"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?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #323]

The point is, why point folks to the idea they can hear from Jesus directly, instead of pointing them to those who were witnesses of the life of Jesus on this earth, who also witnessed His crucifixion, and then went on to witness the resurrected Christ, with the historical evidence being so overwhelming that it has convinced scholars who are not Christian, that those who reported the event, truly believed they had witnessed the event.

Dead men (shaded in red) tell no tales, do they?

This implies that a testimony "dies" or loses its effect with the death of the author. The response to that is two fold

1. These men spoke from God then the words they were used to write was in fact "the word of God" which lives throughout all Generations (see the tesomony of Paul who witnessed God through visions in Hebrews 4:12)

2. Faithful disciples of Christ have been resurrected to heavenly life, then the actual Christian bible writers are not dead but powerful kings in heaven, witnessing TODAY the living God.


CONCLUSION Even secular written words live on in the sense that they continue to have a deep impact on their readers, long after their authors have died. Indeed humanity's collective knowledge is largely dependent on the transmission of information from one generation to another, how much more so the writers that conveyed or passed on the words of God Himself. Evidently, any argument that the writers are dead and therefore their testimony has lost its impact are not only contradicting common sense and historical reality but are contradicting the words of the Living God himself.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #323]

The point is, why point folks to the idea they can hear from Jesus directly, instead of pointing them to those who were witnesses of the life of Jesus on this earth, who also witnessed His crucifixion, and then went on to witness the resurrected Christ, with the historical evidence being so overwhelming that it has convinced scholars who are not Christian, that those who reported the event, truly believed they had witnessed the event.

Dead men (shaded in red) tell no tales, do they?

This implies that a testimony "dies" or loses its effect with the death of the author.

Their testimonies die because they were all lost, alleged copies of copies of never-ending alleged copies are the only ones retrieved.

The response to that is two fold

1. These men spoke from God then the words they were used to write was in fact "the word of God" which lives throughout all Generations (see the tesomony of Paul who witnessed God through visions in Hebrews 4:12)

This is only your opinion since the words of God are always in the mouth of the Lord Jesus. What is your problem in coming to and calling on the Lord for you to hear from His mouth the words of God, which you opine to be in the bible?

2. Faithful disciples of Christ have been resurrected to heavenly life, then the actual Christian bible writers are not dead but powerful kings in heaven, witnessing TODAY the living God.

Maybe you're having a daydream here, no one gets resurrected yet among those bible writers, and no one among them is witnessing to us today.

CONCLUSION Even secular written words live on in the sense that they continue to have a deep impact on their readers, long after their authors have died. Indeed humanity's collective knowledge is largely dependent on the transmission of information from one generation to another, how much more so the writers that conveyed or passed on the words of God Himself. Evidently, any argument that the writers are dead and therefore their testimony has lost its impact are not only contradicting common sense and historical reality but are contradicting the words of the Living God himself.

Open your eyes wide, the bible is the source of the rampant proliferation of various denomination of religion today globally.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #323]

The point is, why point folks to the idea they can hear from Jesus directly, instead of pointing them to those who were witnesses of the life of Jesus on this earth, who also witnessed His crucifixion, and then went on to witness the resurrected Christ, with the historical evidence being so overwhelming that it has convinced scholars who are not Christian, that those who reported the event, truly believed they had witnessed the event.

Dead men (shaded in red) tell no tales, do they?

This implies that a testimony "dies" or loses its effect with the death of the author.

Their testimonies die because they were all lost, alleged copies of copies of never-ending alleged copies are the only ones retrieved.

When Jesus (in the flesh) read (and directed others to read ) scripture, was he reading the originals or copies?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #323]

The point is, why point folks to the idea they can hear from Jesus directly, instead of pointing them to those who were witnesses of the life of Jesus on this earth, who also witnessed His crucifixion, and then went on to witness the resurrected Christ, with the historical evidence being so overwhelming that it has convinced scholars who are not Christian, that those who reported the event, truly believed they had witnessed the event.

Dead men (shaded in red) tell no tales, do they?

This implies that a testimony "dies" or loses its effect with the death of the author.

Their testimonies die because they were all lost, alleged copies of copies of never-ending alleged copies are the only ones retrieved.

When Jesus (in the flesh) read (and directed others to read ) scripture, was he reading the originals or copies?

Where in the bible can we read that Jesus directed others to read the scriptures? As far as I know, there is only one instance in the bible accounts where Jesus read the scripture, which copies only He himself today knows whether it was the original handwriting of the author or not.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #329]

I haven't avoided it at all, Jack. I have responded to it twice, the latest response here:

viewtopic.php?p=1187301#p1187301

None of what you say in these other posts makes any difference at all compared to the fact that you would have never known anything at all about the life, death, and resurrection had it not been for the authors contained in the Bible, and it does not matter one little bit what you choose to call Him. I mean, it is like you are saying, you heard all about the life, death, and resurrection, but the Name was not right, and the Name is all that matters. In other words, it is like you are saying, you can believe in the life, death, and resurrection for the atonement of sin, but if you get the Name wrong then you are out of luck. Again, the point is, you would have never, ever, known of any of these things if it had not been for the Bible, and yet your claim is only that somehow you got the Name correct, while the rest of us will burn in hell because we did not get the Name correct.

See William's summary here: viewtopic.php?p=1187391#p1187391

So then, you are claiming to hear a real voice? Is it audible like sheep would hear?

Christ communicating with His sheep is absolutely attested to in what is written. (Too many posts to try and link to - so just off the top of my head, Christ speaks to Ananias (Acts 9), Phillip (Acts 8:29), Paul, Peter, and of course Christ says it Himself throughout John 10, Revelation 3:20)

Again, do you hear an audible voice like the sheep would hear? Next, what is it that causes you to believe that since Ananias, Phillip, Paul, and Peter, heard the voice of Jesus that this would include you as well? What in the text makes this to be the case? I mean, Peter, and Paul were said to have performed miracles, with even Paul raising the dead. So then, do you claim this for yourself? Or is it only hearing directly from Jesus? Why would that be the case? The question is, why would you translate the idea that you hear from Jesus directly just like these folks did, but somehow not translate the fact that they all performed miracles for yourself? Can you see why this would be convenient on your part? In other words, we could determine whether you had raised the dead, heal the sick, made a blind man to see again, but we will just have to take your word for it that you hear directly from Jesus, (or whatever name you give to Him). Because you see, all those you mentioned were involved in far more than hearing from Jesus directly. What is it that causes you to believe that you do not need to have all these other gifts these men who are responsible for what is contained in the Bible, which is where you heard of all these things, and all you have is the direct line to Jesus?

I do not base it on what is contained in the bible. I base it on my Lord (who speaks.)

And yet, the overwhelming majority of what you have to share with us, is what is contained in the Bible. Other than that, the only thing else I can remember, is when you tell us that the Spirit has reminded you of something in the Bible, which you insist is not reliable. How in the world can you make this make sense? If the Bible is not reliable as you say, then why would the Spirit continue to remind you of things contained in a source which is unreliable?

The bible simply supports this truth (that Christ lives and speaks, just as He said He would do.)

Is the Bible reliable?

People can do with that as they will.

Right! Which is another way of saying that you cannot demonstrate that you hear from Jesus directly. If you cannot demonstrate this to be the case, then what in the world is the use of sharing this with others? I mean, you make no sense whatsoever! You cannot demonstrate this on your own, and therefore you appeal to the Bible in order to make your case and then go on to insist the Bible is not a reliable source. Again, you cannot make this stuff up! It is like, Tammy, how can we know that you hear from Jesus directly? Well, all we have to do is to read the Bible? Okay then Tammy, is the Bible a reliable source? And of course, Tammy's response would have to be, OF COURSE NOT!

Trying to tell me I have no right to quote the bible because it is not inerrant does not change what is written in it. If you are looking to that book - Christ living and speaking is what it attests to - He said it Himself and we have examples of this very thing happening with both the apostles and others (after His death adn resurrection and ascension.)

Tammy, I have never said you have no right to quote the Bible. You can quote the Bible all you would like. The question is, do you believe the Bible to be a reliable source of information? I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, but I do believe the Bible is a reliable source of information. We know for a fact that you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, and we also can pretty much know that you do not believe the Bible to be a reliable source of information, and yet you continue to site the Bible in order to defend your position.

You have made the exact same claim - that the bible is not inerrant - and you do quote from it.

There is a tremendous difference in acknowledging the Bible is not inerrant, as opposed to acknowledging the Bible is untrustworthy. Because you see, I can acknowledge that a friend of mine is extremely trustworthy and also acknowledge the fact that what they may say is not inerrant. Do you consider yourself to be trustworthy? I do? Do you consider everything you say to be inerrant? The question then is, if we can consider ourselves to be trustworthy, without considering ourselves to be inerrant, then why do we impose upon the Bible that if it is not inerrant then it cannot be trustworthy? This is exactly what you are doing. You are insinuating that since I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant, then I must consider the Bible to be untrustworthy.

I believe what is contained in the Bible to be true, accurate information of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and how these events atone for sin and give those who put their trust in Jesus Christ are given life. Moreover, the information contained in the Bible has convinced even the scholars who are not Christian that the apostles had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and they have no explanation for such events. More importantly, I know beyond doubt that you would have never, ever heard, nor known anything about the resurrection had it not been for the work of the apostles, along with the authors contained in the Bible. The point is what is contained in the Bible has had the most significant impact in the history of the whole world, including your own life, while your claim to hear from Jesus directly has had no impact on the world whatsoever. In other words, the Bible is batting a thousand, while your claim to hear directly from Jesus is ZERO.

Jack this is just an avoidance of the point.

How in the world is it avoidance of the point when I ask, "Do you mean the faith of those recorded in the Bible, which we are not to hold anything up to?" when this is exactly the point? There is no way you can insist on the one hand that the Bible is untrustworthy, and then on the other continue to quote the Bible in a feeble attempt to back your claim. Even you can see this is complete nonsense.

They are to imitate the faith of those who came first. The faith of those who came first was in Christ Himself.

Hebrews 13:7

We have already been through this, and it is sort of strange how you are now leaving Paul out of the equation. The Corinthians were to imitate Paul as Paul imitated Christ, but the main thing here is the fact that we are talking about your claim of a direct line to Jesus, and it is a fact that the Corinthians would have never known the name of Jesus had it not been for Paul, just like you would have never known the Name if it had not been for the Bible. Moreover, and again, when Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ," he could not have possibly been referring forward to a letter he would write in the future. When Paul said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ," he was not referring to imitating everything he did throughout his whole life. Rather, Paul was referring back to what he had just told the Corinthians, in that they should not be a stumbling block for others who were coming to Christ, or even the weak believer. This is exactly what Paul was saying when he said, "imitate me as I imitate Christ," while you have Paul talking about, we should imitate Paul, as Paul imitated Christ in everything, even referring to a future letter which has not been written as of yet.

Then why are you taking issue with me for stating it? Why do you keep arguing against it?

I know you have to understand this, because it is quite clear. You quoted from the Bible when it says, "we walk by faith and not by sight." This is a direct quote from Paul, and he is the only one who used this phrase, and when Paul used this phrase, he was only referring to himself and company, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with you. This goes to show you had no clue what Paul meant when he used the phrase, and it also shows you will take liberty with what is contained in the Bible for your own benefit. It also demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are not a student of the Bible, and you do not claim to be, and yet you use the Bible over, and over, and over, all the while insisting that what you are referring to, is untrustworthy. I mean, I do not care who you are, this is complete, and utter nonsense. You cannot on the one hand refer to the Bible in order to back your case, and then on the other, insist what you are using to back your case is untrustworthy. You do not even need a direct line to Jesus to understand this.

If it is TRUE why are you fighting what is TRUE?

What is true, is that you were quoting Paul directly. What is also true is, Paul is the only one in the whole of the Bible who use the phrase. What is also true is, Paul was not including you when he said the words. What is also true is you had no idea what Paul meant by the phrase. What is also true is, you take liberty in what is contained in the Bible in order to back your fantasy that you hear directly from Jesus, all the while insisting the Bible is not to be trusted.

It is evidence that we are to walk by faith.

Tammy, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge of what faith actually is. When Jesus said, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" this had nothing whatsoever to do with faith, and it certainly had nothing to do with when Paul said, "we walk by faith and not by sight." You see, I do not need an ounce of faith in order to know that Jesus walked the face of the earth. I do not need to employ faith in order to know that Jesus had a great following. I do not need to utilize faith in order to know that Jesus got himself in trouble with the authorities. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was crucified, and I do not need faith in order to be convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead.

I do not base my belief in any of the things above upon faith, because we have facts, and evidence to base our belief in the above, and I can look at, study, analyze, and weigh the evidence. What I would need faith in order to believe is, the above events somehow atone for my sin. In other words, I need faith in order to receive forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, analyze, weigh, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

I shouldn't need to post it though since you don't deny that we - Christians - are supposed to be walking by faith.

What we are beginning to see is the problem is, you have a severe lack of knowledge of what faith actually is, which is why you use these passages in error.

But Christ is not limited by how you (or I) see things.

Christ is not limited by anything, accept if He limits Himself, and He can, and has. Because you see, Christ could reveal Himself to all of us right now, in the flesh, but He has limited our knowledge of Him by the witness of those He chose to be his witnesses. Some are satisfied with what God has supplied, while others (like the Israelites in the wilderness) are not satisfied and want more than what God has supplied. The Israelites in the wilderness made gods for themselves out of gold, while there are those today who make an idol out of claiming to have more than what God has supplied in His external Word to us all.

And while it may start with testimony to Christ - the people being witnessed to can then come to the actual person: Christ Himself.

What we have revealed to us all in the external Word, we can be sure of. What those who are attempting to climb the ladder to God may find at the other end of that ladder, is yet to be determined.

With one caveat of course:

"No one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them."

Does the word "draw" above mean a wooing, or some sort of pleading? Or does it have the meaning as if you "draw" water from a well?

Do you believe we should walk by faith? Do you think instead we should walk by sight?

Both. We are to believe the promises of God we do not see as of yet, based upon the evidence we have seen. It certainly has nothing to do with closing your eyes and believing whatever you are told.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #330]

False, even without the bible, people will come to know Jesus through Himself, who is real and the forever Living God.

The above is false information, but I am not even going to bother with debating the issue, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made. Because you see, the point I made was that YOU would have never known nor heard the Name of Jesus, had it not been for the work of the apostles, and the authors contained in the Bible. PERIOD! End of debate. The point is you would have never known the Name of Jesus apart from what is contained in the Bible, and now you want to insist that this Bible, from where you came to know who Jesus was, is an unreliable source.

We are living witnesses today to the Lord regarding His dealings with mankind.

I can put my trust in what you have to say, if I am gullible, or I can put my trust in those whom Christ left as His ambassadors, who are responsible for your coming to even know the Name of Jesus, and who has had the most significant impact in the history of the world. Because you see, what these "dead men" had to say, can be demonstrated, and trusted, while what you have to say is simply a fantasy of yours.

The bible is a 'Johnny comes lately' book of testimonies to Jesus.

So, says you. One the other hand, if it had not been for these "Johnny comes lately' book of testimonies to Jesus," you would have never, ever heard the Name Jesus. It sounds to me as if what you are attempting to sell is the "Johnny comes lately' of testimonies."

Where do you think those people before the Bible existed learned about the Lord God, whose name is Jesus, if not from God Himself?

You are really showing a lack of knowledge here. The Bible was not put together until around 400 AD. However, we had all of the writings contained in the Bible, long, long before the Bible was composed. Before the NT was composed, folks depended upon the testimony of the witnesses Jesus left on earth as His ambassadors. These same ambassadors, and or those close to them, are responsible for what is contained in the NT, which is responsible for the fact that you have ever heard the Name of Jesus. PERIOD!

Wake up, Jack, religious denominations, with contradicting doctrines, continue to flourish globally because of the bible, and because dead men tell no tales

I am not part of any religious denomination. However, and again, if it had not been for these "dead men" you refer to, you would have never known, nor heard The Name Jesus, and that is a fact. Again, dead men do tell tales, and has had an enormous impact upon your life.

hence, the infusion of their own understanding in formulating doctrines that every member has to follow and put into practice.

Again, and I want to be clear here, I belong to no denomination of any sort. I do not belong to any Church. The reason I do not belong to any of these, is because of the reckless theology that most allow, including but not limited to the reckless theology that you are espousing. Most of the Churches in my area are consumed with what is called "Christian nationalism" which has nothing to do with Christ. But again, many of them tolerate the same sort of recklessness you are attempting to sell.

What impact would that be when they are all dead? How could the dead, per se, impact anything in history?

I have already explained this. These "dead men" you refer to are responsible for the biggest impact in the history of the world. These "dead men" are responsible for The Name of Jesus being the most recognized Name in all of history, and you would have never heard the Name of Jesus had it not been for these "dead men."

Now you're expressing your own fabricated lie about Jesus, whom you've not witnessed or seen His ways in dealing with mankind, and, worse, you make yourself believe that dead men whom the Lord Jesus commanded to make all nations His disciples/servants would have significantly impacted the history of the world, as if Jesus were dead and His disciples were alive.

It is not as though Jesus was dead, but rather Jesus left the earth to sit at the right hand of The Father, and Jesus left these men as His ambassadors on this earth. It is because of the work these men did, as they were commanded by Jesus, that you have now heard the Name of Jesus.

You are totally hallucinating by your phrase, 'preaching the gospel of Jesus raised from the dead,' which is not exactly what the Lord commanded to Peter, et. al.

My friend, Jesus raised from the dead is the Gospel. If we win the argument of Jesus raised from the dead, there are no more arguments to be made, and Jesus raised from the dead, is far more powerful than your claim to hear from Jesus directly.

but the ones who compiled the bible and the ones who wrote the scriptures added many things that the Lord did not ask of them to write and do. The Lord taught us the following regarding the scriptures, to wit:

Original texts: Labingpito (17) tao ang nagsulat ng banal na kaslatan at lahat sila ay nagdagdag sa mga sinulat nila sapagkat nuon pa man ay iba na ang kaisipan nila.

English translation: Seventeen (17) people wrote the holy scripture, and they all added to what they wrote because even then their thoughts were already different.

Right! I can put my trust in what you have to say (and btw I do not believe you received the above from the Lord) or I can put my trust in those who transformed the whole entire world. Which would you choose? Because you see, your impact upon the world compared to these "dead men" is ZERO!

It's like in boxing, you've already been knocked down, and you can't retaliate against an invisible opponent because you arrogantly fought despite not seeing anything since your vision is blind, yet here you are flailing in the air, so just one punch and you're down immediately.

My friend, you are the one who is "flailing in the air" because I am not paying any attention to what you have to say. I mean, you are wasting your time, and not just on me. Your words are having no impact besides upon those who may be gullible.

You're blind to the fact that your soul profits nothing from the world

No, I am not and I knew this long before encountering you.

yet you keep on gaining the attention of the world as your gauge of the essentials that your soul needs in the afterlife

How so?

Don't be deceived, don't you know that even if only one soul is found to have trust in the Lord until the end, the Lord will still return to this earth to get that one soul and put the same in His kingdom forever, but the rest will have to suffer the consequences of not putting all their trust in the Lord until the end?

How in the world can you start out by saying, "don't be deceived" and then go on to talk about one soul on the earth whom Jesus would return for? Am I in danger if I do not believe that Jesus would return for one soul? You are really comical.

Of course, I am that serious and will still hold on to that truth until the end.

I said nothing about you being "serious." I said you are in "serious error." Big difference. And if you live in a free country, you are free to hold on to anything you wish, whether it be truth or not. I have no problem with anything you choose to believe. However, please pardon me, if I believe it to be garbage.

Also, the bible, absolutely, is not the Lord God, and it will surely not grant us the salvation of our souls.

I have never been under that impression.

If this statement, verbatim, were in the bible, you would have learned long ago that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can tell you the truth and that these dead men tell no tales.

You keep using the word "verbatim." I am not saying anything about what you say being "verbatim." However, it is a fact that much of what you say can be found in the Bible, even if the words are changed. Next, if Jesus is the only one who can tell me the truth, then why are you wasting your time on me?

You're continuously portraying yourself as a bible fanatic and follower

My friend, I am on record on this site, and on more than one occasion as saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed." How can one who makes such a comment, be considered a "Bible fanatic?"

Jesus follower and worshipper.

My friend, I believe in Christ raised from the dead, and I put my faith in the atonement for sin because of His death, and resurrection. Is there something more that I need?

You completely ignore the fact that the bible's role is to testify to the Lord so that you, on the other hand, may come to the Lord Jesus for the salvation of your soul.

I think that is what I just said. I do not understand it to be a requirement to hear directly from Jesus, and anyone who preaches such a thing is preaching a false Gospel.

The one you need to have life is the Lord Jesus Himself

Agreed!

not the bible and those dead men

You mean the Bible and those dead men who are responsible for you ever hearing the Name of Jesus?

who surely cannot grant you the salvation of your soul

I have never, ever been under that impression.

no matter how hard you try to put into practice everything that you read and meditate on in it

This is where you err again, because I do not "practice" as you say. Rather, I put my trust in the work Christ performed on my behalf, and attempt to love my neighbor, not out of obligation, but rather out of great love, and gratitude for what Christ has accomplished on my behalf.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #329]

I haven't avoided it at all, Jack. I have responded to it twice, the latest response here:

viewtopic.php?p=1187301#p1187301

None of what you say in these other posts makes any difference at all compared to the fact that you would have never known anything at all about the life, death, and resurrection had it not been for the authors contained in the Bible, and it does not matter one little bit what you choose to call Him.

The point, Jack, is that I did not learn His name from the bible. If He was able to show me His name without the use of the bible - then He is certainly capable of teaching and showing additional things as well.

But most people (I am not excluding myself) need a witness to Him, before they turn and put their faith in Him, themselves. Then, they can start listening to Him themselves.

It is like with the OT.

"You diligently search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."


Israel had the scriptures. They read them, studied them. Fine, no problem, these are bearing witness to Christ. But NOW - come to Him. Listen to Him.

It works the same with the apostles and other witnesses: they too bear witness to Christ. But we are not supposed to stay in them (become disciples of the apostles or disciples of what is written in the NT.) They are bearing witness to Christ... and we are to come to HIM.

- I mean, it is like you are saying, you heard all about the life, death, and resurrection, but the Name was not right, and the Name is all that matters. In other words, it is like you are saying, you can believe in the life, death, and resurrection for the atonement of sin, but if you get the Name wrong then you are out of luck.

His name does matter - for the sake of the truth, yes. When I learned that "Jesus" had never been the name of my Lord, that He had never been called that - I could no longer use it. I could not associate something false with my dear Lord who is the Truth. I used "Jesus" before that, I did not know any better - but once learning the truth, I could not use it. I did not know His actual name at the time - but Christ (the Christ - the Anointed One) was true, so I used that until I learned His actual name.

But also because "Jesus" is the name of the icon that religion and man have made into whatever image they want (which has nothing to do with what is true) - as stated on that thread: viewtopic.php?p=1187301#p1187301

My Lord is amazing. He is real. Once my dear Lord read a passage to me (something from Him in what is written), and to hear it in His voice - to hear His emotion, His enunciation. It was really Him- how He said it, how He meant it, showing His LOVE. To hear that love from Him - no book can take His place.

He is not the "Jesus" that man has invented, He is the real person - the person who truly gave His life for us. And so few people seek Him out.

Again, the point is, you would have never, ever, known of any of these things if it had not been for the Bible, and yet your claim is only that somehow you got the Name correct, while the rest of us will burn in hell because we did not get the Name correct.

I would never make such a claim, Jack.

"Burning in hell" comes from religion, from man.

Not from Christ.

I am not judging anyone (to anything.)

Here,

viewtopic.php?p=731804#p731804

(Just fyi: I realize on that thread that I state at the bottom to test against what is written - I state that because the OP asked if their question was supported in scripture. So scriptural support was pertinent on this thread. But I learned what I shared on that thread from my dear Lord - some things I learned for the first time, myself, while speaking to a JW elder, because the spirit was speaking through me.)

See William's summary here: viewtopic.php?p=1187391#p1187391

So then, you are claiming to hear a real voice? Is it audible like sheep would hear?

Yes, a real voice.
Not physically audible outside, but still heard within. It can certainly sound audible though - for example, when He says He stands at the door and knocks - that knock has woken me up and gotten me out of bed to open the door. He has also called my name - and I HEARD that clearly - but within me.

Remember Samuel - when Samuel heard his name called in the middle of the night, and ran to Eli three times thinking Eli had been calling his name?


Like how Phillip heard the Spirit who sent Him to the Ethiopian. I'm just putting this up as an example to help you get a sense of it.

Christ communicating with His sheep is absolutely attested to in what is written. (Too many posts to try and link to - so just off the top of my head, Christ speaks to Ananias (Acts 9), Phillip (Acts 8:29), Paul, Peter, and of course Christ says it Himself throughout John 10, Revelation 3:20)

Again, do you hear an audible voice like the sheep would hear? Next, what is it that causes you to believe that since Ananias, Phillip, Paul, and Peter, heard the voice of Jesus that this would include you as well?

Of Jaheshua... and because:

A - I DO hear His voice
B - He promised that His sheep hear His voice - and I believed Him and asked to hear Him also
C - He said to seek and to knock, and the door will be opened - and I believe Him
D - there is no reason to think that He would have stopped speaking to His sheep (He actually speaks to everyone, but not everyone hears/listens). He said Himself that He had more to call, and they TOO would hear His voice. He says He stands at the door and knocks and if ANYONE hears His voice and opens the door, He will eat with them and them with Him.

What in the text makes this to be the case? I mean, Peter, and Paul were said to have performed miracles, with even Paul raising the dead. So then, do you claim this for yourself? Or is it only hearing directly from Jesus? Why would that be the case? The question is, why would you translate the idea that you hear from Jesus directly just like these folks did, but somehow not translate the fact that they all performed miracles for yourself?

Not everyone receives the same gifts, Jack.

But ALL of His sheep hear His voice.

Can you see why this would be convenient on your part? In other words, we could determine whether you had raised the dead, heal the sick, made a blind man to see again, but we will just have to take your word for it that you hear directly from Jesus, (or whatever name you give to Him).

No, Jack, you do not have to take my word for it. You can go to Him, yourself. Not because you want to prove or disprove 'tammy' but because you want to know the truth for yourself, because you too want to hear His voice, you too want to serve Him (or whatever motivation would be between you and Him.)


Going to stop here for now.


May anyone who wishes be given ears to hear so as to hear the truth of these matters from the One who is the Truth: Christ Jaheshua. May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

(which water is holy spirit, poured out from Christ to whomever He chooses, and given to Him without end by His Father.)


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Their testimonies die because they were all lost ....

Jesus in the flesh read from the scroll of Isaiah , were the written testimonies in the scroll of Isaiah lost when he was reading the written testimony in the scroll of Isaiah?

... [were God's words] lost despite the FACT that he said those very words were destined for all humanity including our generation?

2 Yes, they were lost.

... the Lord Jesus, verbatim as quoted by the Lord, to wit: Only your Lord can teach you the meaning of sin, especially since there are many errors and not included in the Bible.'[/i][/color]

The Lord Jesus did not encourage his audience to READ and BELIEVE Moses’ testimony ...

''



RELATED LINK Should all encounters with spirits claiming to be Christ be BELIEVED?
viewtopic.php?p=1187526#p1187526

[William]

RWJ's Position

RWJ is direct and persistent. He presses Tammy on what he sees as the central contradiction in her position. He argues that she would have never heard of Jesus, the resurrection, or the atonement without the Bible. He contends that she cannot rely on the Bible to support her claim of hearing Christ's voice while also dismissing the Bible as unreliable or untrustworthy. He points out that her claim to hear a voice is untestable, whereas biblical figures who heard Christ also performed testable miracles. He challenges her to explain why she claims one gift but not the others. He is not hostile, but he is insistent. He wants logical consistency and verifiable evidence.

Tammy's Position

Tammy is defensive but not aggressive. She does not engage RWJ's central contradiction directly. Instead, she reframes the issue. She argues that the Bible is a witness to Christ, not the foundation of her faith. She claims she learned Christ's name directly from Him, not from the Bible. She describes her internal experiences as real and authoritative. She compares her experience to biblical figures like Samuel and Phillip. She distinguishes between hearing the voice (which all sheep experience) and performing miracles (which are distributed selectively). She deflects RWJ's demand for evidence by inviting him to go directly to Christ himself. She ends each response with a pastoral invitation rather than a logical resolution.

The Dynamic

The dynamic is an impasse. RWJ requests logical consistency and testable evidence. Tammy offers internal experience and spiritual invitation. RWJ wants her to defend her epistemology. Tammy wants him to have his own experience. RWJ presses on contradictions. Tammy points to Christ as the resolution. RWJ asks for proof. Tammy offers witness.

Neither is moving. RWJ is not accepting her internal experience as sufficient evidence. Tammy is not providing the external verification he requests. RWJ sees contradiction. Tammy sees no contradiction because her foundation is the voice, not logic. RWJ wants her to demonstrate that the voice is real. Tammy believes the voice is self-validating.

The Observer's Conclusion

The observer would note that RWJ is asking for what he would ask of any claimant: evidence, consistency, testability. Tammy is offering what she has: internal experience, spiritual conviction, pastoral invitation. The two frameworks are incompatible. RWJ operates within a framework of external verification. Tammy operates within a framework of internal authority. Neither framework can adjudicate the other. The observer sees that Tammy's position is epistemologically closed. No external evidence could satisfy her because her authority is internal. No internal testimony could satisfy RWJ because his standard is external.

The observer might also note that Tammy's claim to have learned Christ's name directly from Him, without the Bible, is an extraordinary claim. She provides no verification for this claim. She does not explain how she knew the name was correct. She does not explain why others should accept that name as true. She simply states it as fact. This pattern repeats. She states, she describes, she invites. She does not demonstrate, verify, or test.

The observer would likely conclude that the conversation has reached its natural end. RWJ will not get the evidence he requests. Tammy will not provide it. The impasse is complete.

[JehovahsWitness]

... we will not find any confirmation from God, saying, 'God's spoken words can be READ in the scriptures,'

FALSE

“Have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
‘I am the God of Abraham…’” - JESUS CHRIST