Does Christ speak and how?

[tam]

May you have peace!

A question that continues to be posed to me is with regard to my bearing witness to a living and speaking Christ. How does He speak? What does that mean? How can we test that?

I imagine that one reason the questions are continually posed to me is because I cannot provide the proof that some are asking me to provide. I can only provide evidence in the form of:

a) Personal testimony from having heard Christ
b) The written testimony of or about others who have heard Christ
c) What Christ Himself is written to have said on the matter


If none of the above are acceptable to someone, then I am not sure what more that person and I would have to talk about on this particular matter. We could hopefully discuss respectfully from a point of love, reason, logic. For those who are interested...


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

"I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.…" John 10:14-16



Written testimony about/from others who heard His voice, confirming the truth of what He said:

The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Acts 8:29

**
In Damascus, there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"

"Yes Lord," he answered.

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." (Acts 9:10,11... and it continues)

**
There is Peter's vision telling him that he should eat foods that he considered unclean, and then after his vision:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit (Christ) said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." (Acts 10: 9-20)

**
There are of course multiple examples from Paul. The entire book of Revelation is from Christ to John. There is a warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice.

As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Hebrews 3:15

Then of course there are the examples of Abraham, who heard, Noah, who heard, the prophets, who heard, Joseph, who heard, Daniel, who heard, etc, etc. Their faith is based upon the evidence of what they heard.



My own personal testimony


I did not always know that Christ spoke, and I did not always recognize that voice within me as being His. But someone else bore witness to a living speaking Christ, and it bothered me, lol. I had just ended a two year bible study with a certain denomination, and I did not want to get misled by man ever gain. But here was this person claiming that Christ spoke. If I believed this person, that they were from God, then what was wrong with me that I allowed myself to get misled yet again. On the other hand, what was wrong with me if this person did hear Christ, and I rejected them?

But soon into my dilemma (and my asking how I might know, even though I thought I was just asking myself) I heard:

Test WHAT this person is saying. Test the message. Do not pay attention to the person. Test to see if what this person is saying is true, or not. Then you will know who this person is from.


I still did not know this was Christ speaking to me. I just thought, "Oh, of course... that is what I will do."

So that is what I did. Along the way, I saw all these verses and examples and testimony that Christ does indeed speak, that God spoke also, though now speaks through Christ. In dreams, in visions, in direct words, in reminders, in opening eyes and ears to a truth that one might read, see, or hear. Once I realized that Christ is supposed to speak, I asked for ears to hear as well. Even though I did hear Him; I just did not know I heard Him. I needed to learn His voice and recognize Him.

**

I was asked how does He speak

He speaks in words. He speaks in visions (I have never had a vision that I am aware of). He speaks in dreams. He can also bring to mind something learned, read, or experienced in the past to help me see the truth in something He is teaching me. He has opened my eyes to something that is written, if I am reading the bible. He can and has read to me something that He is written to have said, so that I hear it in His voice. That was enlightening.

Sometimes when I am responding to something that someone else has asked, He will give me the words to say, or reveal something to me (as in open my heart and ears to understanding something) that I had not previously understood.


The language that He speaks is truth. He has never spoken anything to me that was not true, and that was not from love. And everything He teaches me deepens my understanding of love: His love and the love of His Father.



(As for testing the inspired expression... anything that is in conflict with what Christ teaches cannot be true. Also Christ (truth) comes from love (God), so nothing that He says will be in conflict with love. Especially since the law that is written upon our hearts in the new covenant is the law of love.)


**

I do not expect anyone to take my word for these things. I do not take the word of others for what they claim came from Christ. I explained above what I did, what I heard from Christ TO do.

If I have shared anything that helps anyone, then great. If not, then no problem. I am not the one people should be listening to if they are following or desiring to follow Christ... I can only point TO that One: Christ Jaheshua, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, the Chosen One of Jah. Christ, who is Himself, the faithful and true witness of His Father, Jah.



If one wants to know the truth of this matter themselves... then ask Christ. That is how one can confirm for themselves. Ask for ears to hear, and in the meantime DO what He has said to do, so that you prove yourself to Him. He does not have to prove Himself to us.

"If anyone loves me, they will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with (in) them."


(Please note that He says that they will obey HIS teaching. Not man's teaching. Not religion or religious leaders, not Paul, not the law, or anyone or anything else over Him. If we love HIM... we will obey HIM. If we love someone or something else more, then we will listen to and obey that one/thing. Including if we love our religion more than Him, although we might not realize it at the time. Including if we think the bible is the Word of God, especially when even that book states that Christ is the Word of God; and Christ himself said, "You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about ME, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.")



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, to get a sense of these things, and to hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the bride SAY to you, "Come... take the free gift of the water of life."


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

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #390]

Then you can understand how the various versions of God/gods/spirits could have been invented. Not from nothing. The understanding of the Spirit/spirits/spiritual already existed.

Also to note from the original article that clownboat linked, the observation that the tribe did not believe in things that they could not see or experience as real things - along those lines...

That the tribe is consistent in its activates re that, they continue to wear amulets which are for the purpose of warding off - not imagined things - but real things - real at least, according to the beliefs of the tribal members.

Whereas, if they were atheists, their tendency would be to explain these supposed real things as 'imagination' rather than believe those things are real.

Which in turn goes against Clownboat's declaration that one can be an atheist and still believe in spirits and afterlife et al...just not in GOD - even that it is easy enough to show that the one thing can and often does, naturally lead to the other...but generally in my experience with those calling themselves atheists, the tendency is to try to explain spirits and such as "tricks/illusions of the brain", and if the tribe folk were truly atheists, they would accept the explanation and throw away the amulets...so the question therein, is why they have not done so.

Is it because no one has bothered to explain that to them, or some other reason? Do the articles re the tribe, cover this aspect?

[tam]

[Clownboat]

[Clownboat]

All you have done here is describe a predator (or monster). Things that are already in your arsenal of agencies to assign. Please note that legs, fangs, venom and tails are all elements that predators (or monsters) possess.

Please make a point.

And of course you would not have assigned agency to this creature - you would have assigned the rustling in the bush to something you already knew or had heard of. If you had never heard of a ghost, you are not going to assume that a ghost comes and takes children away when they leave their villages.

So what do you make of the Psychology Today article that explains how humans evolved in an environment to become hyper sensative to assigning agency to things?

What thinking is it that you believe I need to amend? I'm asking sincerely.

The article has nothing to do with putting limitations on how humans assign agency. You are ascribing this limitation and pretending that the article cares. I sincerely ask you to comment on the article from Psycology Today that explains how humans evolved in an environment to become hyper sensative to assigning agency to things.

My work where I'm explaining to you that humans assign agency.

But I already understood that.

Then why this mission to try to ascribe limitations to human imagination that haven't been shown to exist? Humans invent concepts all the time that don't exist, so I don't understand what you are hung up on.

It is the "que religions" part of your quote that is not supported by the article; that you are making a leap (without evidence) into. The article supports the fact that people assign agency... sure ... but to KNOWN and/or HEARD OF things. Not to unknown or unheard of things.

What would stop a human from assigning agency to something imagined? Provide the mechanism for all of us to examine please.

No. Monsters are not real, but the child who believes a monster lives in his closet has first heard of monsters. Perhaps in a move, or a book, or just from other kids talking.

So in your scenario, the child imagined a concept that wasn't real in order to assign agency to the monster under his bed. Thank you for acknowledging that things that are not real can still be assigned as agents. Did you know that the article is about humans assigning agency to things?

I am saying that the examples you have given show a person assigning agency to something known or heard of.

You mean, like the concept of a predator, or the concept of a monster or the concept of a god? What is your point? Surely not that all gods and monsters are real?
Either way, what is your take on the article from Psychology Today that explains the environment that humans evolved in that made them hyper sensative to assigning agency to things?

It is not likely that a human would assign agency to something they have never heard of before

The concept of monsters, predators, gods and spirits is surely something known, so why are you hung up on this? What's your take on the article?

I don't really have a take on it, Clownboat. Possibly that is why we assign agency (to increase survival), possibly it is more than that, or a combination of things. It is clear that it can increase survival. Of course if you are hunting for prey and a rustling bushes sends you running in the opposite direction, you might miss out on the rabbit that could have been your dinner.

So you do have a take on it. Your take seem to be that you do notice how assigning agency to things could have been a survival advantage to early humans. Since this is reasonable, it is reasonable that this is the mechanism that led humans to be so hyper sensative to assigning agency. Neat, right?

I do not agree with you, Clownboat. We have various gods for some of the same reasons we have various versions of "jesus".

Ok. What is your point?

Take Sai Baba for instance (from POI's thread). He molded "Jesus" to fit in with Hinduism, his own beliefs. He had to change things to do it, contradict Christ in various places as well.

Perhaps he did it correctly? How could we know and again, what point are you trying to make?

(and there are multiple gods - little case 'g' - such as the Adversary, and other angels/seraphs that people moved to worship simply based on having had contact

Do you think these concepts are real, or agents assigned by humans to explain things in their life?

Then you can understand how the various versions of God/gods/spirits could have been invented. Not from nothing. The understanding of the Spirit/spirits/spiritual already existed.

I do not argue that the concepts of gods, demons, spirits or predators does not exist. This is not an argument that Clownboat believes in nor has Clownboat ever suggested such a thing.

If it is your claim that spirits are real, please show that you speak the truth. We can compare that to the article that explains how humans evolved in an environement to assigning agency (like spirits) to things.

[Clownboat]

[William]

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #393]

Thanks for the link.

I have added it, and the link to my previous post, to my Journal List.

My previous post already answers why I have no reason to change my understanding of theism in its fully context so have nothing further to add to that at this time.

[Clownboat]

You brought up the Piraha, Clownboat. The only thing I did with your reference was to look them up (as you suggested I do), and quote the relevant facts. That is it.

Clownboat did bring up the Piraha. Clownboat wishes he didn't allow himself to be distracted away from the article from Psychology Today to instead talk about the Piraha's spiritual beliefs that William is now confused about as being the same as the belief in gods.

The article from Psycholgy Today suggests as to why humans became so sensative to assigning agency to things. Do you find the article to be a credible mechanism for how humans were encouraged to assign agency?

You can follow up your reply with: "Clownboat was wrong about the Piraha" if it will help you to form an answer. I can handle it.

[William]

[Clownboat]

Please provide argument that will convince me to amend my current thinking.

William from post 389: The idea that there are Atheists who believe in "the ghost and supernatural" may be theoretically possible, but there is scant evidence to show in my own exposure to those who call themselves "atheists" that any of them believe in "the ghost and supernatural"...and that if any did profess to do so, they would not be counted as atheists.

Since there are plenty of atheists that believe in ghosts, atheists can believe in ghosts while still remaining atheists.
Please ammend your thinking.

If my comments are not meaningful to you, then ask for clarification.

Meaningless, not unclarified, please note the difference.

Discuss what I am arguing, rather than snip it as if it wasn't said, and reply a straw-answer to a quote-mine.

I snipped it to show that it was said, that is the opposite of quote-mining. You cannot force me to respond to things you say that I find not to be worthy of a reply.

For example:
We each are personalities growing through the human experience, and there is more to us than simply the image we present to the world/each other.

This was snipped as I found it to be off topic and not worthy of a reply.

Another example:
Knowing thyself means knowing the intimate relationship between all the Archetypes and their involvement with the growing Personality.

Also snipped for being off topic and not interesting, therefore not worthy of a reply.

William, if you make weird statements like these and desire a reply, try forming a question. Just a little advice...