[
Replying to tam in post #33]
Indeed - it is what most Christians say. They also agree on where they believe the source - the Truth Himself - is located. In the writings of the Bible.
I have not said that, nor do I believe that.
So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
He is a person, a living person.
You have meet the Christ in person?
Some of His words and deeds are simply recorded in the bible.
So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
Personal experience is adequate - placing the pieces together is part of the puzzle. Leaving pieces out is not.
Sometimes a piece of the puzzle only appears to be in the correct place, until another piece comes along and takes its place, which might then change the image altogether.
Even that being the case, such would not 'change the image
altogether'...that simply is not true Tammy...
Indeed, the misplaced piece still belongs somewhere in the picture...
Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time.
I have seen no evidence of that.
How would you see evidence of that?
Your use of the word 'especially' implies that this is what has occurred. If you believe that is the case, where is the evidence?
Well I never said 'witnesses of Christ' are the image of God. I said Christ is the image of God.
I will keep that in mind when I encounter folk - such as yourself - claiming they are witnesses of Christ.
How confusing can it be since I just explained it? Explaining that Christ is not Christianity requires an explanation as well, but that doesn't mean we stop calling Christ, Christ.
I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
"One Who Is Anointed" is not anointed to 'be a Christian' or be involved in the confusion of Christianity.
Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples".
For one, that would be incomplete. A Christian is a disciple of Christ, but also anointed with holy spirit. A disciple of Christ is not necessarily anointed with holy spirit, and therefore, not necessarily (yet) Christian.
Originally I had explained the following in my previous post, but took it out. I will explain it this time though so you (or the reader) can understand.
Many years ago, I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' (I can't remember my exact reasoning, except to distance myself from the negative connotations of "Christianity" perhaps). But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,
"Are you ashamed of me?"
I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.
I care far more about what my Lord thinks, than what anyone else thinks, including myself.
On the contrary. It is what
you think. [Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].
If it were me, I would have answered "Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I do not see you in Christianity. I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian, because of that. When I think of you, I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."
To which The Lord would have replied "Well done my good and faithful Friend - you have come far..."
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".
Christian just = anointed one.
Christ = anointed one
Christians = [from the link] "The term "Christian" used as an adjective is descriptive of anything associated with Christianity or Christian churches, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[9] It does not have a meaning of 'of Christ' or 'related or pertaining to Christ'."
The apostles were anointed when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them, making them Christian (anointed ones).
Nope. I see no good reason to believe this. You need to accompany that statement with supporting evidence...it appears to be a waste of effort trying to uphold the name "Christian" and time trying to reclaim a title which Christ never bestowed on anyone who followed him...at least - I have seen no evidence to support this doctrine. I can see how it might distract the individual, and certainly after what you have shared relating to what you thought was a accusation from The Lord about you being ashamed of him...it appears you have gone off on a tangent in that regard...
That is where I think you are confused Tam. Christ never made Christians. Christ made disciples which then eventually became apostles.
I am not confused on this, William. I know what my Lord has said and taught me on this matter.
Yet the way you said it Tam, Your Lord asked you if you were ashamed of him. That does not come across as something which appears to be a good example of a healthy working relationship - so leads one to wonder if the accusation came from the accuser and if Your Lord is the accuser.
Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
There have been claims of people going to hell (or to heaven) that have been recanted as lies (lies told to sell books; get publicity; lies that were pressured upon them by others, etc.) That is a fact.
That certainly is something we all should keep in mind. We should not however, allow it to become a reason for why we do not investigate for ourselves where possible and also not allow it to become a reason as to reject all stories outright, because some stories have been shown to be fabricated.
Some have falsely accused others of Rape. This too is a fact. This does not mean that we should regard all accusations of Rape as false.
People also dream (I see no reason why a person could not dream during a near-death experience).
There is a definite connect between belief, imagination, dreams, lucid dreams and OOBEs. All have to do with consciousness, and various stages of conscious awareness.
So they might simply be relaying their experience from a dream of their own making (or nightmare, as it were). And even if it were a vision, that does not mean that they understood the meaning; they may have inserted their own belief system onto the meaning of their dream or vision.
Which connects with what I describe in the thread
"The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"
[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.
No one discusses anything in a single post.
Not when the post is simple your own point of view, as was the case.
At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors have shared Tam.
That is not what I said. Note more carefully:
but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).
At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors - including "John of Patmos" have shared Tam. You really need to desist with these misrepresentations of what it is I do.
I had said this:
Hell- the meaning of the word translated from sheol or hades - is the world of the dead, where the dead (not in Christ) go to await the (second) resurrection. This is explained on the thread about hell. The dead (in Christ) go under the altar (as shown in the vision John received in Revelation, also explained in the other thread).
You responded with this:
The author of revelations may well have been experiencing something which he created for himself through his own beliefs about 'what happens when we die' and may even be a fictional invention of The Church which produced the bible and from where you take the story as 'the truth' as to what to expect in your afterlife experience. - William
I see no example of rejecting anything John of Patmos [allegedly] wrote Tam. I am neither accepting this or rejecting this. I am pointing out what it might be [the product of].
On another post in that same thread, you also said this:
And in *that, go along with the idea that those authors were deceived by their own beliefs and did not realize that what they experienced [in the Case of John who wrote what The Church later called "Revelations"] was a product of their own expectations. - William,
"And in *what" Tam? If you are going to go to the trouble of quoting me, then at least do so in context.
You do not reject that he had an experience (well, you do suggest that it might be a fictional invention of 'the church'), but you do not accept the truth of the claims from his experience, of what he saw and heard.
Well that is different. I am under no obligation to accept his or anyone else's claims as 'truth' [or even fiction] I included what the author wrote in my investigation into things to do with the next phase, and my observations regarding that is that 'truth' is simply a matter of what people believe and experience.
Also as you pointed out;
Not to mention the fact that you (and they) must then interpret both your experience and what you saw in your experience.
Overall the observations are indeed about people having alternate experiences and reporting these, often with how it affected them - which is the 'interpretation' part.
I myself allow for others to interpret their personal experiences as they will. This does not mean I necessarily accept their interpretation as the whole truth of the matter.
As I have said - most folk do not even realize that they are creating their experience - designed specifically by their own [overall] Self, for the purpose of educating and aligning that aspect
with said overall Self.
The primary ID of the aspect which has self-identified falsely [often referred to as 'Ego" or "Wayward".] - that which requires alignment with the whole Person. [Christ]
So then we can move forward with the understanding that you have also made an image simply by describing attributes of who/what you call the Creator. You just think that your image is better than other images.
Well you are starting to 'get it' but as I have mentioned already, Images are unavoidable. There I see an 'Image of The Creator" which is superior to that which the bible [overall] give us, simply because it is less confusing, far more complex, gives a more accurate picture of a being one might expect of one which has created this universe and in that - is
more complete.
Choosing between something which is more or less complete - the choice has to be the more.
God is a particular individual. He does have throne (a seat of rulership). The picture is just a depiction of that. The authority, however, is real. His Son - the ruler over all God's creation - is second only to His Father.
That is the biblical rendition of the image of The Creator. When one observes the creation one can see immediately that any being who created that, is not someone who would be interested in being the recipient of praise offered to false imagery worshiped by human beings. That is an effigy. The Creator is real and such vainglorious behavior - I cannot equate with any entity which created this universe. I find it absurd.
Rather, my praise [for The Creator] goes toward such amazing things as can be found in the creation - and realization that such is far more appropriate than image-worship of entities upon thrones.
Because on the one hand you agree that the Creator could have sent a living Image to represent Him, and on the other hand, you said that the Creator cannot be imaged. I am just asking you to reconcile that for me, because these two things seem to be in conflict.
If there is one
living Image which represents The Creator, it has to be The Earth.
But perhaps the whole universe is a living entity.
I find these to be more vast than some story carved into images as presented by ancient people who did not have the kind of access to the data we now have at our fingertips.
I am not persuaded to worship any human personality, simply because there are claims the personality is 'THE image of The Creator'.
The way I understand 'worship' is specific to acknowledgment and truthfulness. I do not consider it appropriate to worship analogies as something real and meant to be worshiped.
Have you ever sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor and gone out into the world trusting that The Creator has your back?
To me, that seems a more appropriate way of worshiping than mere claims one is a sheep servant of one's Lord, hearing his 'voice' and accusing others of NOT being true, because what they said doesn't align with your particular experience.