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 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...

Dear Rik, have you read the account with John the Baptist where he says baptism of fire? Or at Pentecost what appeared to be tongues of fire appeared above the heads of the people being anointed with holy spirit? I am not saying anything odd here.

I do not mean a literal fire as in your picture.

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).

Baptism of water is not the same as the baptism of holy spirit. Or else John the Baptist would not have made a distinction between the two.

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.

I meant that oil (holy spirit) is not a person with which one is anointed. I did not mean that one cannot be anointed in the presence of other people. Christ was anointed in front of John the Baptist, when the spirit descended (like a dove) from heaven.

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?

I do not have an opinion on the matter; that is between you and God.

The only thing I am going to say is that being a disciple does not mean that one is a Christian. Christ had many disciples, and many left Him before the promised holy spirit came (the anointing that the apostles received when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them). Hence, many are called; few are chosen.

Some disciples were not even believers.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they ares spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

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

I have said why. If one listens to the RCC (or any other entity) over Christ. If a person is a member of the RCC (or any other religion), and hears what they presume to be a random "thought" or doubt asking and pointing out where the religion is false; or wondering how this religion can truly be from God when it does so many things in conflict with Christ... etc, etc... then that might feel like a doubt, and it might get stuffed down or dismissed.

One cannot serve and obey them both.

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.

I did not make this statement. I have said that He speaks within. I hear His voice within. The rest is in the OP. In fact, most of the answers to your questions are in the OP.

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).

I don't have to do quite that much. I simply have to bear witness to the truth that God is revealed in Christ.

Christ, Himself, said... if you have seen ME, you have seen my Father.

If you know ME, you know my Father as well.

Christ is the Truth of God. If you want to know who God is, then learn who Christ is.


Christ is the Image of God. Christ is the Word of God.

Not men. Not religion. Not the OT. Not the Bible.

Christ.

God said... in that book that people love to say that they follow,

"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."

Christ said, "Come. Follow ME."

Christ also said, "If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY teaching."


These things are simple. Men make them complicated to prevent the simple truth from being seen. Stop looking at and listening to them. Start looking at and listening to Christ. Things are much more clear when looking at the Light.

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.

God is shown in Christ, and a Christian is supposed to be following and listening to Christ.

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?"

I shared with you what He did tell me He meant. I gave supporting evidence from what is written so that you might be able to see it as well.

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 then you can look to more things to see if what the RCC says is true... or false. Such as their fruits and other teachings.

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.

The stone is Christ. Anyone who was or is a Christian or even a disciple should know that. The reason I put the verse up is to show you that this stone is laid as the cornerstone, the foundation.

A foundation is what one builds upon. Such as the Church being built upon Christ.

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.

Yes, I said two things. You focused on the one but overlooked the other. That was my only point there.

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?

It is not an interpretation Rik. The verse literally does not say that these three are God. The verse says these three are one. The RCC then interprets that as meaning these three are God.

But the verse does not state that. I am not the one interpreting here. I am simply reading what is there.

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?

It is not me who has caused your exasperation here, Rik. I have NEVER EVER told you that Christ is God. Not once. I have specifically said the opposite, even on this thread, in this discussion. Yet you have not seen it. Why is that?


I am not frustrated because this is not new to me. You are not the first person to think I have said something that I have never said.

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.

Yes, of course one can ask Christ something. Or ask Him to do something. Just ask.


Prayer, however, is reserved for God.

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?

No I was not blaming you for anything; that was not my point at all. I was just informing you of the truth: pray to God. Speak to/with Christ. I considered not responding to that point at all, but then, what if that info helped you (or someone else) some time regarding prayer? There is no love in not sharing truth with someone who might want/need it.

You can do with it what you will. I just shared it.

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.

It is odd is it not, that there are no letters from anyone else referring to Peter as being the head of the church, after Christ died?

Men may well have built a religion on Peter (the RCC for instance), but that does not mean it was commissioned by Christ, or even by Peter. The apostles were equal. There is no such thing as a first among equals. That makes no sense.

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?

Again... Christians should be following and listening to Christ.

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.

Except that it is not what God said. He did not say listen to these men who represent my Son. He said Listen to my Son.

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)

So you did not put a time limit on your request being answered, but do you blame Him for not answering in a specific time frame?

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.

You sound like you were defending them to me. You said that I was wrong and that the trinity is in scripture. You said that I had shot myself in the foot on that matter and on the matter of Peter. So even though you do not believe them that God exists, you still seem to think they have interpreted things correctly.

What I have said is that they have their interpretation of scripture, just as you do.

That is what you are saying now. But if you go back and read your post to me when you told me I had shot myself in the foot, it does not appear that this is what you were saying then.

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.

Okay. But that is the reason for the testing.

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.

Christ is the One who reveals God. If one knows Christ, one knows THIS truth. So again, no one who knows and loves Christ (and so God) could do such things.


That is even in the bible, that some seem to keep missing.

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.

Know CHRIST, know 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"

But Christ never commanded such actions. The example that we all can see (the written word) shows Christ specifically acting and teaching against 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.

Dear Rik, who cares if it is internally consistent with their own beliefs? What matters is if it is true... and if it is in conflict with CHRIST, who is the Truth, then it is not true... no matter how internally consistent it might be.

Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25"Behold, I have told you in advance.


Do not believe him... is a far cry from ... kill the heretic.


There were apostates even in the time that the NT was written, Rik. But no one was going around killing or ordering these men to be killed. People were simply being reminded to have nothing to do with them; to keep away from them, to not listen to them.

But,

"If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go." Rev 13:10

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.

[/quote]

Except that I know God through Christ. Not through the OT. If Israel knew the truth of all things - including the nature of God - then what need was there for God to send us His Truth: Christ?


Rik, Christ said 'woe to you scribes.'

Even in the OT, the prophet Jeremiah wrote,

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"


So while I appreciate the time you took with your analogy, please know that it is not the same thing. If we are going to look at the OT, then look at the OT through the light of Christ. Not the other way around.


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

[Clownboat]

[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?

You will not buy the medicine until first you are convinced that you are sick. Churches are here to convince people that they are sick. They also just so happen to have the medicine. All you have to do is become a member and give them at least 10% of your income and you can have the cure.


Puddleglum, I sincerely believe that you believe that you are sick and deserve all sorts of horrible things (if it wasn't for the medicine you now have of course). I personally don't believe you are sick though, but I don't have a dog in this fight unless you are willing to provide me with 10% of your income. If so, then you are horrible and will spend an eternity in hell unless you subscribe to my medicine! Muh hah hah hah.

After 20 years of belief, I can now say that the sickness and the medicine were both invented concepts (IMO of course).

[tam]

May you and/or anyone who truly wants to know that One, be given the strength to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking.

IMHO this is not only absurd, but the very suggestion should be a grave insult to any intelligent person.

Why?

Well, if there exists a truly benevolent loving God a sincere person should only need to ask ONCE.

Peace to you DI.

I had to ask my Lord how to respond to your words, because I was not sure what to say, myself.

What I received is the reminder that my Lord, Himself, knocks on our doors more than once, and has been doing so for the past two thousand years. Even though most of the time the door goes unanswered. Yet He continues to knock. Out of love.


So instead of giving up when it seems like we are going unanswered, we too should just knock again.


**


Because we are not always going unanswered. We might not be able to receive or bear the truth just yet. We might be standing in our own way, or someone else who we look to might be standing in our way. We might not be doing what Christ said to do if we want Him to come to us. There are many things that might be standing in our way. But if we have asked, then instead of giving up, we should keep knocking, keep seeking, keep asking.

That is what Christ does for us.


Remember too what Christ said, as written here:

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."



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

[Divine Insight]

[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?

Excuse me?

I certainly can't speak for you, but I have never done anything in my entire life that would justify being condemned for.

So your acceptance to the absurd charge that we all deserve condemnation has no merit. Just because you have bought into such an absurd charge is no reason why I should believe such nonsense.

Also, the mere fact that you have so readily accepted that you deserve condemnation leaves me wondering just what kind of person you are, and what kind of horrible things you might have done to be feeling that such a charge is justifiable or warranted.

There is absolutely no way that I deserve to be condemned. And therefore any religion that is based on such a foolish charge is clearly false. No question about it.

How gullible would a decent person need to be to believe such an accusation?

This leaves only indecent people for this religion to make any sense for.

I'm truly sorry to hear that this religious accusation actually makes sense to you. I most certainly hope that others haven't been harmed by your unrighteous deeds that you are being condemned for.

I also, can't imagine why you would feel that you deserve condemnation if you've never harmed anyone. Why should you deserve condemnation if you've never harmed a soul?

What sense does that make?

I strongly suggest that you reevaluate the accusation that everyone deserves condemnation.

I certainly know that I do not, and neither does my sister. Nor did my mother. I can't imagine that most of my friends deserve to be condemned either unless they are hiding seriously dark secrets that I am totally unaware of.

But actually, for me to dismiss a religion that demands that everyone deserves to be condemned only requires that I know that I do not deserve such an unwarranted fate. That single case is sufficient to disprove the entire claims of the religion.

And so I am the only proof I require to know that Christianity is clearly based upon extreme falsehoods. Outright lies actually.

I absolutely assure you that it is an outright lie for anyone to proclaim that I deserve to be damned. So if that's a demand of Christianity then Christianity is clearly a lie. There can be no doubt about it.

[Clownboat]

May you and/or anyone who truly wants to know that One, be given the strength to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking.

IMHO this is not only absurd, but the very suggestion should be a grave insult to any intelligent person.

Why?

Well, if there exists a truly benevolent loving God a sincere person should only need to ask ONCE.

Peace to you DI.

I had to ask my Lord how to respond to your words, because I was not sure what to say, myself.

What I received is the reminder that my Lord, Himself, knocks on our doors more than once, and has been doing so for the past two thousand years. Even though most of the time the door goes unanswered. Yet He continues to knock. Out of love.

Then your lord got it wrong.

You see, I sat at an open door for years. No knocking was required. I was standing there while crying outside to see if anyone was there. There was no one knocking, nor anyone around, but you go ahead and tell yourself that I was doing it wrong or whatever you need to do this time so you can continue on with your beliefs.

I'll just continue to sit here and shake my head at your claims for not comporting to my reality while struggling with your claim that you hear a god when your words betray you (for me of course).

[Divine Insight]

May you and/or anyone who truly wants to know that One, be given the strength to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking.

IMHO this is not only absurd, but the very suggestion should be a grave insult to any intelligent person.

Why?

Well, if there exists a truly benevolent loving God a sincere person should only need to ask ONCE.

Peace to you DI.

I had to ask my Lord how to respond to your words, because I was not sure what to say, myself.

What I received is the reminder that my Lord, Himself, knocks on our doors more than once, and has been doing so for the past two thousand years. Even though most of the time the door goes unanswered. Yet He continues to knock. Out of love.

Tell your Lord that there's no need to knock. The door is wide open. All he needs to do is walk in, thank me for the invite, and sit down and have a cup of tea with me. Or if he prefers I suppose we could drink some wine together. Although I'm not big on alcohol so I hope he's not a big drinker.

Maybe he could drink the wine and I'll just stick with the tea.

So instead of giving up when it seems like we are going unanswered, we too should just knock again.

Or we could come to the rational realization that the religion is nothing more than a myth just like all the other religions of the world.

After all, think about it. If Christianity is true, then every other religion in the world is necessarily a false myth. Including Islam with their prophet Muhammad.

Since we already know that every religion on earth is a myth, why should we even suspect that one of them might actually be true?

It's far more rational to just realize that religion is a myth, pure and simple.


**

Because we are not always going unanswered. We might not be able to receive or bear the truth just yet. We might be standing in our own way, or someone else who we look to might be standing in our way. We might not be doing what Christ said to do if we want Him to come to us. There are many things that might be standing in our way. But if we have asked, then instead of giving up, we should keep knocking, keep seeking, keep asking.

Or we can be rational and realize that there is no rational basis for such utter nonsense. Because how big of an egotistical pig would Christ need to be if he was so arrogant to demand that people jump through all his hoops precisely as he dictates? That's wouldn't be a loving God who is prepared to offer mercy and forgiveness. That would be nothing more than a hateful dictator who won't settle for anything other than absolute obedience.

That is what Christ does for us.

So claims a mythology that has never supplied a single solitary piece of evidence for their absurd claims. Many of which are clearly lies (like the claim that all humans deserve damnation). Nothing could be more absurd and clearly false.

Remember too what Christ said, as written here:

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."

These are the words of a psychopathic egotist who places total value on being obeyed. Apparently whoever said these words doesn't even have a clue of the concept of love. He seems to think that love is all about obeying his commands.

That's not love. That is as far removed from the concept of love as anything can possibly be.

So not only does your favorite religion not decree the truth, but its demigod character doesn't even exhibit an understanding of the concept of love.

You can tell "Your Lord" not to bother entering my door. My door is open to a loving benevolent God. Not to deranged criminal psychopaths who are totally obsessed with demanding that everyone obey them and calling that "love".

So please tell "Your Lord" to keep as far away from me as possible. If he comes here I'll call the police.

~~~~~

P.S.

I might add that it's my understanding that this is Satan's idea of "Love" too. If you obey every command of Satan he too will "Love You".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 81 by tam]

So about time I responded to this.

Dear Rik, have you read the account with John the Baptist where he says baptism of fire? Or at Pentecost what appeared to be tongues of fire appeared above the heads of the people being anointed with holy spirit? I am not saying anything odd here.

I do not mean a literal fire as in your picture.

Then both you and the gospel accounts are not clear to understand. A...tongue of fire, and no, it's not fire as in the picture I posted?

Baptism of water is not the same as the baptism of holy spirit. Or else John the Baptist would not have made a distinction between the two.

I've heard of plenty of cases (particularly in the US) of people being dunked in water and that being called a baptism or rebirth ceremony.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that happens is that someone gets wet. If there actually is some sort of supernatural effect, then it is imperceptible to me.

The only thing I am going to say is that being a disciple does not mean that one is a Christian.

I would have to respectfully disagree. Back then, I called myself a disciple and a Christian.

I have said why. If one listens to the RCC (or any other entity) over Christ. If a person is a member of the RCC (or any other religion), and hears what they presume to be a random "thought" or doubt asking and pointing out where the religion is false; or wondering how this religion can truly be from God when it does so many things in conflict with Christ... etc, etc... then that might feel like a doubt, and it might get stuffed down or dismissed.

This raises the question of why, (if what you say is true) does Christ not speak louder? Why let himself get drowned out by the teachings of the RCC? You seem to be describing him as being a very faint whisper at the back of someone's mind. Well, why is that?

One cannot serve and obey them both.

My past self would disagree with you, as would plenty of modern Roman Catholics.

I did not make this statement. I have said that He speaks within. I hear His voice within

This is something that annoys me about you. You'll say something that in common English speak, everyone else would understand it to be one thing, then later on claim that you meant something else. Such as just above...you used the word fire, I ask you do you mean this thing, post a picture of what I mean and you say no.
It's incredibly frustrating.
In your OP here, you go on and mention 'hearing Christ', having 'ears to hear' several times. That tends to cause me to think of hearing things audibly with one's ears, just like I would any other sound.
I presume you're a native English speaker, but still you have this annoying 'tam-only' language, where words and phrases mean one thing to everybody else, but something completely different to you. This isn't the first time I or someone else have complained of this to you, yet you still do it. You still say one thing and then later on claim that no, what you said isn't the common understanding of that word or phrase.

Is this your subtle plan? To annoy the heck out of unbelievers here on this site? If so, you're succeeding, at least with me. It'd be one thing if you were speaking an actual different language, but you're not. You and I are using English, but you mean strange and weird things, meanings that I can't even attempt to guess at.

God is shown in Christ, and a Christian is supposed to be following and listening to Christ.

Need I remind you of the story where Jesus chases the moneylenders out of the temple, using a whip? That story indicates that Jesus was violent. And if Jesus is what? A representation of God in some way? Then yes, God can be described as violent. There's nothing then that directly contradicts the OT.

I don't have to do quite that much. I simply have to bear witness to the truth that God is revealed in Christ.

Then you're ignoring the problem completely. In the Bible, not once does Jesus say anything along the lines of "Those stories about God from the Hebrew texts, of him ordering wars and conquests? Those stories are false. God is a god of love only, he never would have done those things".
Nope, instead, the Bible has Jesus uphold those stories. He refers to Moses as if he were a real person.
So if I do as you suggest, then Jesus is revealing God, I (hypothetically) believe him and so, the violent warmongering God from the OT is revealed to still be 'true'.

Christ is the Truth of God. If you want to know who God is, then learn who Christ is.


Christ is the Image of God. Christ is the Word of God.

Didn't you just say before that you don't believe in the Trinity, of Christ and God being the same entity?
Again, we're back to the problem of tam language. I'm re-reading what you said on page, and you say they are their own people...yet here you are calling one the image, the word, the truth of the other one.

These things are simple. Men make them complicated to prevent the simple truth from being seen.

...says the person who can't seem to use words like the rest of us and express herself clearly.

Stop looking at and listening to them.

Fine, I could start I suppose by not looking at you, not listening to you? This isn't the first time you've said something like this, this isn't the first time I've pointed out to you that you offer no way for someone to exclude you from this group, other than by arbitrary choice.

I shared with you what He did tell me He meant. I gave supporting evidence from what is written so that you might be able to see it as well.

Such as my sheet of paper challenge?
No, you have not shared supporting evidence. What you are doing is giving me Bible verses, then saying to me (and the others) that you hear Christ, that you have the 'correct' interpretation of these verses, such as the verse about the rock. For this to be considered supporting evidence, all of us would have to hear Christ, which simply isn't true. I would have to hear Christ myself so that I could then say "Yes, tam, Christ did give you the correct interpretation, I heard him say so as well".

So then you can look to more things to see if what the RCC says is true... or false. Such as their fruits and other teachings.

Done with both them and you. Neither you or the RCC bear good fruit.

The stone is Christ. Anyone who was or is a Christian or even a disciple should know that.

Much like how when you used the word fire earlier, any Christian should just automatically know that you DON'T mean a naked flame?

It is not an interpretation Rik.

Yes it is. That is what happens whenever anyone reads anything. I could see the following shapes on the screen HAHAHA, use my mind to interpret them as letters and the sounds that go with those letters and understand that that means laughter, is a synonym for laughter.

The verse literally does not say that these three are God. The verse says these three are one. The RCC then interprets that as meaning these three are God.

Yeah and I don't blame them for thinking so. But they're wrong, because according to you, they don't hear Christ and you do, yet if I were to ask a Roman Catholic priest or bishop, he would say that yes, they are the one God, and that what this internet person tam is saying is pure nonsense.
You have not yet, to this day, done anything at all to raise your credibility above that of anyone else's.

But the verse does not state that. I am not the one interpreting here. I am simply reading what is there.

Again yes you are interpreting, and so are the RCC. So am I when I read that verse, when I read what you say, such as when I read what you wrote about being baptised in fire and pictured a naked flame.

It is not me who has caused your exasperation here, Rik. I have NEVER EVER told you that Christ is God. Not once.

Christ is the Truth of God. If you want to know who God is, then learn who Christ is.


Christ is the Image of God. Christ is the Word of God.

Surely you can't blame me for getting this notion in my head when I read stuff like that from you?
I would never say of any two people that one is the Truth of the other, the Word, the Image of the other. If I were to say something like that, I'd be very heavily implying that the two are one and the same.

I am not frustrated because this is not new to me. You are not the first person to think I have said something that I have never said.

Gee...I wonder why?

Yes, of course one can ask Christ something. Or ask Him to do something. Just ask.


Prayer, however, is reserved for God.

There's a difference ?
Literally the first time I've heard this, that one can ask Christ for something...but one shouldn't pray to him?

I was just informing you of the truth: pray to God. Speak to/with Christ.

So in the past, when I prayed to Jesus, holding that picture of Jesus...that wouldn't have worked? Even though as I've quoted you twice saying, Christ is the Image, Truth and Word of God? So yes, it seems that God is that petty (and confusing).

It is odd is it not, that there are no letters from anyone else referring to Peter as being the head of the church, after Christ died?

It is even more odd that there are no documents from Jesus himself, despite him being this supposed great teacher.

There is no such thing as a first among equals. That makes no sense.

Then you'll want to edit the following Wikipedia article to reflect this, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares

Except that it is not what God said. He did not say listen to these men who represent my Son. He said Listen to my Son.

And if one believes that this is what the Son said?

So you did not put a time limit on your request being answered, but do you blame Him for not answering in a specific time frame?

Imagine I ask you for some milk, after you promise that you would fulfill requests. Only you never give it to me. Would it make sense if I describe you as fulfilling promises in a timely manner? I have to remind you of Zzyzx, who has described himself as being in his seventies and of never having a prayer fulfilled.

You sound like you were defending them to me. You said that I was wrong and that the trinity is in scripture.

If that is what one interprets when reading scripture, I cannot fault them for doing so. Scripture is vague, messy, contradictory.

So even though you do not believe them that God exists, you still seem to think they have interpreted things correctly.

No, I am not saying they have interpreted it correctly. I am saying that their interpretation is just as valid as yours. As in, I have no blooming idea which of you actually IS correct. An RCC person reads the text and says "God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are a trinity". You say "nope, that's not true". I can't blame either of you, but I still have no idea which is true and which is false.

Christ is the One who reveals God. If one knows Christ, one knows THIS truth. So again, no one who knows and loves Christ (and so God) could do such things.

I'm detecting No True Scotsman here...

Know CHRIST, know God.

That's your response to this problem of the Old Testament stories? Just repeat this four word phrase? What happens if I or anyone else reports back and say "We know Christ and Christ affirmed the stories in the OT"?

But Christ never commanded such actions. The example that we all can see (the written word) shows Christ specifically acting and teaching against these actions.

But how can you show Christ never commanding such actions? You say you hear Christ, so can they say so. They can say "I heard Christ, and Christ commanded me to do this this and this".
You say that the written word (I hope to heck you mean the Bible, and that this isn't another case of tam-language getting in the way) shows that this wouldn't be Christ. Except for several things
1) Christ chases the moneylenders out of the temple, violently, using a whip
2) There are several passages that describe Christ as saying "I come not to bring peace but a sword" and other ones, where one cannot be faulted for thinking that Christ means he is come to bring about or enact violence.
3) As you say earlier, Christ is the Image/Truth/Word of God, they are one in purpose (or according to Roman Catholics and other denominations, part of the same God being). The same God being talked about in the Old Testament.

Let me put it to you plainly. If a person wants to say "I love Christ" AND enact violence against other people, they have all the justification they need. They cannot be directly proven wrong. They can say they know Christ, hear him, and that Christ approves of their violent acts.
It's not a stretch, it's using what is there in the written word.

Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him.

Fine, I don't believe you. You've spoken a great deal about here is Christ, Christ speaks. So I guess I have no choice but to disbelieve you? (except that if I follow this teaching, I am believing you...*head explodes from logical contradiction*)

Do not believe him... is a far cry from ... kill the heretic.

Not really. As I just listed up above, one could be emulating Jesus and/or OT God.

There were apostates even in the time that the NT was written, Rik. But no one was going around killing or ordering these men to be killed.

So...Jesus wasn't ordered killed? There was no crucifixion of Jesus, for blaspheming against the Jewish teachings of his time?
Okay great, that clears everything up.
I know, you'll report back saying that's not what you meant to which I'll have to pre-rebut (strange word there I know) by saying that this is interpretation in action. You write down a certain sequence of words, and I interpret them as I do. You used the word 'No-one' which has a specific meaning. Let me guess here...you probably meant 'No-one who followed Christ' to which I ask "Why didn't you specify? Why speak ambiguously?

Except that I know God through Christ. Not through the OT. If Israel knew the truth of all things - including the nature of God - then what need was there for God to send us His Truth: Christ?

In discussions here on this site, you still tend to use (from time to time) the Bible. You quote from it. The Bible, which is divided into two parts, Old and New. It makes no sense to me to only believe the one part, and completely disregard the other.

So while I appreciate the time you took with your analogy, please know that it is not the same thing. If we are going to look at the OT, then look at the OT through the light of Christ. Not the other way around.

Which is what a person who says they love Christ can say they've done and still go about justifying violence, if they want. They can't directly be proven wrong. I can't say to them that the Jesus Christ they say they love and follow would NEVER endorse or command violence - according to their holy book, Jesus is himself violent and is one/one in purpose with a violent bloodthirsty god.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 84 by Divine Insight]

I certainly can't speak for you, but I have never done anything in my entire life that would justify being condemned for.

What about the things you haven't done? Jesus said that the two greatest commands are to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Have you always obeyed both of these commands? If you haven't then you deserve God's condemnation.

[tam]

May you and/or anyone who truly wants to know that One, be given the strength to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking.

IMHO this is not only absurd, but the very suggestion should be a grave insult to any intelligent person.

Why?

Well, if there exists a truly benevolent loving God a sincere person should only need to ask ONCE.

Peace to you DI.

I had to ask my Lord how to respond to your words, because I was not sure what to say, myself.

What I received is the reminder that my Lord, Himself, knocks on our doors more than once, and has been doing so for the past two thousand years. Even though most of the time the door goes unanswered. Yet He continues to knock. Out of love.

Then your lord got it wrong.

You see, I sat at an open door for years. No knocking was required. I was standing there while crying outside to see if anyone was there. There was no one knocking, nor anyone around, but you go ahead and tell yourself that I was doing it wrong or whatever you need to do this time so you can continue on with your beliefs.

I'll just continue to sit here and shake my head at your claims for not comporting to my reality while struggling with your claim that you hear a god when your words betray you (for me of course).

But that response was not directed to you, was it?


Not that there anything in that response can be 'gotten' wrong. However, since you have applied these words from that post to yourself:

Because we are not always going unanswered. We might not be able to receive or bear the truth just yet. We might be standing in our own way, or someone else who we look to might be standing in our way. We might not be doing what Christ said to do if we want Him to come to us. There are many things that might be standing in our way. But if we have asked, then instead of giving up, we should keep knocking, keep seeking, keep asking.

That is what Christ does for us.

There are a couple of ways to look at that post. One person may look at it and see condemnation and blame and so seek to justify themselves. Another person may look at that post and see hope. That maybe Christ is still inviting them to come to Him (He is... the door is open until He returns); that maybe there was (is) something standing in their way so that they could (can) not hear Him.



To each their own.


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

[Clownboat]

Then your lord got it wrong.

You see, I sat at an open door for years. No knocking was required. I was standing there while crying outside to see if anyone was there. There was no one knocking, nor anyone around, but you go ahead and tell yourself that I was doing it wrong or whatever you need to do this time so you can continue on with your beliefs.

I'll just continue to sit here and shake my head at your claims for not comporting to my reality while struggling with your claim that you hear a god when your words betray you (for me of course).

But that response was not directed to you, was it?

It was directed at a previous Christian, just like me, who prayed earnestly, just like me, to the Christian god, just like me, in order for him to use us and make himself known, just like me.

Like me, the door was open and I was standing at it. There would have been no reason for a god to even have to knock.

Therefore, I submit that when you claimed that a god told you to tell us that he has been knocking for 2,000 years, you did not actually hear from a god.