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

[tam]

[Replying to post 68 by tam]

I'm going to respond to that post, since I, like KenRU, was once Roman Catholic.
My response is...to ask how dare you? How dare you imply (I know you didn't say the words, but this is the general thrust of what was said) that I and Ken weren't 'true' Christians?

Dear one, what you were or were not is between you and God. Not me and you and God.

But a Christian is one who is anointed with holy spirit - which is not a person, but rather the breath, blood, seed of God. Christ breathed it out upon His apostles, and then again at Pentecost. It is the fire that one is baptized with, that John (the Baptist) was speaking about when he said that One (Christ) is coming after Him who will baptize with fire.

People are not anointed with other people. They are anointed with something... like oil (in the case of the kings of Israel) - which is an example of what holy spirit IS. Something one is anointed with.


One can be a disciple of Christ before being anointed with holy spirit. As the apostles were to begin with, as were the crowds that followed Him, though many of them left Him when His teaching became too hard.

It is idiotic to me to suggest that the all powerful creator god of this universe would want to come into contact with people like myself but is somehow stopped or incapable of doing so because I and Ken were in the 'wrong' denomination.

Perhaps.

But that is not what I said. I said that one might be listening to their religion OVER Christ. Ignoring HIS voice because His truth is in conflict with their religion; so they may harden their hearts and not hear Him at all. Even though He is speaking.

Many don't even know that He truly does speak - so they would not know He was speaking to begin with. I also did not know that He spoke until someone showed me that He does. I ignored His voice many many times. Or attributed his voice to my own conscience, or a random thought, and for a while I just thought I was smarter than everyone else.

THAT was arrogance from me. It was not until I learned His voice a few years back, that the times He had spoken to me from childhood on, starting coming to mind. And I realized He had been speaking to me all along.

THAT has been the experience of everyone I know who hears Him. They remember His voice from specific incidents in their life, that they did not know was Him at the time.

So I don't really doubt at all that He has spoken to you and to Ken, and to anyone else. Only that He has gone unnoticed or unheard.


Nor is this a new thing. Not even for Israel:

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart..."


People harden their hearts against things they do not want to hear... even against people speaking directly to them. Fear might cause it: fear of others' ridicule, fear of being wrong or looking like a fool, fear of what one might have to do if one does hear. Fear that one might have to stop blaming others (or God). Pride can cause it too, but fear might even be at the root of that.

She is unclean, by means of the lies in her that she speaks, teaches, and that you would also have believed (in at least some of them). She also has a lot of blood on her hands.

I'm not going to disagree with this point, but then, is any denomination of Christianity free from this? Nope, not in my opinion (unless they're very recently formed).

Agreed. I'm not singling the RCC out. She is one of many daughters.

However, please note that you do not disagree that she is unclean.

"Stop touching the unclean thing, and I will take you in."

Do you think that Christ directed or approved of the Inquisition, the 'holy' wars, the murder of so-called heretics, the pedophilia cover-ups, the rape - physical and spiritual - of native american children? And other children as well?

The Pope did not stop these things. The Pope even ordered these things. Do you think Christ built HIS church on men who could do such things as these?

Her purpose is not to bring people to Christ; her purpose is to bring people to herself. Same as all the other daughters.

And I cannot fault the RCC's teaching on this. They believe that Christ appointed Peter to be his vicar on Earth, with Peter's successors being the head of the 'one true Church'. Anyone who disagrees would thus logically speaking, be going against what Christ commanded (coughs and looks in your direction)

No, they would logically be going against what the RCC says Christ commanded. So please see above for what these Pope's have done or allowed to be done, or approved of being done.

Christ did not build his Church upon anyone other than Himself. He is the Rock.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1Corinth 10:4, KJV

It was not Peter that Christ would use to build His Church upon, dear one. It was the FAITH that Peter showed in hearing and believing God who revealed to Peter that my Lord was the Christ. Christ himself is the Rock, the foundation cornerstone.

[Jesus] said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on (him) will never be stricken with panic.

No. The faith of all Christians rests upon Christ. He is the foundation cornerstone upon whom we build our 'house' (faith). That is what HE taught. Simple. And He never taught the 'trinity'.

Jesus never taught the Trinity? Is this another thing that the Christ that only you seem able to hear taught you?

Dear Rik, I am not the only one who hears the voice of my Lord. He said His sheep would hear His voice, and He certainly has more sheep than me.

If He had clearly taught the trinity, dear one, it would not have been and still be such a matter of great debate. It has been debated for almost two thousand years. Why, if He clearly taught it?


However, you focused on that part of what I said, and perhaps did not notice the first part. That Christ never taught that the faith of all Christians rests upon the trinity.

Cause, going by the following verses from the King James Bible (I know, not a Catholic endorsed version but still...)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... e-Trinity/
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The Father is God and He has an actual name. The Son is Christ and He has an actual name. The holy spirit here does not have a name, because holy spirit here is the "breath, blood, seed" of God... that Christ BREATHED onto His apostles and again at Pentecost (in Acts). That is the fire that one is baptized with by Christ.

Not a third person in a trinity.

2 Corinthians 13:14 - The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.

Oh, dear one, I am not denying that the Father and the Son and holy spirit exist.

God is the Father
Christ is the Son
"holy spirit" is the 'blood, breath, seed' of God

But these are not a trinity "God". The Father is God. God has a Son: Chirst; but they are their own people, and there is communion between them (and between all to whom Christ gives holy spirit) through that holy spirit. So that we are all one. Not one 'God', but one in spirit, by means of holy spirit.

Matthew 3:16-17 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

... and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove.

John 14:26 - But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Yes, the scribes are the ones who personify holy spirit by saying 'whom' and 'he', but those words can accurately be translated as 'which' and 'it'.

Remember how Christ is recorded to have said 'woe to you scribes'? Well, translators are also scribes.

1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[/quote]

This is a disputed verse; regardless, I will point out to you that we are all one in Christ... but that does not mean that we are all one being. We are all one by means of holy spirit that Christ gives to us, that His Father gave to Him.

Same as a human father passes on his 'blood', so did the heavenly Father to His Son, who gives that same spirit to us, making (generating) us as sons as well.

You've got a massive problem here. You seem to be suggesting now that Jesus never said certain things, yet the Bible records him as saying just that. Which am I supposed to trust? You, who say you hear Jesus Christ, yet cannot and will not offer evidence of such? Or the Bible, which you yourself have referenced in the past as justification for (at least some) of your beliefs?

Not a massive problem at all, dear one. These verses do not speak of a triune God. They speak of God, yes. They speak of Christ, yes. They speak of holy spirit, yes. But they do not say that these three are God.

I also have to remind you about the times I mentioned here on this site how I would pray to Jesus, while looking at or holding a framed portrait of him. I would often end up in tears over it

Dear one, prayer is for God. Pray to Him, as Christ taught. I speak to/with my Lord. I pray to my Father in heaven.

The truth is that God never instituted another religion after Christ.

Really? And I'm supposed to just go along with this? From my perspective, the RCC seems to have their 'credentials' in order, when it comes to their Bible verses pointing to the successors of Peter being the head of the church that Jesus founded.
You say 'this is the truth' but offer us NOTHING at all to check against, other than to insist that it is.

Dear Rik, all you have to do is look at the 'fruits' of that religion to know that this cannot be so. The Church is the Body of Christ. But HE is the head. Not Peter. Nor any man after Peter.

He put His spirit in His Son, and told us to listen to that Son.

Which Roman Catholics can insist to both you and I that they are doing just that, by being loyal to Christ's chosen vicars, the Popes. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

But God did not say 'listen to popes and vicars.' What happens when those popes and vicars teach and command things that are against Christ? Such as the things listed above?

God said, "Listen to my Son."

But it was not until I let go of all that, and just surrendered, putting myself in His hands, and said... whatever You will. No matter how long it takes, please just lead me where You want me to be.

He led me to His Son.

I did literally the exact same thing. I remember it clear as day. I'm walking to school and in my head I pray to God, offering myself to him, saying use me as you see fit. Do what you want with me.
To this day, nothing has happened. At all.

Did you not ask Him to do what He wanted to do with you? Did you put a time limit on that, on when you would be given ears to hear? Maybe you needed to get free of some chains wearing you down - such as the ones that the RCC has given you. Before you were even able to hear Him. Because here you are defending the religion that misled you, and your parents, their parents, etc, etc... as well as defending 'her' teachings, even though you are an atheist. If you believe that they were wrong about God existing, and you admit that they are unclean and have blood upon their hands, why in the world do you believe their teachings about Christ and God?

Dear one, no one who knows and loves Christ and God could do the things that organization has done. So why trust anything that they said about Christ and God while they are also doing these things and claiming it all to be from Christ and God?



May you have peace, dear Rik, true peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

It is the fire that one is baptized with, that John (the Baptist) was speaking about when he said that One (Christ) is coming after Him who will baptize with fire.

Fire? Are you having me on? People are to be baptized with fire? Just so we're on the same page here you mean this thing?


Somehow I don't think Christianity would have many takers if a baptism ceremony involved fire...

They are anointed with something... like oil (in the case of the kings of Israel) - which is an example of what holy spirit IS. Something one is anointed with.

Are you suggesting that this didn't happen to me? Or to other Roman Catholics I know? I was at a baptism just this past August. The priest used either oil or water (can't remember which, I do remember a liquid of some kind).

People are not anointed with other people.

Really? Can you tell my local RCC priests this? Because the ceremony I just mentioned was a multiple ceremony, where multiple babies from multiple families were baptised. They weren't done all at once but in turn.

One can be a disciple of Christ before being anointed with holy spirit. As the apostles were to begin with, as were the crowds that followed Him, though many of them left Him when His teaching became too hard.

This little bit now seems to be going against the rub of what you said in post 68. There you talked a fair bit about how one being in the Roman Catholic Church was somehow preventing one from being with Christ. I will remind you of what you wrote in that post

1)

Not that the RCC is Babylon the Great (she is not), but she is one of her many, many daughters. Her purpose is not to bring people to Christ; her purpose is to bring people to herself. Same as all the other daughters.

2)

You seem to be out of her now. But you may want to consider, again if you choose, that you may not have heard His voice while you were in 'her',

So were KenRu and I 'disciples of Christ' in our youths, in your opinion?

But that is not what I said. I said that one might be listening to their religion OVER Christ. Ignoring HIS voice because His truth is in conflict with their religion; so they may harden their hearts and not hear Him at all. Even though He is speaking.

I know you didn't say that, but that is the logical implication of what you said. That somehow, when the all powerful creator god of all reality speaks, that my membership in the RCC prevents me from hearing him.
I also have to ask why you think being in the RCC is somehow preventing one from hearing Christ. As I said before, I can point to any number of prominent Catholics, both past and present, who say they hear God (or words to that effect). According to you though, they are not. Why? What's the difference between you and that prominent Catholic? Are you (to borrow a phrase from Matt Dillahunty) a God-detector and they are not? Are you yourself 'tuned' to God and a Roman Catholic, by virtue of being a Roman Catholic, is not?

Many don't even know that He truly does speak - so they would not know He was speaking to begin with. I also did not know that He spoke until someone showed me that He does.

Wait wait wait wait wait. Wait. Hold on a second. You have indicated, in the past, when asked by myself and others, that Christ speaks audibly to you. That you hear it as a voice just like when speaking to any other flesh and blood human being.
This doesn't make sense. If I'm in a room with say five other people, I don't need to be told that I'm hearing the voice of that person who's standing by the window. If that person is indeed talking, I can hear him, with no need to have it pointed out.
Yet somehow...you had to be shown this? Christ himself spoke to you for a good long while, but somehow you just didn't know it? The all powerful creator god of the universe spoke to you, but somehow you just didn't pick it up? You had to be convinced of it by some other human person?
This is a logical contradiction. It literally does not make sense. If God is indeed speaking then logically speaking, everyone ought to be able to hear him and there ought to be nothing that would prevent us from hearing him. There ought to be no need of one human to convince another that he's talking, just like I don't need to be convinced or have it pointed out to me that the man standing by the window is talking and that I can hear him.

So I don't really doubt at all that He has spoken to you and to Ken, and to anyone else. Only that He has gone unnoticed or unheard.

You have no doubt at all...yet you have little to no information on our lives to go on, other than what I have divulged on this site (I can't remember if Ken has done the same)?
If the Queen of England strode through my neighbourhood tomorrow and made a speech at a podium outside my house, I'd either hear it directly or hear it on the news. There'd be no doubt in my mind that a prominent person of international renown said something.
Yet you are suggesting that a being infinitely more grand, important and powerful is going unheard by myself and Ken.
This doesn't make any sense.

People harden their hearts against things they do not want to hear... even against people speaking directly to them. Fear might cause it: fear of others' ridicule, fear of being wrong or looking like a fool, fear of what one might have to do if one does hear. Fear that one might have to stop blaming others (or God). Pride can cause it too, but fear might even be at the root of that.

Tam, let me be frank with you. This is an insult. This is offensive to me. I can only imagine it is so with Ken as well. You have little to nothing to go on with regard to my and Ken's lives, yet when it comes to us reporting that we never heard a god, you seem able to figure out that it must have been OUR fault.
Harden my heart against what I didn't want to hear? Fear? Pride? Did your eyes glaze over that part in my comment when I said I did the exact same thing as you did and ASKED GOD TO USE ME AS HIS TOOL?
(I see later in the comment that you didn't but I'll get to that).
Nope. None of those things can be attributed to me. I won't speak for Ken, but no. I didn't harden my heart against what I didn't want to hear. I was afraid yes, but not in the manner you describe. I was not being prideful.

Do you think that Christ directed or approved of the Inquisition, the 'holy' wars, the murder of so-called heretics, the pedophilia cover-ups, the rape - physical and spiritual - of native american children? And other children as well?

No, but not in the manner you think so. I do not mean "No, the immortal entity Christ who once incarnated as Jesus who preached 2,000 years ago doesn't approve of these acts" (for me to mean that, I'd have to believe that that entity exists)
I mean no in the sense that there IS NO Christ to either approve/direct or disapprove these events. These events happened a thousand years and more after the wandering preacher called Jesus supposedly lived and died.
I must also remind you that in your insistence that Jesus/Christ is 'one' with God, with that God being much talked about in the Old Testament, that the Old Testament supposedly records this God as directly commanding holy wars, the murder of heretics, rape of children.
So as far as I can determine, if one wants to argue that the God being talked about in both the OT and the NT approved of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the rape of children, they cannot be proven wrong. If you tam, are interested in somehow proving that person wrong, you'd have to somehow argue against the Old Testament, against the numerous stories of God committing genocide (plagues of Egypt; Noah's flood, etc.,) and commanding his supposed chosen people, the Hebrews, to enslave, conquer and wipe out others (the coming of the Hebrews into the Promised Land and the wars then).

The Pope did not stop these things. The Pope even ordered these things. Do you think Christ built HIS church on men who could do such things as these?

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he did, given the quality of the character of the God talked about in the Old Testament, the God that Christ is supposedly one with. It wouldn't be out of character for God to continue acting as a genocidal warlord.

Christ did not build his Church upon anyone other than Himself. He is the Rock.

I honestly do not know what Christ said. You do not know. We have documents from people written decades after the fact, and no way for both you and I to hear Christ and ask "What exactly did you mean when you said that upon this rock you will build your church?"
Yes, this is in dispute. What I mean is that the RCC claim of their interpretation (that it means that Peter and his successors are the rock, the temporal head of the Church that Jesus founded) is equally as valid, in my eyes as anyone else's, such as you who say that the rock is Jesus himself. I have no way to distinguish between your (plural your) claims, to see who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.
So I can't exactly fault the RCC when they go around saying Peter is the rock, and I can't exactly fault you when you go around saying Jesus is the rock.

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on (him) will never be stricken with panic.

1) This to me is just pure waffle. Anyone can read into that anything they want. Is he talking about a literal specific stone that he picked up and then put down in a place called Zion? Or is it metaphorical?
2) It would help if whenever you say 'The Lord said this' or 'The Lord said that' that you provide where you got it from. I ask this specifically of you tam, because you specifically say you hear Christ. Before I googled that phrase, I was unsure as to whether this was from the NT or whether this was something you had heard Christ say directly to you.

However, you focused on that part of what I said, and perhaps did not notice the first part. That Christ never taught that the faith of all Christians rests upon the trinity.

No you directly did say it. You quoted yourself there. It is not just that you say the 'faith of all Christians' rests on the trinity, you also did say that Christ never taught the trinity, point blank.

I'll condense the next part of your response into this: what follows is you giving me your interpretation of what Christ was quoted as saying in the gospels.
Well, that's your interpretation. I have mine. We'll have to agree to disagree there and move on.

Not a massive problem at all, dear one. These verses do not speak of a triune God. They speak of God, yes. They speak of Christ, yes. They speak of holy spirit, yes. But they do not say that these three are God.

And of course, your interpretation is the correct one, you're the one who's got it right, and everyone else who goes around and points to these verses and say "See! The Trinity is totally a thing!" are wrong?

Dear one, prayer is for God. Pray to Him, as Christ taught. I speak to/with my Lord. I pray to my Father in heaven.

Picture me with my head in my hands now, sighing in exasperation. All I can see here is you are arguing semantics. Christ is God, or so I've been told by you and others? Or is Jesus a separate thing, a separate entity all together from Christ, from God? Was Christ offended somehow that I would pray while holding a picture of Jesus?
I can give you Scripture verses that say one can pray to Jesus
For example John 14:13-14

Code: Select all

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

So there you again, blaming me or implying that the way I prayed as a child was somehow faulty. Should I have said the word God, instead of Jesus? Or said the word Christ? Is the creator god of the universe really that petty that he needs a specific word before he'll respond?

Dear Rik, all you have to do is look at the 'fruits' of that religion to know that this cannot be so.

These fruits happened after the events of 33 AD, when the wandering preacher called Jesus supposedly (according to the Catholics) said that Peter was to be the head of his church, him and his successors in perpetuity.

But God did not say 'listen to popes and vicars.' What happens when those popes and vicars teach and command things that are against Christ? Such as the things listed above?

You mean actions similar to what the Old Testament says that this very same God did or commanded of his people?

God said, "Listen to my Son."

Again, I cannot fault a Roman Catholic for believing that they are doing just that. They have their interpretation, which says that Peter and the Bishops of Rome are the head of the church and that if one is loyal to said bishops, one is also being loyal to the Son of God.
I of course disagree with such a thing, but I cannot fault them for it.

Did you not ask Him to do what He wanted to do with you? Did you put a time limit on that, on when you would be given ears to hear?

Yes, no and no. It was as simple as saying something along the lines of "God, I am yours to do with as you see fit. Please use me" (I of course cannot remember the exact literal words, but I do remember the general meaning of what it was I said in my head)

Maybe you needed to get free of some chains wearing you down - such as the ones that the RCC has given you. Before you were even able to hear Him.

Let me remind you that I stopped believing at age twelve. I am now almost to my thirties. Do you honestly believe that once one is freed from the shackles of the RCC, it then normally takes one decades before one is able to hear Christ? Why should it take that long? Why should one be prevented from hearing Christ at all? Shouldn't he have the ability to make himself clearly heard, whether one is RCC or not?

Because here you are defending the religion that misled you, and your parents, their parents, etc, etc... as well as defending 'her' teachings, even though you are an atheist.

I am not defending their teachings, I am saying that I cannot find any fault with them for believing them. I find RCC teachings to be just as nonsensical as your own.

If you believe that they were wrong about God existing, and you admit that they are unclean and have blood upon their hands, why in the world do you believe their teachings about Christ and God?

Where have I said that I NOW believe their teachings about Christ and God? Go on, quote me on it. I once did, in the past. Not now.
What I have said is that they have their interpretation of scripture, just as you do. Some Catholics say they hear God, just as you do. I cannot fault them for their interpretation (or you for yours) since we have no way of asking Christ (in such a way that all can agree that he actually responds) what he meant.

Dear one, no one who knows and loves Christ and God could do the things that organization has done.

I disagree. Someone who was brought up in the RCC and read the Bible, including the Old Testament cannot be faulted for thinking it is in God's character for God to command genocide, rape and murder.
I of course disagree that this god even exists (and I disagree with the Crusades and Inquisitions, since they are against my moral and ethical codes), but hey, that is what the OT says he did. The Old Testament, which is half of the Bible. The Bible, which is the holy book for Christians. Christians who say that this holy book is (in some way) a guide to understanding God.

So why trust anything that they said about Christ and God while they are also doing these things and claiming it all to be from Christ and God?

I don't. I don't trust them. I am saying that I cannot fault them for saying "Christ commands these actions" or "God commanded me to do this" because in the context of their belief system, such a claim makes internal logical sense. Not external logical sense (since God is not ever proven to exist), but internally, since their belief system, their teachings record God as having done these sorts of actions before.
To help you understand what I mean, imagine I come up to you and I say I've met Adolf Hitler. Yes, today, in 2015. And I say to you that I am now a committed follower of Hitler and that I will obey his teachings. Okay, before I say anything more, what comes to your mind first? What do you imagine will be the sorts of things I'll now do? Is the first thing you imagine me doing is me going around mis-treating Jews and people of non Germanic descent? Why is that the first thing to pop into your head? Is it because you know such an action and teaching to be within Hitler's character, that this is what everyone knows he's like, him and his followers?
What if instead I said "No no no no no. Hitler teaches to treat all races with peace and love. It's preposterous to suggest that Hitler could ever be associated with racism! Why the nerve of you to say such a thing! You should be ashamed!"
You'd be wide eyed in confusion, wouldn't you, in such a scenario? You'd have no idea what kind of drugs I'm on, of whether I've gone mad. How could you, tam, NOT associate Hitler with racism? Why is it absurd for someone to say both "I am a follower of Hitler's teachings" AND to say "I treat all races equally; I am not a racist"?
I see it as absurd in the same way as you saying it is absurd that one cannot be a follower of Christ and be a conquerer. We have writings from the most prominent figures that both you and I 'hold to' (in this scenario where I'm a follower of Hitler) (so I have Mein Kampf and you have the Old Testament) and yet for some reason, both of us in this scenario disregard what those very same writings say.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 69 by Divine Insight]

We'd first need a God who is out to condemn us before we would need a demigod to save us from that condemnation.

We have a God who is out to condemn us because we deserve condemnation. God has spoken to everyone through his creation and by giving all of us an innate sense of right and wrong. We have all rejected him by refusing to give him the honor he deserves for creating us and by refusing to live up to what we know of right and wrong.

If we won't respond to him why should we expect him to respond to us until we are willing to repent of our sins?

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

But a Christian is one who is anointed with holy spirit - which is not a person, but rather the breath, blood, seed of God. Christ breathed it out upon His apostles, and then again at Pentecost. It is the fire that one is baptized with, that John (the Baptist) was speaking about when he said that One (Christ) is coming after Him who will baptize with fire.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.�
(Acts 13:2 ESV)

The Holy Spirit spoke to the Christians at Antioch. Only a person can speak.

Also it is important to look carefully at what John the Baptist said about being baptized by fire.

John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.�
(Luke 3:16-17 ESV)

He said Jesus would baptize by the Holy Spirit and fire; immediately after he said he would separate the wheat and the chaff and gather the wheat into his barn and burn the chaff in unquenchable fire. The wheat is those who repent of their sins and are baptized with the Holy Spirit. The chaff is those who refuse to repent and are baptized by fire by being thrown into the lake of fire at the final judgment.

Here is a good place to find out what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit:

http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs066m.pdf

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 74 by puddleglum]

So which of you, puddleglum or tam, should I give more weight to on this matter? Eventually, somewhere along the way, your beliefs also hinge on faith, and not evidence shown.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

But a Christian is one who is anointed with holy spirit - which is not a person, but rather the breath, blood, seed of God.

As a humourous aside, I wouldn't put it past someone to read that and then say "God is in favour of homosexuality!"
Their reasoning? The Holy Spirit, which is supposed to fill or be used to anoint a person, is the seed of God. Seed, which is the word used in Genesis to indicate semen when referring to Onan who pulled out and spilled his semen on the ground, and God who is referred to using male pronouns.
So I wonder what would happen if I were to go to a Roman Catholic baptism, and as the baby is anointed, point out to the priest "Yo, this woman called tam on the internet says that the Holy Spirit is the seed of God. So does that mean you're anointing the baby with God's semen?"

[tam]

[Replying to post 74 by puddleglum]

Peace to you Puddleglum!


Post 13 and 15 on this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2&start=10 sums up the understanding I have received on holy spirit/Holy Spirit.


Thank you for the link. I think you have posted it before because I have seen it before. But I prefer to go to Christ to learn the truth of these matters. He really has never led me wrong. Men, on the other hand, usually do.


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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by tam]

Did Christ incarnate as a man during his lifetime on Earth? So how come Christ gets excluded from the box of 'men who mislead'?

[tam]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

But a Christian is one who is anointed with holy spirit - which is not a person, but rather the breath, blood, seed of God.

As a humourous aside, I wouldn't put it past someone to read that and then say "God is in favour of homosexuality!"
Their reasoning? The Holy Spirit, which is supposed to fill or be used to anoint a person, is the seed of God. Seed, which is the word used in Genesis to indicate semen when referring to Onan who pulled out and spilled his semen on the ground, and God who is referred to using male pronouns.
So I wonder what would happen if I were to go to a Roman Catholic baptism, and as the baby is anointed, point out to the priest "Yo, this woman called tam on the internet says that the Holy Spirit is the seed of God. So does that mean you're anointing the baby with God's semen?"

That baby is not being anointed with holy spirit just because a priest pours water or oil on his/her head. I said earlier that oil was an example of holy spirit... one is anointed with oil (which is not a person), in the same way that one is anointed with holy spirit (also not a person). One is not anointed with another person. (I did not mean one cannot be anointed in the presence of other people.)


That aside... people are created with seed, yes? So Christ giving holy spirit (breath, blood, seed of Jah) to others is creating sons (and daughters).



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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 79 by tam]

I wasn't being one hundred percent serious in that post, tam. More like, I was just pointing out how one can look at a line from the Bible, and come away saying "God likes this! God commands that!" (much like a certain user on this site I can think of, no not you in this instance).

That aside... people are created with seed, yes? So Christ giving holy spirit (breath, blood, seed of Jah) to others is creating sons (and daughters).

Which doesn't make a lick of sense, since this event (Christ giving holy spirit) is an event that happens long AFTER said people have been conceived and born, right? So how does Jesus go about 'creating' a son or daughter if said son or daughter has already been alive for a while? Did the son or daughter simply not exist before that event, and what everyone else experienced of that child was an illusion or fantasy?