast out demons in Your name, didn't we heal?' But remember, I will say to them, 'I never knew you, I never recognized you, you who work iniquity, you who cast out demons.' Remember, when you cast out demons, you're taking away the role that belongs to Me. If you encounter someone possessed by a demon, just pray to Me, and I am ready to hear your prayer and will listen to every complaint you whisper to Me, every cry you make, every prayer you offer. I will help you and never abandon you, especially those who are Mine and follow Me."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I said to a woman, 'What was the last sin you committed today?' The woman replied, 'I don't remember.' I said, 'You don't remember or you don't know the meaning of sin?' The woman answered, 'Forgive me, because I don't know the meaning of sin.'

Then I said to a rich person who was doing charitable works, 'What was the last sin you committed today?' The rich person replied, 'I haven't committed any sin because I've been busy with charitable works and doing good deeds.'

'You are ignorant of your sins. Your good deeds won't save you. Come and I will teach you. Only your Lord can teach you the meaning of sin, especially since there are many errors and not included in the Bible.

For example, when it says "Thou shalt not kill," the word "not" means "should not do." But without your Lord teaching you, how will you know what's right or wrong? Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord.

If you don't let go of the old, you'll remain ignorant of the meaning of sin because no one can teach you the meaning of these things except your Lord God. No amount of good deeds will save you unless you trust and dedicate your life to your Lord God, the Almighty."

I did not say a thing about anything being coupled. Rather, I am talking about the fact that anyone can claim to hear from Jesus directly and there would be little any of us could do to verify this to be the case.

You said in your previous post:

In the beginning of Acts the apostles' preformed miracles, such as the healing of the sick, and the raising of the dead etc. It is also reported that some of the apostles heard directly from Jesus. The strange thing is you claim to hear directly from Jesus just like the apostles, but I am wondering if you claim to possess the ability to perform miracles such as the apostles did?

Your words speak better, don't they?

What I know about Jesus comes from the apostles, and or those close to the apostles which is contained in the Bible. Your claim is to have heard from Jesus directly and you say the same things I can read in the Bible.

The bible is not the apostles, and it is also not from the copies of original handwritings of those who wrote the books that comprise the bible today; it is illogical for you to say that what you know about Jesus comes from the apostles who are all long gone, and definitely, can no longer teach you. What you know about Jesus comes from the written words in the bible, which is a compilation of books derived from the copies of never ending copies of unearthed copies of scriptures, whose authors can no longer testify the authenticity of such unearthed copies of scriptures. Also, the bible is not Jesus; hence, your knowledge about Jesus does not come from the Lord Jesus Himself. It is as if you were just reading a news item about the Lord, which maybe true, not true, or a mixture of true and not true attributes of the Lord.

What am I presuming and or assuming since we are coming to the same Jesus?

This is a clear evidence of your opinion about Jesus; you are coming from the bible, as you acknowledged, yet you seem to forget that the bible is not Jesus. How could you say we are coming from the same Jesus when you're just coming from something, a book, which is not Jesus in reality?

I can assure you that I am not under the impression that the Bible is God, and or Jesus.

Good to hear that, but I doubt, better review all your narratives that seem to contradict your assurance to me.

On the other hand, if we have one who claims to here from Jesus directly, and all of what they claim to have heard from Jesus can be found right there in the Bible, is it possible that this one may be holding up their idea of a direct line to Jesus as an idol?

You better rephrase your narrative because the ones who hear from the Lord today cast all their trust only to the real and eternally Lord Jesus Christ, not to the words uttered to them by the Lord. How could there be an idol in that case?

I have already demonstrated that I do not hold the Bible in high regard. With that being said, you are correct to say that I cannot put God in a box.

Wow!!! Nice shot, how I wish you really would.

However, God can, does, and has put Himself in a box. In other words, God has ordained means in which we can experience Him, and those ordained means are the written word, baptism, prayer, the preached word, and communion. When there are those who are not satisfied with the means God has supplied to experience Him, they will create their own means, such as a direct communication.

Now comes the paradox of the good thing you just have proclaimed above. Saying 'God has ordained means in which we can experience Him' means you've heard it from God, or received a declaration from God, or witnessed God when He did the said ordination, right? If not, this clearly shows you are preempting God, even though you haven't actually heard anything from Him yet. For your information, you can experience God through Himself because He is real and eternally living and exists on His own. What you have fabricated above is a clear display of your capability to create your opinion on things that surround you, as well as claims you've heard and learned from others.

Allow me to give you an example of how God has put Himself in a box for our protection. If you will recall, Moses wanted a real experience with God. Moses wanted to see God. Did God allow this to happen? No! Rather, God Hid Himself. In other words, Moses wanted to see God outside the box, but God kept Himself inside the box in order to protect Moses. So then, while it is true that I cannot put God inside a box, this does not mean that God does not put Himself inside a box in order to protect us from Him. In other words, there are those who are satisfied with the means God has supplied in order to experience Him, while there are others who insist to see God in the nude.

Have you heard this from God, verbatim? If not, the way how you put this into narrative is nothing but your own opinion. Prove me wrong on this.

[OneJack]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

I'm not quite sure. However, it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts.

It takes the real and eternally living Christ Jesus, who is beside us all, to convince the skeptics and today's breed of 'doubting Thomas.'

[William]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

I'm not quite sure. However, it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts.

It takes the real and eternally living Christ Jesus, who is beside us all, to convince the skeptics and today's breed of 'doubting Thomas.'

If that where the case, don't you think the real and eternally living Christ Jesus should get to it then?

[OneJack]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

I'm not quite sure. However, it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts.

It takes the real and eternally living Christ Jesus, who is beside us all, to convince the skeptics and today's breed of 'doubting Thomas.'

If that where the case, don't you think the real and eternally living Christ Jesus should get to it then?

Yes, He is the sole and absolute authority to handle all these things, according to His term. Mine is just an observation of what it must take to convince the stubborn mind that the Lord God Jesus Christ exists, since the testimonies in the Bible are not enough to let them know He (Jesus) truly exists, so are the living testimonies from others whom God sent today.

[William]

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

I'm not quite sure. However, it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts.

It takes the real and eternally living Christ Jesus, who is beside us all, to convince the skeptics and today's breed of 'doubting Thomas.'

If that where the case, don't you think the real and eternally living Christ Jesus should get to it then?

Yes, He is the sole and absolute authority to handle all these things, according to His term. Mine is just an observation of what it must take to convince the stubborn mind that the Lord God Jesus Christ exists, since the testimonies in the Bible are not enough to let them know He (Jesus) truly exists, so are the living testimonies from others whom God sent today.

So then..."it would certainly take more than the provided sketchiness and/or unfounded assertions made from the Gospel accounts." amounts to a "stubborn mind" by your observation? And something eternally living Christ Jesus cannot convince anyone otherwise, even if he did "get to it"?

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #178]

.......... And something eternally living Christ Jesus cannot convince anyone otherwise, even if he did "get to it"?

You can count on your fingers those who were, are, and will be convinced....., if not, the Calvary cross of crucifixion would not be a reality of the past.

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #179]

You can count on your fingers those who were, are, and will be convinced..

Somewhere between 0 and 8 then. That's not very impressive...