Does Christ speak and how?

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Does Christ speak and how?

Post #1

Post by 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

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #181

Post by tam »

William wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:08 am
tam wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:03 pm
Peace still to you William,
Is that like a magic spell you are casting Tam? No need to incant such, as I have peace already.
It is just a wish of peace William. Not a magic spell.

Luke 10:5, 6

The best he could do is to give you a vision of what you expect to be truth and love, which limits what the vision can convey.
Says who? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
It is not a claim. It is a reasonable observation.


Based on what?
Perhaps - in that light, you can drop the defensiveness.


How is it defensive to ask for some evidence to support your claim?
I am not judging you,


I did not think you were.
I am simply saying that in all cases where an individual does not ask to experience such things, they will not be troubled by The Lord with visions etc which The Lord would know would be too much for them due to their beliefs.
Or perhaps it would be more wise to ask for the truth of a matter, rather than ask for proof of something that might not even be true?
This is in line with my own understanding that in the next phase we will experience whatever we will create for ourselves. How can it be any other way?
Why could it not be any other way (than what is in line with your own understanding)?
Do you not believe that you will experience being with The Lord in your next phase of experience? What does it matter that you create the experience for yourself?
I answered this question on the other thread.

Because truth matters. Not to everyone, but to some of us, and certainly to Christ - who is the Truth and promises to lead His sheep into ALL truth - and to His Father. And I would rather a painful truth than a 'comforting lie'.

The evidence [already given to you which you rejected as being ''from lying spirits"] shows me that it will be that way.


No evidence was given (in fact that was one of the reasons I stated that there was no reason to accept the claims you were making about 'hells').
Each individual will create their own reality based upon their personality and attitude [both sub conscious and conscious attitude]. It is a reasonable assumption to make regarding the evidence.


If you are making an assumption (even if you deem that assumption to be reasonable), you are not stating something you know to be true.

I do not deem that assumption to be reasonable.

A vision or any communication could certainly be of something real/true (truth is the language that Christ speaks speaks and shares; He does not deceive). Why do you think it could not be?
I am not arguing that Christ deceives.
This is not an answer to the question I asked.

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 uses the individuals brain in order to retrieve past experience relevant to current experience...joining the dots which eventually show the individual the serendipity and synchronicity of nature. "We are within a creation/reality simulation."
Bring to mind - remind.

(and it is this world that contains the lies, the illusions, William. Not the Father's house - and not the Kingdom or world to come when God makes everything new.)
Would you then say that if you created your own reality based upon your personality and beliefs, such will amount to 'lies' Tam?

If my belief were untrue, then yes.

But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
He has opened my eyes to something that is written, if I am reading the bible.
What about other books - words and sayi ... why not?
He can, if relevant. That was covered in the previous point re: something read.
If relevant to what Tam? Where it is covered in Christendom's bible?
Relevant to something He is teaching. But let me clarify that I said that He can open my eyes so that I can understand something that is written. Not that He is using a book to speak to me.

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.
Does he use memes and sayings from other religions?
I bolded and underlined the relevant part in my quote.

If they were HIS sayings, then what you ask would apply. If they were not His sayings, then it would not apply.
You do understand that the bible itself claims that The Lord spoke about so much that none of the books in the libraries of the world could contain those things?
I'm not sure how that is relevant to my response, and while I do get your point (in general) that Christ said more than what is written, that verse is about what He did:

Now there are also many other things that [Jesus] did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?


I never made that claim.

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.
Does your Lord use all manner of medium in order to convey to you the exactness of what it is he is attempting to communicate with you?
I don't understand your question or its relevance to what I said.
Does The Lord get through to you clearly so that you understand exactly what he is conveying to you and does he use all manner of medium to do so, or is he limited by only being able to use the medium(s?) YOU dictate he should use in relation to your relationship you claim to have with him?
Nothing in my quote (bolded) suggests a medium at all, William. So I do not know what you are going on about.
The language that He speaks is truth.

A slave is not free. It is said that The Lord himself told folk that the truth would set them free. Does The Lord use other people to try and assist those who are still enslaved to their beliefs?
Again, I do not see the relevance of your response to my words.
You claim to be a "slave to Christ" - You claim to know "The Truth". You cannot both be a slave and free. If the truth shall set you free, you cannot be a slave. The Truth cannot enslave you.
I explained this already, but again, I do not see the relevance of your response to my words.

The language that Christ speaks is truth.

How does a statement about me have any bearing on that?

But giving your question the benefit of the doubt, if Christ used another person to communicate with me... then that person would not be saying something in conflict with Christ, and would certainly not be teaching me (or anyone) to disregard the words and teachings and promises OF Christ, in order to embrace a different teaching.
Said more succinctly, you are saying that "if it isn't in the bible, then it cannot be from Christ."
I have not said that at all. I told you this on the other thread. I have told you in this thread. Even the OP on this thread contains a specific example of my Lord speaking directly to me.

so how can you truthfully claim that the way I view what happens in the afterlife, is something Jesus would NOT have said or told others?
I responded to this on the other thread (more than once).

viewtopic.php?p=1030183#p1030183

So again, see 'test the inspired expressions' (see the OP).
What is to say that my whole perspective is NOT a case of "testing inspired expressions" and finding some, such as your own beliefs in regard to afterlife, questionable and in need of examination?
You are certainly free to draw you own perspectives and conclusions.

If a spirit (or person) says something that is against Christ (His words, His teaching, His command), then I can know not to listen; that spirit and/or inspired expression is not from Him.
That is not the case though is it Tam. The bible does not hold but a tiny fraction of what Christ teaches, so to be limited by trusting only in that medium to "tell you what The Lord said", is faulty reasoning, and unreasonable for that.


If you are admitting here that the bible does hold a tiny fraction of what Christ taught, then it does not make sense that He would later teach something that is in conflict with that tiny fraction, does it? He stated Himself (in what is written) that He has much more to teach, more than His disciples could yet bear - no doubt you accept that saying as being from him - but that is not the same as saying He has things to teach that are in conflict with those things He already taught.

And (though I mentioned this in the other thread) one does not even have to look at the bible to see that it makes no sense to accept that Christ teaches what you have claimed.

Christ is the Truth. Christ promises to lead His sheep into all truth. Christ said that He was going to prepare a place for us in His Father's house.

In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.



If Christ is preparing the place for us - how are we creating our own 'alternate realities' in this house?

If Christ is taking us to be with Him in His Father's house - a place that He prepares for us - and a place where He IS - and He leads His sheep into TRUTH - how can the Father's house, where Christ brings us, be a place filled with what would be lies?

On the thread that you are referring to, it was suggested that I reject the teaching of Christ, that I even reject the place being prepared by Christ IN the Father's house. This is in direct conflict with Christ and His word (I mean - come on - these were suggestions to reject Christ and His word and His invitation to be in the Father's house). The source of those suggestions could not have been from Christ (and therefore could not have been from His Father).
Yet you cannot say WHY you believe that this is in direct conflict with Christ.


I did say why. I explained why numerous times on the other thread. You refuse to respond to or even acknowledge those explanations.
You claim [along with the Church] that the bible is 'his word'? Christ claims otherwise. Who should I believe. Tam? [the church] Or Jesus?
You should believe Christ (though I am wondering where you learned that Christ claims otherwise. I am not arguing the statement, just wondering where you got that, though I hold no expectations that you will respond to this question).

That being said, I did not make the claim that you continue to accuse me of making.

Not every spirit or inspired expression is from God. Hence we are told to test the inspired expression. 1John 4:3.
Test all things Tam. Including the stories of the bible AND the middle eastern mythologies in particular...these are not exempt from the advice to test ALL things, despite what the church may have so far convinced you.
Indeed (except for the continued usage of the word 'church').

Why do you keep saying 'the church' as if you accept the definition a religion has given to what 'the church' is?

The Church is the Body of Christ - His Bride. He is the Head, His Church - His Body - is made of people. The Church is not a religion.

Please note from the OP:

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
What evidence have you produced regarding that Tam?
The personal testimony is part of the evidence I have provided that Christ speaks. I state this openly in the OP.
b) The written testimony of or about others who have heard Christ
Do you limit this testimony to only what the bible characters have testified?
No. The answer to that question was also contained in the OP.
c) What Christ Himself is written to have said on the matter
What about the bulk of what Christ taught which was not written on the matter?
Should I just believe what anyone says Christ taught? Or should I test and ask Him for myself?

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...
What makes you think I am not communicating respectfully from a point of love, reason, logic? Is it because I disagree with your position on this matter and you find that unacceptable and un-Christlike?
I never suggested such a thing. Please see the bold.
and,

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.
Since you brought in the possibility that I was being deceived by lying spirits Tam, why do you think it impossible YOU are not the one being deceived by such beings? That is a reasonable question to reflect back at you, is it not?
Sure that is a reasonable question to reflect back at me. Hence, I said that no one should take my word, but should test the inspired expressions.

As for me, I know my Lord and I am remaining in His word. If I were to reject His word and His teaching, and go seeking a different teaching than what He has taught me, then I could be deceived by a lying spirit (which is what I said on the other thread). So I will not do that. First and foremost, though, because I am a Christian (and disciple of Christ), and He has never lied to me. How unfaithful, how disloyal, would it be if I were to seek a different teaching than His, when He has never spoken anything to me except the truth, and that from love? I will not do that.


What you think about that, what you do with that, is not up to me.

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.


Unless of course he wants to do so, and you prevent him from doing so by believing that he does not want to do so. How can you say you are one of his if he has never proven himself to you? That make no logical sense.
I was not referring to Him proving his existence. (note that I also said that we have to prove ourselves to him, but why would we have to prove our existence to him?)

And He has ALREADY proven Himself to us (proven His love among other things - love for His Father and for us) by giving His life for life (not once, but twice - first at the creation, to bring creation into existence, and second at His sacrifice/death on the earth).

I made no statement about his desire or ability to prove Himself to us (or not). I said only that He does not HAVE to prove Himself to us. He already did that.



- a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #182

Post by William »

tam wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:51 pm
William wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:08 am
tam wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:03 pm
Peace still to you William,
Is that like a magic spell you are casting Tam? No need to incant such, as I have peace already.
It is just a wish of peace William. Not a magic spell.
I tend toward seeing various branches of The Tree of Humanity, as being much the much myself. I have seen and participated in ritual prayer to "the One God" and I have seen incantation from more pagan branches ... and essentially there is no real difference.
Anyways, it becomes old once you see it so many times. I am simply saying that I do not require peace [as I already have it] so you needn't 'wish' it upon me, because it gives me the impression you are really saying "poor boy lost in the dark..." which is really not who I Am.

Luke 10:5, 6
Yep, exactly as spells are cast in Paganism.

Perhaps you could consider this forum "The House" and perhaps "The Rooms" are "Where you first incant PEACE through saying the word aloud with reference to the situation. Something along the lines of "Peace be within this room and extended to all who come into this room".
Then perhaps consider that once the incantation is completed, leave it to do its thing instead of calling it back over and over to where it already is.
People are not 'houses' you can enter. Throwing a spell at me [or humans in general] , is not what that script is saying to do. Bear that in mind.

The best he could do is to give you a vision of what you expect to be truth and love, which limits what the vision can convey.
Says who? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
It is not a claim. It is a reasonable observation.

Based on what?
Reality of course...What is actually going on presently.
Perhaps - in that light, you can drop the defensiveness.

How is it defensive to ask for some evidence to support your claim?
It is not. It is quite alright for one to ask another to support their claim. There are better approaches in doing so, and there is no need to be defensive in my presence.
I am not judging you,

I did not think you were.
Your demeaner say's otherwise. Perhaps if you stopped thinking of me as being influenced by a Lying Spirit, you might be able to drop your defenses.
I am simply saying that in all cases where an individual does not ask to experience such things, they will not be troubled by The Lord with visions etc which The Lord would know would be too much for them due to their beliefs.
Or perhaps it would be more wise to ask for the truth of a matter, rather than ask for proof of something that might not even be true?


And if one were to ask that, what would one be shown, that couldn't also be seen as "proof of something that might not even be true?"
Since there is no difference, it is wise not to make one's mind up about anything claiming to be the truth. Investigate the claim. See if it really is legit.
This is in line with my own understanding that in the next phase we will experience whatever we will create for ourselves. How can it be any other way?
Why could it not be any other way (than what is in line with your own understanding)?
Do you not believe that you will experience being with The Lord in your next phase of experience? What does it matter that you create the experience for yourself?
I answered this question on the other thread.
Because truth matters. Not to everyone, but to some of us, and certainly to Christ - who is the Truth and promises to lead His sheep into ALL truth - and to His Father. And I would rather a painful truth than a 'comforting lie'.


You say it would be deceitful, so I am left to wonder why you think what you create would be deceitful. Tell me. [tell the readers]
If Jesus prepared the room for that purpose - to give you the opportunity to create your next phase reality experience, why would you think that he was being deceitful in that regard? What is the comforting lie? That he allows you to think that it is him giving you what you want and hiding from you, that in realty, what you get is indeed what you want, and in that, he can tell what it is your want by observing what it is you create.
How is that 'evil' on his part?

The evidence [already given to you which you rejected as being ''from lying spirits"] shows me that it will be that way.

No evidence was given (in fact that was one of the reasons I stated that there was no reason to accept the claims you were making about 'hells').
I hope this isn't the point where we wander down the black hole of semantics Tam. You accepted the evidence I gave and gave argument against it [saying it would be lying spirits] - evidence which I in turn - have given argument against. I am awaiting you argument on those points.
Each individual will create their own reality based upon their personality and attitude [both sub conscious and conscious attitude]. It is a reasonable assumption to make regarding the evidence.

If you are making an assumption (even if you deem that assumption to be reasonable), you are not stating something you know to be true.


It was never my claim that, by the evidence I have so far uncovered, I KNOW my assumption is true. You are being mislead somehow...
To reiterate that we might traverse the same path together;

The evidence supports the probability that in the next phase we will experience, we will each create our own realities.
That this is different information from the information YOU claim [not assume but actually claim] as The Truth, surely it must be you who is required to provide evidence to support that claim.

Or;

You can withdraw the idea that I am getting my information from "Lying Spirits" and "Peace upon this room and this house."
I do not deem that assumption to be reasonable.
So what? You have yet to say why not? I certainly have shown quite reasonably why it isn't an evil' assumption to be making.

A vision or any communication could certainly be of something real/true (truth is the language that Christ speaks speaks and shares; He does not deceive). Why do you think it could not be?
I am not arguing that Christ deceives.
This is not an answer to the question I asked.
Then please ask the question in a manner in which I can understand what it is you are trying to ask me.

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 uses the individuals brain in order to retrieve past experience relevant to current experience...joining the dots which eventually show the individual the serendipity and synchronicity of nature. "We are within a creation/reality simulation."
Bring to mind - remind.

(and it is this world that contains the lies, the illusions, William. Not the Father's house - and not the Kingdom or world to come when God makes everything new.)
Would you then say that if you created your own reality based upon your personality and beliefs, such will amount to 'lies' Tam?
If my belief were untrue, then yes.
And what of that if you are at peace and content with what you have created? If your belief were true, then what you create for yourself would be true. And if not, then "why the lies?"
But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
How do you know that? Have you been to The Fathers House? Or is it because Jesus never mentioned hell, or that Jesus did mention hell but did not say anything about people creating their own hell?
What do you think Jesus taught folk which is lost to the eyes of the world, but could have filled up all the books of all the libraries in all the world?
You don't know so you best not assume Tam.
He has opened my eyes to something that is written, if I am reading the bible.
What about other books - words and sayi ... why not?
He can, if relevant. That was covered in the previous point re: something read.
If relevant to what Tam? Where it is covered in Christendom's bible?
Relevant to something He is teaching. But let me clarify that I said that He can open my eyes so that I can understand something that is written. Not that He is using a book to speak to me.
Then I ask The Lord to help you see that what I am writing to you is not from some 'Lying Spirit'. {spell/prayer cast}

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.
Does he use memes and sayings from other religions?
I bolded and underlined the relevant part in my quote.

If they were HIS sayings, then what you ask would apply. If they were not His sayings, then it would not apply.
You do understand that the bible itself claims that The Lord spoke about so much that none of the books in the libraries of the world could contain those things?
I'm not sure how that is relevant to my response, and while I do get your point (in general) that Christ said more than what is written, that verse is about what He did:
Yes that verse is about what he did. He taught people about the things in his Fathers Kingdom THAT is not just some "Christ said more than what what written" statement. That is to say that the bible held up as 'The Word Of Christ" [in comparison] contains exactly sweet stuff all of what Jesus actually did and said in his brief stay on the planet, using a human form as an Avatar.

Now there are also many other things that [Jesus] did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?

I never made that claim.
Not directly. But you attempted to use the bible to argue against my own experiences as if that somehow settled it for you. As far as you are concerned. my assumptions re the next phase of our reality experience, are "evil" because "The Bible told you so" Basically it is a claim Tam.

But If you are saying "I agree with you William that you do have a good point there...perhaps it is not evil lying spirits tricking you after all, but another way in which The Lord is able to communicate with those he knows won't be disturbed by it or put a shadow onto it or otherwise demonize it", then sure! We can be friends in peace.
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.
Does your Lord use all manner of medium in order to convey to you the exactness of what it is he is attempting to communicate with you?
I don't understand your question or its relevance to what I said.
Does The Lord get through to you clearly so that you understand exactly what he is conveying to you and does he use all manner of medium to do so, or is he limited by only being able to use the medium(s?) YOU dictate he should use in relation to your relationship you claim to have with him?
Nothing in my quote (bolded) suggests a medium at all, William. So I do not know what you are going on about.
Okay.
The language that He speaks is truth.

A slave is not free. It is said that The Lord himself told folk that the truth would set them free. Does The Lord use other people to try and assist those who are still enslaved to their beliefs?
Again, I do not see the relevance of your response to my words.
You claim to be a "slave to Christ" - You claim to know "The Truth". You cannot both be a slave and free. If the truth shall set you free, you cannot be a slave. The Truth cannot enslave you.
I explained this already, but again, I do not see the relevance of your response to my words.

The language that Christ speaks is truth.

How does a statement about me have any bearing on that?
Okay I agree to no longer refer to your claim that you are a slave to Christ and that Christ is your Lord, because it truly isn't relevant to anything.

But giving your question the benefit of the doubt, if Christ used another person to communicate with me... then that person would not be saying something in conflict with Christ, and would certainly not be teaching me (or anyone) to disregard the words and teachings and promises OF Christ, in order to embrace a different teaching.
Said more succinctly, you are saying that "if it isn't in the bible, then it cannot be from Christ."
I have not said that at all. I told you this on the other thread. I have told you in this thread. Even the OP on this thread contains a specific example of my Lord speaking directly to me.
so how can you truthfully claim that the way I view what happens in the afterlife, is something Jesus would NOT have said or told others?
I responded to this on the other thread (more than once).

viewtopic.php?p=1030183#p1030183
So again, see 'test the inspired expressions' (see the OP).
What is to say that my whole perspective is NOT a case of "testing inspired expressions" and finding some, such as your own beliefs in regard to afterlife, questionable and in need of examination?
You are certainly free to draw you own perspectives and conclusions.
Yes - that is what I am free to do.
If a spirit (or person) says something that is against Christ (His words, His teaching, His command), then I can know not to listen; that spirit and/or inspired expression is not from Him.
That is not the case though is it Tam. The bible does not hold but a tiny fraction of what Christ teaches, so to be limited by trusting only in that medium to "tell you what The Lord said", is faulty reasoning, and unreasonable for that.

If you are admitting here that the bible does hold a tiny fraction of what Christ taught, then it does not make sense that He would later teach something that is in conflict with that tiny fraction, does it? He stated Himself (in what is written) that He has much more to teach, more than His disciples could yet bear - no doubt you accept that saying as being from him - but that is not the same as saying He has things to teach that are in conflict with those things He already taught.
I have shown clearly that there is no conflict.
And (though I mentioned this in the other thread) one does not even have to look at the bible to see that it makes no sense to accept that Christ teaches what you have claimed.
I see no evil in what I have assumed to be a reasonable conclusion to make. A reasonable conclusion is not a claim Tam.
Christ is the Truth. Christ promises to lead His sheep into all truth. Christ said that He was going to prepare a place for us in His Father's house.
Which is in line with what I have based my conclusions on Tam.

In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
If Christ is preparing the place for us - how are we creating our own 'alternate realities' in this house?
Because if you truly carry Christ around in you he will be there with you. How you expect that to be will determine what you then create. That vision is within your mind at present. Maybe not always consciously, but planted there nonetheless.
If Christ is taking us to be with Him in His Father's house - a place that He prepares for us - and a place where He IS - and He leads His sheep into TRUTH - how can the Father's house, where Christ brings us, be a place filled with what would be lies?
For starters, it is a room in the house you are been taken to Tam. From your perspective that room will be for you whatever you want it to be. In order for The Father House to be "filled with lies" one would have to say that all who go there are liars.
I wouldn't go that far.
But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.
On the thread that you are referring to, it was suggested that I reject the teaching of Christ, that I even reject the place being prepared by Christ IN the Father's house. This is in direct conflict with Christ and His word (I mean - come on - these were suggestions to reject Christ and His word and His invitation to be in the Father's house). The source of those suggestions could not have been from Christ (and therefore could not have been from His Father).
Yet you cannot say WHY you believe that this is in direct conflict with Christ.

I did say why. I explained why numerous times on the other thread. You refuse to respond to or even acknowledge those explanations.


I am not sure if that can be classed as a "lie" Tam, but I certainly have been responding AND showing "why" your arguments are not necessarily The Truth.
You claim [along with the Church] that the bible is 'his word'? Christ claims otherwise. Who should I believe. Tam? [the church] Or Jesus?
You should believe Christ (though I am wondering where you learned that Christ claims otherwise. I am not arguing the statement, just wondering where you got that, though I hold no expectations that you will respond to this question).

That being said, I did not make the claim that you continue to accuse me of making.
So you do not believe that the bible is The Word Of God then Tam? Otherwise I don't understand what it is you say you base your belief in, that the "Christ" you claim to know is to be believed in as The Truth. And that I am deceived by Lying Spirits.
That is you argument, in relation to all this, is it not?

Not every spirit or inspired expression is from God. Hence we are told to test the inspired expression. 1John 4:3.
Test all things Tam. Including the stories of the bible AND the middle eastern mythologies in particular...these are not exempt from the advice to test ALL things, despite what the church may have so far convinced you.
Indeed (except for the continued usage of the word 'church').

Why do you keep saying 'the church' as if you accept the definition a religion has given to what 'the church' is?

The Church is the Body of Christ - His Bride. He is the Head, His Church - His Body - is made of people. The Church is not a religion.
Then what shall we agree to call it then Tam. I am open to using a word you might pick.
My point though, remains the same. The [___________] created a book called the bible.
Please note from the OP:

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
What evidence have you produced regarding that Tam?
The personal testimony is part of the evidence I have provided that Christ speaks. I state this openly in the OP.
b) The written testimony of or about others who have heard Christ
Do you limit this testimony to only what the bible characters have testified?
No. The answer to that question was also contained in the OP.
So why do you say I am deceived by Lying Spirits? I am not a bible character, but I am a human being who has had experiences which lead me [so far] to these conclusions. Why is my "testimony" [such as it is] regarded by you to be from Lying Spirits?
c) What Christ Himself is written to have said on the matter
What about the bulk of what Christ taught which was not written on the matter?
Should I just believe what anyone says Christ taught? Or should I test and ask Him for myself?
I suggested that you do this but you replied;

"Nope. Not gonna do that. Forget it."

What else can one suggest you try Tam, if you have already made your mind up?
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...
What makes you think I am not communicating respectfully from a point of love, reason, logic? Is it because I disagree with your position on this matter and you find that unacceptable and un-Christlike?
I never suggested such a thing. Please see the bold.
and,

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.
Since you brought in the possibility that I was being deceived by lying spirits Tam, why do you think it impossible YOU are not the one being deceived by such beings? That is a reasonable question to reflect back at you, is it not?
Sure that is a reasonable question to reflect back at me. Hence, I said that no one should take my word, but should test the inspired expressions.


Are you saying that your expression implying that I am being deceived by Lying Spirits is "inspired" or was it just your own opinion?
As for me, I know my Lord and I am remaining in His word. If I were to reject His word and His teaching, and go seeking a different teaching than what He has taught me, then I could be deceived by a lying spirit (which is what I said on the other thread). So I will not do that. First and foremost, though, because I am a Christian (and disciple of Christ), and He has never lied to me. How unfaithful, how disloyal, would it be if I were to seek a different teaching than His, when He has never spoken anything to me except the truth, and that from love? I will not do that.


What you think about that, what you do with that, is not up to me.
As I said Tam, I agree to no longer refer to your claim that you are a slave to Christ and that Christ is your Lord, because it truly isn't relevant to anything.

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.


Unless of course he wants to do so, and you prevent him from doing so by believing that he does not want to do so. How can you say you are one of his if he has never proven himself to you? That makes no logical sense.
I was not referring to Him proving his existence. (note that I also said that we have to prove ourselves to him, but why would we have to prove our existence to him?)

And He has ALREADY proven Himself to us (proven His love among other things - love for His Father and for us) by giving His life for life (not once, but twice - first at the creation, to bring creation into existence, and second at His sacrifice/death on the earth).

I made no statement about his desire or ability to prove Himself to us (or not). I said only that He does not HAVE to prove Himself to us. He already did that.
So you believe. But I see only mythology created by the [__________] which you believe in, and so if indeed "The Church" is different from [__________] I have to wonder why you are using the device of the bible as your evidence that the mythology is actually the Truth of the matter, especially since we KNOW that the bible shares so very little at all about Christ and comes not from The Church but from [__________]

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #183

Post by tam »

Just a couple of points (as I think the rest would be repetitive):
This is in line with my own understanding that in the next phase we will experience whatever we will create for ourselves. How can it be any other way?
Why could it not be any other way (than what is in line with your own understanding)?
Do you not believe that you will experience being with The Lord in your next phase of experience? What does it matter that you create the experience for yourself?
I answered this question on the other thread.
Because truth matters. Not to everyone, but to some of us, and certainly to Christ - who is the Truth and promises to lead His sheep into ALL truth - and to His Father. And I would rather a painful truth than a 'comforting lie'.


You say it would be deceitful, so I am left to wonder why you think what you create would be deceitful. Tell me. [tell the readers]
1 - You did not answer the question that I have bolded above. You deflected.

2 - You claim that the afterlife is made of illusions that people create for themselves. As stated from the very beginning, I have no reason to accept that, though I do have reasons to reject (reasons that have been stated on numerous occasions). As for illusion and deceit, the following is a link to the definition of illusion:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illusion

Would you then say that if you created your own reality based upon your personality and beliefs, such will amount to 'lies' Tam?
If my belief were untrue, then yes.
And what of that if you are at peace and content with what you have created?


Asked and answered, William.

But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
How do you know that?


Asked and answered.
What do you think Jesus taught folk which is lost to the eyes of the world, but could have filled up all the books of all the libraries in all the world?
You don't know so you best not assume Tam.
So I should not assume, but you can?


Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?

I never made that claim.
Not directly.


Not at all.
But you attempted to use the bible to argue against my own experiences as if that somehow settled it for you.


To argue against your experiences, no. To argue against the assumptions you have made regarding your experiences (or others' experience), some, though that was not my original argument. To argue against your out of context use of something written in that bible, yes.

Remember, you are the one who brought up the quote from John 14. I simply provided the full quote and put it into context, attempting to reason with you from that. But I mean, William, you are basing your assumptions in part on a quote from something that you believe to be full of lies, created by an institution that is full of lies and deceit. On one hand, you are criticizing me for quoting from what my Lord is written to have said on the matter, and on the other hand, you are using John 14:2, 3 as support that the Father has a house with many mansions (or rooms), to begin with.

If Christ is taking us to be with Him in His Father's house - a place that He prepares for us - and a place where He IS - and He leads His sheep into TRUTH - how can the Father's house, where Christ brings us, be a place filled with what would be lies?
For starters, it is a room in the house you are been taken to Tam. From your perspective that room will be for you whatever you want it to be. In order for The Father House to be "filled with lies" one would have to say that all who go there are liars.
A - that is your perspective, not mine.

B - a house filled will lies does not need for everyone in that house to be a liar. It only needs for there to be lies in it (many rooms - and therefore many lies - according to your assumptions).

C - see definition above of illusion.

But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.

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 keep using concepts that Christ spoke of, but not using them in the WAY that He spoke of them. If His words are good enough for you to use some of the concepts, why are His words not good enough for what He meant about, say, the Father's house; the world of the dead/hell?

You claim [along with the Church] that the bible is 'his word'? Christ claims otherwise. Who should I believe. Tam? [the church] Or Jesus?
You should believe Christ (though I am wondering where you learned that Christ claims otherwise. I am not arguing the statement, just wondering where you got that, though I hold no expectations that you will respond to this question).

That being said, I did not make the claim that you continue to accuse me of making.
So you do not believe that the bible is The Word Of God then Tam?
Correct.

Christ is the Word of God.



- a slave of Christ

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #184

Post by William »

tam wrote: Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:11 pm Just a couple of points (as I think the rest would be repetitive):
This is in line with my own understanding that in the next phase we will experience whatever we will create for ourselves. How can it be any other way?
Why could it not be any other way (than what is in line with your own understanding)?
Do you not believe that you will experience being with The Lord in your next phase of experience? What does it matter that you create the experience for yourself?
I answered this question on the other thread.
Because truth matters. Not to everyone, but to some of us, and certainly to Christ - who is the Truth and promises to lead His sheep into ALL truth - and to His Father. And I would rather a painful truth than a 'comforting lie'.


You say it would be deceitful, so I am left to wonder why you think what you create would be deceitful. Tell me. [tell the readers]
1 - You did not answer the question that I have bolded above. You deflected.
I did answer that question Tam. It is because there is far more evidence supporting the way I describe the probable properties involved with the individual in relation to the next phase, than what you claim will happen.
2 - You claim that the afterlife is made of illusions that people create for themselves. As stated from the very beginning, I have no reason to accept that, though I do have reasons to reject (reasons that have been stated on numerous occasions). As for illusion and deceit, the following is a link to the definition of illusion:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illusion
As stated, there is nothing evil in the idea that people will create their own reality experience in the next phase. If they are creating illusion for themselves, and those illusions are self deceit, the illusion is not the source of the deceit. The person creating the illusion is the source of deceit.
So if the person believes something to be true and it is not the case, the person has created that illusion based upon their own beliefs, not because someone else created the illusion for them.
Therefore any deceit is not the fault of the one who prepared that place for them, but only the fault of the one creating the illusion through the properties prepared in order for that to happen.

Would you then say that if you created your own reality based upon your personality and beliefs, such will amount to 'lies' Tam?
If my belief were untrue, then yes.
And what of that if you are at peace and content with what you have created?

Asked and answered, William.
If you create an illusion to experience as real, believing that it is real because The Lord made it that way, you are the one who has chosen to believe the Lord made it that way.
But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
How do you know that?

Asked and answered.
But not backed up with any evidence. Since it is your claim, you must back it up with evidence or withdraw the claim. To do neither is to concede.
What do you think Jesus taught folk which is lost to the eyes of the world, but could have filled up all the books of all the libraries in all the world?
You don't know so you best not assume Tam.
So I should not assume, but you can?
My assumption comes from evidence supplied by those who have experienced the next reality phase and understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they are there, interacting with it.
Your assumption is based on refusal to accept that evidence as anything more than coming from Lying Spirits.

It is not a case of who is and isn't allowed to assume, but who's assumption best stacks up in relation to the evidence. You are assuming that Christ never spoke of the properties of the next phase of reality experience to others, simply because it is not directly recorded in the bible.
My answer to that is the bible itself claims that most of what Jesus taught was in secret and was far vaster and more integrated than the simple samples that made their way to being recorded in the bible.
Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?

I never made that claim.
Not directly.

Not at all.
So you do not believe that the bible is the word of The Lord? I know I have asked this question already. Can you answer it?
But you attempted to use the bible to argue against my own experiences as if that somehow settled it for you.

To argue against your experiences, no. To argue against the assumptions you have made regarding your experiences (or others' experience), some, though that was not my original argument. To argue against your out of context use of something written in that bible, yes.

Remember, you are the one who brought up the quote from John 14. I simply provided the full quote and put it into context, attempting to reason with you from that. But I mean, William, you are basing your assumptions in part on a quote from something that you believe to be full of lies, created by an institution that is full of lies and deceit. On one hand, you are criticizing me for quoting from what my Lord is written to have said on the matter, and on the other hand, you are using John 14:2, 3 as support that the Father has a house with many mansions (or rooms), to begin with.
I have never stated that the bible is full of lies. I did argue that it was created by The Church which [as per historical evidence] has been an institution of great ill repute.
You in turn have argued that Christendom is not "The Church" but that it is a fake. You implied that The True Church is NOT the institution of Christendom.
I argued in turn that if you believed that to be the case, then why are you using the bible created by Christendom [The Fake church] to try and back up your argument?

I would also add that you have made another claim, that Christendom is NOT The Church. You will have to provide evidence that there exists a "True Church". I have heard plenty of Christians of varying denominations claim that their particular organization is The True Church, but like you, they have provided no evidence to support that claim. Without the evidence, your claim can be dismissed.

If Christ is taking us to be with Him in His Father's house - a place that He prepares for us - and a place where He IS - and He leads His sheep into TRUTH - how can the Father's house, where Christ brings us, be a place filled with what would be lies?
For starters, it is a room in the house you are been taken to Tam. From your perspective that room will be for you whatever you want it to be. In order for The Father House to be "filled with lies" one would have to say that all who go there are liars.
A - that is your perspective, not mine.
Your perspective when it happens will be that it is a real thing to which you have been granted access to, for being 'a true Christian'...that does not mean that your current perspective and accompanying claims to do with that, are The Truth. You need to provide evidence to support that claim.
B - a house filled will lies does not need for everyone in that house to be a liar. It only needs for there to be lies in it (many rooms - and therefore many lies - according to your assumptions).

C - see definition above of illusion.
As I suggested, perhaps The Father House is designed to house those who prefer illusion to truth. The Fathers Kingdom is far vaster and is what Jesus spoke of far more frequently, than the house.

But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.
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).
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.

Indeed, it will be for you - a similar experience, if that is what you believe and expect to happen. You will create that for yourself.
But it will not mean that it is the truth Tam. It will only mean that you chose to believe it will be and so you will create it that way, to experience for yourself.
You won't see it as an illusion. You will experience as real.
You keep using concepts that Christ spoke of, but not using them in the WAY that He spoke of them. If His words are good enough for you to use some of the concepts, why are His words not good enough for what He meant about, say, the Father's house; the world of the dead/hell?
As is evident Tam, the bible is interpreted in different ways depending on the individuals own beliefs. In that, the WAY Jesus spoke varies with each persons interpretation.
I have shown that what you believe the WAY Jesus spoke of the afterlife, fits in with the evidence others who have experienced it, report.

You claim [along with the Church] that the bible is 'his word'? Christ claims otherwise. Who should I believe. Tam? [the church] Or Jesus?
You should believe Christ (though I am wondering where you learned that Christ claims otherwise. I am not arguing the statement, just wondering where you got that, though I hold no expectations that you will respond to this question).

That being said, I did not make the claim that you continue to accuse me of making.
So you do not believe that the bible is The Word Of God then Tam?
Correct.

Christ is the Word of God.
So why then do you use the bible to argue 'What Christ Said' especially when you know that Christ said so very much more than what the bible reports?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #185

Post by tam »

But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
How do you know that?

Asked and answered.
But not backed up with any evidence.


Backed up with evidence of what Christ has said. Backed up with the full quote in context of John 14: 2 and 3, compared with Christ being the Truth and leading His sheep into all truth. You can reject that evidence if you want, but you are the one who brought up John 14 to begin with, and even in a court of law, that would be grounds to add the gospel accounts as evidence.

You can't bring something up as evidence when you think it proves your assumptions, and then cry 'foul' when someone else uses that same evidence against your assumption.
Since it is your claim, you must back it up with evidence or withdraw the claim. To do neither is to concede.
It has been backed up with the same evidence that you used.
What do you think Jesus taught folk which is lost to the eyes of the world, but could have filled up all the books of all the libraries in all the world?
You don't know so you best not assume Tam.
So I should not assume, but you can?
My assumption comes from evidence supplied by those who have experienced the next reality phase and understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they are there, interacting with it.
Correction:

Your assumption comes from the evidence supplied by those who CLAIM TO have experienced the next reality phase and CLAIM TO understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they CLAIM TO be there, interacting with it.

You are taking their word for it. You are free to do that if you choose (though please see my first post on the other thread regarding other considerations). But I am certainly not going to do that. I have no reason to accept that, especially not when it goes against what my Lord has taught me. I will remain in my Lord and His teaching.
Your assumption is based on refusal to accept that evidence as anything more than coming from Lying Spirits.
Please re-read my original response about these claims on the other thread.
Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?

I never made that claim.
Not directly.

Not at all.
So you do not believe that the bible is the word of The Lord? I know I have asked this question already. Can you answer it?

I said I do not believe the bible is the word of the Lord. I said that Christ is the Word of God.
But you attempted to use the bible to argue against my own experiences as if that somehow settled it for you.

To argue against your experiences, no. To argue against the assumptions you have made regarding your experiences (or others' experience), some, though that was not my original argument. To argue against your out of context use of something written in that bible, yes.

Remember, you are the one who brought up the quote from John 14. I simply provided the full quote and put it into context, attempting to reason with you from that. But I mean, William, you are basing your assumptions in part on a quote from something that you believe to be full of lies, created by an institution that is full of lies and deceit. On one hand, you are criticizing me for quoting from what my Lord is written to have said on the matter, and on the other hand, you are using John 14:2, 3 as support that the Father has a house with many mansions (or rooms), to begin with.
I have never stated that the bible is full of lies.
I must have misunderstood your words here then (though your argument is somewhat confusing since you claim "the Church" created it and uses it to deceive people):
I am arguing that the church is the deceiver and that the bible is one of the main ways in which the church has deceived the world regarding many things, but specifically that to do with the afterlife. - William viewtopic.php?p=1030557#p1030557
**
I did argue that it was created by The Church which [as per historical evidence] has been an institution of great ill repute.
You in turn have argued that Christendom is not "The Church" but that it is a fake. You implied that The True Church is NOT the institution of Christendom.
I argued in turn that if you believed that to be the case, then why are you using the bible created by Christendom [The Fake church] to try and back up your argument?
A - Why are you using it?

B - I have no reason not to use the information contained within it. Christendom did not create the individual books that were later compiled into one cover (called the bible). Christendom did not write the letters in it (letters attributed to Paul, or Peter, or John, or Jude, or James, etc.). Christendom did not receive and write the revelation given to John by Christ. Christendom did not write the scriptures (Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms). Christendom did not write the testimonial accounts bearing witness to Christ (at least one of which is an eyewitness account from an apostle, the disciple Christ loved).

B - a house filled will lies does not need for everyone in that house to be a liar. It only needs for there to be lies in it (many rooms - and therefore many lies - according to your assumptions).

C - see definition above of illusion.
As I suggested, perhaps The Father House is designed to house those who prefer illusion to truth. The Fathers Kingdom is far vaster and is what Jesus spoke of far more frequently, than the house.
And as responded, that is not what Christ teaches. Christ was speaking to His apostles when He said that He is going to prepare a place for them - people who were drawn to Christ, the Truth, by His Father - people to whom Christ promised to lead into all truth, and to whom He spoke only the truth. Christ did not say that He was preparing a place for people who did not belong to Him or for people who preferred illusion instead of truth. And no matter how you or others twist the words (how is that any different than what Christendom does to mislead people who are seeking truth, creating more and more sects and denominations?)... leading people into all truth is the opposite of leading people to a place of illusion and deception.


Please think about this William. He is the TRUTH! He does not promote or teach or lead people into deception (self-deception or otherwise). The Father's House is not filled with rooms of illusion; nor of despair or tears or mourning (such as what would be contained in self-created 'hells'). Christ does not prepare rooms so that His sheep can be left to self-deception in the Father's house. Christ speaks the TRUTH to people.
But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.
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).
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.
May well have been?

Are you applying that same level of skepticism to the people who claim they have experienced 'hells' and other 'afterlife illusions'?

Though the best thing to do would simply be to listen to Christ, hold everything up to Him (the Light).




- a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10507
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1136 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #186

Post by William »

tam wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:16 am
But the teaching that the Father's house is filled with deception and 'self-created hells'... is a false teaching that has nothing to do with anything Christ has said about His Father's house.
How do you know that?

Asked and answered.
But not backed up with any evidence.

Backed up with evidence of what Christ has said.


There is no particular evidence that Christ 'said' those things. Rather what is actually the case is that you have used evidence which the authors claimed Christ said, but is not itself backed up [proven to being the case].
Backed up with the full quote in context of John 14: 2 and 3, compared with Christ being the Truth and leading His sheep into all truth.
In order to lead the sheep, the shepherd must clip the wool from out of the sheep's eyes. A sheep which refuses to have this done, cannot be a sheep that is following the shepherd. Cannot be a sheep at all, unless it is one that wandered away from the shepherd.
Like this one, which was found after many years without a shepherd.

The sheep that got away
You can reject that evidence if you want, but you are the one who brought up John 14 to begin with, and even in a court of law, that would be grounds to add the gospel accounts as evidence.
I remind you that my use of bible quote was to show clearly the irony of your argument. I too can use the bible stories to make assumptions based on my own particular interpretations. And you too can argue that my interpretations are incorrect.

The difference between us in that regard is that I do not use the bible quotes to cast personal judgement upon the nature of your interpretation, as you have done with me, claiming that my interpretation is the result of "Lying Spirits" because it offends your own beliefs - beliefs you clearly have formulated due to your interpretation of biblical mythology.

The quote I used to support my assumption [based on the evidence of many peoples recorded experience] on what most likely takes place for the individual in the next phase of experience [afterlife] is in line with the biblical account that Jesus spent far more time and taught so much more in private, than he did in public.
You are only focused upon what is claimed to be of Christs teaching, as is recorded in the bible. My argument is that just because most of that which Jesus taught, isn't recorded in the bible, does not mean that my experiences associated with afterlife concepts, are from "Lying Spirits". This because YOU do not know what Jesus taught in private.

I do not know either. What I do know is that I cannot assume my and others experiences are from Lying Spirits when they may well be from The Holy Spirit. We are best not to go there because "blasphemy".
You can't bring something up as evidence when you think it proves your assumptions, and then cry 'foul' when someone else uses that same evidence against your assumption.
And I don't. You are only attempting to use that same evidence against my assumption. The cry of "foul" as it were, is explained in the sentence I wrote - italiced above. "Best not go there and claim "Lying Spirit"." for that could be [and seen by me to actually be] a foul claim.
As foul as it may be, I have asked you to provide supporting evidence that this is actually the case, or withdraw your claim.
Since it is your claim, you must back it up with evidence or withdraw the claim. To do neither is to concede.
It has been backed up with the same evidence that you used.
Wherein the evidence I used is there any sign that I am being deceived by a Lying Spirit?
What do you think Jesus taught folk which is lost to the eyes of the world, but could have filled up all the books of all the libraries in all the world?
You don't know so you best not assume Tam.
So I should not assume, but you can?
My assumption comes from evidence supplied by those who have experienced the next reality phase and understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they are there, interacting with it.
Correction:

Your assumption comes from the evidence supplied by those who CLAIM TO have experienced the next reality phase and CLAIM TO understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they CLAIM TO be there, interacting with it.
Correct. I have not said anything differently throughout this interaction with you. What I have not done, which you have, is assume that all such claims are from Lying Spirits. As I mentioned earlier, I accept that there will be numbered among the claimants, charlatans cashing in on opportunity, but reject that all such evidence is therefore from such Lying Spirits.
You are taking their word for it.
No. I am taking the overall picture their collective evidence presents and making a most likely assumption on that. IF there is afterlife to experience THEN the evidence points to that being the case [Occam's Razor]
You are free to do that if you choose (though please see my first post on the other thread regarding other considerations). But I am certainly not going to do that. I have no reason to accept that, especially not when it goes against what my Lord has taught me.
From what you have said, largely what "your Lord has taught you" is contained within the bible, and I have already shown that what The Lord has to teach an individual simply cannot be contained in the bible.
I will remain in my Lord and His teaching.
No. You clearly will remain in what ONLY the bible has recorded of his public teaching. As I said earlier, you are free to do so, but are NOT free to cast the judgment that my assumption is from a Lying Spirit. Jesus [The Lord] did not teach you that.
Your assumption is based on refusal to accept that evidence as anything more than coming from Lying Spirits.
Please re-read my original response about these claims on the other thread.
Why? Are you suggesting that you do not believe that my assumption is from a Lying Spirit?
Given that Tam, how can you claim that The Lord didn't say such things 'because they are not recorded in the bible'?
I never made that claim.
Not directly.

Not at all.
So you do not believe that the bible is the word of The Lord? I know I have asked this question already. Can you answer it?
I said I do not believe the bible is the word of the Lord. I said that Christ is the Word of God.

But you attempted to use the bible to argue against my own experiences as if that somehow settled it for you.

To argue against your experiences, no. To argue against the assumptions you have made regarding your experiences (or others' experience), some, though that was not my original argument. To argue against your out of context use of something written in that bible, yes.

Remember, you are the one who brought up the quote from John 14. I simply provided the full quote and put it into context, attempting to reason with you from that. But I mean, William, you are basing your assumptions in part on a quote from something that you believe to be full of lies, created by an institution that is full of lies and deceit. On one hand, you are criticizing me for quoting from what my Lord is written to have said on the matter, and on the other hand, you are using John 14:2, 3 as support that the Father has a house with many mansions (or rooms), to begin with.
I have never stated that the bible is full of lies.
I must have misunderstood your words here then (though your argument is somewhat confusing since you claim "the Church" created it and uses it to deceive people):
Specifically, to deceive people on the nature of afterlife experience. I can go along with the idea that The Church itself was deceived by the writing of the authors the church chose to believe in. 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.

My main point is that it appears to be the case that everyone goes through the same process of creating their own realities based upon their own expectations, attitudes, beliefs, and personalities in the next phase.
If - for example - YOU believe that what the Author John say's about what to expect in the afterlife, that will be what you create for yourself to experience.
That is the nature of the attributes of the next phase, and is - for that - NOT something I personally consider to being 'evil' or 'dishonest' of 'of lying spirits', even that it [obviously] has the attribute to expose to those in positions of being able to view these heavens and hells from an overarching perspective, what the individuals themselves create, if the individuals have been lying to themselves.

Where is the "evil" in that?


I am arguing that the church is the deceiver and that the bible is one of the main ways in which the church has deceived the world regarding many things, but specifically that to do with the afterlife. - William viewtopic.php?p=1030557#p1030557
**
I did argue that it was created by The Church which [as per historical evidence] has been an institution of great ill repute.
You in turn have argued that Christendom is not "The Church" but that it is a fake. You implied that The True Church is NOT the institution of Christendom.
I argued in turn that if you believed that to be the case, then why are you using the bible created by Christendom [The Fake church] to try and back up your argument?
A - Why are you using it?
Not "Why" Tam. "How". That we both are using it, is not the issue. How we each are using it, is the issue.
B - I have no reason not to use the information contained within it. Christendom did not create the individual books that were later compiled into one cover (called the bible). Christendom did not write the letters in it (letters attributed to Paul, or Peter, or John, or Jude, or James, etc.). Christendom did not receive and write the revelation given to John by Christ. Christendom did not write the scriptures (Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms). Christendom did not write the testimonial accounts bearing witness to Christ (at least one of which is an eyewitness account from an apostle, the disciple Christ loved).
There is no supporting evidence to show that your belief that Christendom did not create these stories found in their bible is correct Tam.
B - a house filled will lies does not need for everyone in that house to be a liar. It only needs for there to be lies in it (many rooms - and therefore many lies - according to your assumptions).

C - see definition above of illusion.
As I suggested, perhaps The Father House is designed to house those who prefer illusion to truth. The Fathers Kingdom is far vaster and is what Jesus spoke of far more frequently, than the house.
And as responded, that is not what Christ teaches. Christ was speaking to His apostles when He said that He is going to prepare a place for them - people who were drawn to Christ, the Truth, by His Father - people to whom Christ promised to lead into all truth, and to whom He spoke only the truth. Christ did not say that He was preparing a place for people who did not belong to Him or for people who preferred illusion instead of truth. And no matter how you or others twist the words (how is that any different than what Christendom does to mislead people who are seeking truth, creating more and more sects and denominations?)... leading people into all truth is the opposite of leading people to a place of illusion and deception.
While this might be what is implied in the stories, we do not know the source of the stories. Christ or Christendom? My point still remains valid that we are informed that what was taught in public [by The Lord] was far, far less than what was taught in private.

Beside which, as I have already clarified, people are not 'being led' into illusion but are already under their illusions based upon their beliefs attitudes and personalities.

What I am saying is that it appears by the evidence that such individuals are being allowed to undergo the consequence of the illusions of their beliefs because that is a Just thing to allow. You are interpreting such as being a deceptive thing for The Lord to allow. I have argued [and you currently are ignoring] that it is NOT an evil thing at all.
Please think about this William. He is the TRUTH! He does not promote or teach or lead people into deception (self-deception or otherwise). The Father's House is not filled with rooms of illusion; nor of despair or tears or mourning (such as what would be contained in self-created 'hells'). Christ does not prepare rooms so that His sheep can be left to self-deception in the Father's house. Christ speaks the TRUTH to people.


As you should be aware of Tam, The Truth is not always accepted - and certainly was not very accepted when Jesus spoke in public. His focus was obviously [as the story goes] upon those who were interested in finding out for themselves rather than being told. Indeed, it can even be assumed that he kept most of his knowledge out of the public arena because if he had spoken of it he would have been murdered by that very public long before the religious authorities got to him.
But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.
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).
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.
May well have been?
It is certainly a possibility.
Are you applying that same level of skepticism to the people who claim they have experienced 'hells' and other 'afterlife illusions'?
Yes.
Though the best thing to do would simply be to listen to Christ, hold everything up to Him (the Light).
Yes - even if that means he takes you into mysteries not accessible to those who would rather not.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #187

Post by tam »

Backed up with evidence of what Christ has said.


There is no particular evidence that Christ 'said' those things. Rather what is actually the case is that you have used evidence which the authors claimed Christ said, but is not itself backed up [proven to being the case].
Then why did you bring up the words Christ spoke at John 14: 2, 3?

Why do you use phrases and concepts that Christ spoke of in what is written, such as "the Father's house" or "In my Father's house there are many rooms" (though you seem to prefer the translation 'mansions')?

Backed up with the full quote in context of John 14: 2 and 3, compared with Christ being the Truth and leading His sheep into all truth.
In order to lead the sheep, the shepherd must clip the wool from out of the sheep's eyes. A sheep which refuses to have this done, cannot be a sheep that is following the shepherd. Cannot be a sheep at all, unless it is one that wandered away from the shepherd.


Sheep recognize the voice of their Shepherd, and they come when He calls them. This is what Christ has said of Himself and His sheep.

That being said, the above appears to be a deflection from the point that Christ leads His sheep into all truth. No matter how you try and reword it, the thing you are claiming comes 'next' is not truth.
You can reject that evidence if you want, but you are the one who brought up John 14 to begin with, and even in a court of law, that would be grounds to add the gospel accounts as evidence.
I remind you that my use of bible quote was to show clearly the irony of your argument.


Are you now saying you do not believe there is a Father's house with many rooms (or mansions, as you prefer)?

The quote I used to support my assumption [based on the evidence of many peoples recorded experience] on what most likely takes place for the individual in the next phase of experience [afterlife] is in line with the biblical account that Jesus spent far more time and taught so much more in private, than he did in public.
A - what biblical account is that, and are you sure you are not adding something to the account that is not there?

B - why do you trust that account but not others that are written by the same author and in the same book?

C - how exactly does that biblical account support your assumption of what takes place in the 'afterlife'?

You are only focused upon what is claimed to be of Christs teaching, as is recorded in the bible. My argument is that just because most of that which Jesus taught, isn't recorded in the bible, does not mean that my experiences associated with afterlife concepts, are from "Lying Spirits". This because YOU do not know what Jesus taught in private.
But I DO know what He teaches ME. So I will remain in Him. As I stated from the start.
I do not know either. What I do know is that I cannot assume my and others experiences are from Lying Spirits when they may well be from The Holy Spirit. We are best not to go there because "blasphemy".
What "Holy Spirit" are you referring to?

So I should not assume, but you can?
My assumption comes from evidence supplied by those who have experienced the next reality phase and understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they are there, interacting with it.
Correction:

Your assumption comes from the evidence supplied by those who CLAIM TO have experienced the next reality phase and CLAIM TO understand it to have properties which allow for them to create their reality experience while they CLAIM TO be there, interacting with it.
Correct. I have not said anything differently throughout this interaction with you.
[/quote]

These two statements are not the same:

- those who have experienced

- those who claim to have experienced
You are taking their word for it.
No. I am taking the overall picture their collective evidence presents and making a most likely assumption on that. IF there is afterlife to experience THEN the evidence points to that being the case [Occam's Razor]
What evidence?
Your assumption is based on refusal to accept that evidence as anything more than coming from Lying Spirits.
Please re-read my original response about these claims on the other thread.
Why? Are you suggesting that you do not believe that my assumption is from a Lying Spirit?
Please re-read my original response about these claims on the other thread.

I have never stated that the bible is full of lies.
I must have misunderstood your words here then (though your argument is somewhat confusing since you claim "the Church" created it and uses it to deceive people):
Specifically, to deceive people on the nature of afterlife experience.


To deceive people using the bible, how, exactly?
I can go along with the idea that The Church itself was deceived by the writing of the authors the church chose to believe in.


Deceived how exactly? Are you suggesting the authors lied? What are you suggesting, exactly?
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.
Revelation is just one book - (though as to that book, Christ gave the revelation TO John, and Christ does not deceive people. I know this revelation is from Christ, not just because John directly states so but because my Lord has revealed to me the meaning of some things in the revelation given to John. Though I personally find it a bit of a double standard that you are willing to accept what other people tell you about their experiences and the meaning of those experiences, but you dismiss John's testimony as a product of his own expectations. How can you even make that statement without knowing what his expectations were, to begin with?)

But what about the testimonial accounts? Those were not based upon beliefs; those were based upon what people saw and heard from Christ (as in the case of the disciple Christ loved writing an eyewitness testimony), or what eyewitnesses handed down to others (such as Luke, who was not an eyewitness, but who investigated and wrote an orderly account for someone).

My main point is that it appears to be the case that everyone goes through the same process of creating their own realities based upon their own expectations, attitudes, beliefs, and personalities in the next phase.
I understand your point, William. I have understood what you meant from the start. I simply cannot accept it - a) this is not my Lord's teaching, and b) you have provided no evidence (and even you do not know if it is true).

I did argue that it was created by The Church which [as per historical evidence] has been an institution of great ill repute.
You in turn have argued that Christendom is not "The Church" but that it is a fake. You implied that The True Church is NOT the institution of Christendom.
I argued in turn that if you believed that to be the case, then why are you using the bible created by Christendom [The Fake church] to try and back up your argument?
A - Why are you using it?
Not "Why" Tam. "How". That we both are using it, is not the issue. How we each are using it, is the issue.
I think you might be making a distinction without a difference.

Or, are you saying you do not believe there is a Father's house with many rooms (or mansions as you prefer), to begin with?
B - I have no reason not to use the information contained within it. Christendom did not create the individual books that were later compiled into one cover (called the bible). Christendom did not write the letters in it (letters attributed to Paul, or Peter, or John, or Jude, or James, etc.). Christendom did not receive and write the revelation given to John by Christ. Christendom did not write the scriptures (Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms). Christendom did not write the testimonial accounts bearing witness to Christ (at least one of which is an eyewitness account from an apostle, the disciple Christ loved).
There is no supporting evidence to show that your belief that Christendom did not create these stories found in their bible is correct Tam.
That is a confusing question William. Let me see if I can sort it out...

It seems to me that you are asking me to prove a negative. Prove that Christendom did NOT create these stories? But since you made the statement, "Christendom created the bible", shouldn't you be the one who has to prove your statement?

Mind you, I don't think it is difficult to disprove (since "Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets" existed before "Christendom" existed).

Of course, perhaps you should start with what you mean by 'create'? Then explain what you mean by "Christendom".

Beside which, as I have already clarified, people are not 'being led' into illusion but are already under their illusions based upon their beliefs attitudes and personalities.
People... except for you and others you believe who are making claims about the 'afterlife'?

I believe I mentioned that this world contains the illusions and deceptions (not the Father's house), and you must agree at least on the part about this world. So what makes you think that those people you are listening to are not (currently) under illusions based upon their beliefs, attitudes and personalities?
Please think about this William. He is the TRUTH! He does not promote or teach or lead people into deception (self-deception or otherwise). The Father's House is not filled with rooms of illusion; nor of despair or tears or mourning (such as what would be contained in self-created 'hells'). Christ does not prepare rooms so that His sheep can be left to self-deception in the Father's house. Christ speaks the TRUTH to people.


As you should be aware of Tam, The Truth is not always accepted -
Indeed. But was Christ speaking to people who did or did not accept Him, when He said that He was preparing a place for them in the Father's house?
and certainly was not very accepted when Jesus spoke in public.


How do you know this? Where are you getting this information from?
His focus was obviously [as the story goes] upon those who were interested in finding out for themselves rather than being told.


Can you provide some evidence (from the story) that this is what His focus was upon?

From what I can recall, His focus was upon the truth (speaking the truth, bearing witness to the truth), upon doing the will of His Father, and upon teaching and calling and leading those His Father had given (and drawn to) Him.

He SPOKE truth to them. He TOLD them the truth. They listened to His words.

"Lord to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life." John 6:68


Indeed, it can even be assumed that he kept most of his knowledge out of the public arena because if he had spoken of it he would have been murdered by that very public long before the religious authorities got to him.
I prefer not to make assumptions.
But the point is that those who judge others and expect Justice, have to be placed somewhere, so perhaps The Fathers House serves as a holding place for such souls, while others (Who don't judge or expect Justice) are free enjoy the greater reality of The Fathers Kingdom.
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).
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.
May well have been?
It is certainly a possibility.
That is not the same as 'may well have been'.

Are you applying that same level of skepticism to the people who claim they have experienced 'hells' and other 'afterlife illusions'?
Yes.
So you accept that it may well be that what they experienced is not something true or real?



- a slave of Christ

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #188

Post by Diagoras »

tam wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:24 pmA 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.
<bolding mine>

I've read through the whole (currently 19 pages) thread, just to check that you're not being asked to repeat yourself - always tedious - so would you object to a few questions coming from a point of reason and logic at least? For a start:
  • How often do you talk to Christ, and is it fairly regular or predictable (e.g. always late at night, etc)?
    Who generally initiates the conversation?
    Does the conversation usually proceed along 'question and answer' lines? How long might a typical conversation last?
    How often does Christ instruct you to do something very specific (e.g. "write to your father today", "read 2 Kings 6:28-29", etc) and how often is it couched in general or allegorical terms (e.g. "pour out your love to all", "you will find peace", etc.)?
    Have you ever had an ambiguous or unusual response that could be open to your personal interpretation? If so, what did you do?
    Has Christ ever said outright anything comparable to "I won't tell you / You're not to know that"?
    Have you asked him when he's returning to Earth? If so, what was his reply, and how specific was it?
    Have you ever asked him to explain a particular bible passage? If so, what was his reply, and how specific was it?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #189

Post by tam »

Peace to you Diagoras, and to you all,
Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:54 am
tam wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:24 pmA 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.
<bolding mine>

I've read through the whole (currently 19 pages) thread, just to check that you're not being asked to repeat yourself - always tedious - so would you object to a few questions coming from a point of reason and logic at least?
Sure, but also love, right?
For a start:
  • How often do you talk to Christ, and is it fairly regular or predictable (e.g. always late at night, etc)?
He is always with me, so I tend to talk to Him all the time, either in words or in spirit. There is nothing predictable (per your example) for Him speaking, though, same as with anyone speaking. Any time, day or night, any place.
Who generally initiates the conversation?
Either.
Does the conversation usually proceed along 'question and answer' lines? How long might a typical conversation last?
He is the Teacher, and teachers teach, so sometimes question and answer (well, often question answered with a question, to help one think and reason and understand for oneself). Often just a single exchange, sometimes a few. There are no set limits, same as with any other conversation.

Sometimes it is just understanding that has been given, a knowing down to the bones.

How often does Christ instruct you to do something very specific (e.g. "write to your father today", "read 2 Kings 6:28-29", etc) and how often is it couched in general or allegorical terms (e.g. "pour out your love to all", "you will find peace", etc.)?
I don't have an answer for how often... except to say whenever needed (no doubt I have missed some though, from not listening). Nothing allegorical that I can recall.

For example:

One night after work, I noticed that one of my co-workers was down. I knew he had some serious problems and I could see that he was really down. But I was SO tired after work that night, I just wanted to go home. And that is what I was going to do until my Lord said to me, "Is that what love would do?" I mean, obviously that is not what love would do - see someone in need and ignore them - so I stayed with him. He later said he had been in a really bad place, but because I stayed and talked him through some stuff, he never did anything to harm himself. But that wasn't due to me. That was all due to my Lord who reminded me what love would do, what I SHOULD be doing.

Another time, I was actually at a JW memorial meeting (another story). While waiting to speak to the 'elder' who had given a talk, I chatted with one of the other members who I had met years back. He used to be so fully of energy and joy, but I could see that it was gone from him. I won't mention what he said it was, but what I said to him before I left that night was, "I hope things get better for you."

Well, as I was driving home, my Lord said to me, "Is that what I have taught you? To just [tell someone you hope things get better], but do nothing to help?" I don't recall the exact words in the [..], but that is the gist. And of course the answer was, no. He has not taught me to just wish someone well, but do nothing - not even offer - to help. So I went back (another day) and asked if there was anything I could do to help, anything at all.


Have you ever had an ambiguous or unusual response that could be open to your personal interpretation? If so, what did you do?
Dreams can often be ambiguous (and some dreams are just regular dreams). What I do is... I do not interpret them. I wait until my Lord makes clear their meaning (even if it might not come for years). In the meantime, I 'chew' and ponder, and often learn other useful things along the way. You know that saying about how the journey can be more beneficial than the destination? I don't know if that is entirely accurate, but certainly the journey can be at least as beneficial, and even oftentimes essential because of what you pick up along the way to help you arrive at your destination.
Has Christ ever said outright anything comparable to "I won't tell you / You're not to know that"?
The closest I can think of is when I was curious about others' sin (if it even was a sin), though I could not actually form the question to ask, because I knew (the spirit given me knew) that it was NOT my business. I could not ask the question.
Have you asked him when he's returning to Earth? If so, what was his reply, and how specific was it?
No, I have not asked. He will return when He returns, according to the Father's set times. If He wants me to know, then He will tell me.
Have you ever asked him to explain a particular bible passage? If so, what was his reply, and how specific was it?
I tend not to ask those questions (if He wants me to know something, He will tell me), but I have wondered about some passages, and received understanding on those. But I am more a 'listen to His voice' person, than I am a 'bible person'.

As a couple examples from what is written:

I understand what some of the symbolism represents in Revelation - not because I figured it out, but because my Lord told me (or confirmed to me what another of His servants shared as He gave them). For example, one time in a dream, I was seeing something just as it is described in Revelation, but I could not remember what the symbol represented, and so I asked in my dream - what are these again, Lord, I forget... and they immediately changed into what they represented. That was pretty specific, lol.

I know from my Lord that Simon Lazarus is the disciple Christ loved (one of the twelve apostles, the author of "John", and so also an eyewitness). A sister of mine had shared this some time back and so I heard it from her first, and though it made perfect sense to me, my dear Lord confirmed it to me one day while I was reading the passage where Lazarus had died.

My Lord's relationship and love with Mary, Martha and Lazarus is actually a beautiful account. Simon Lazarus and Mary and Martha took my dear Lord in when He had 'no place to lay His head'. As a Pharisee, Simon (Lazarus) also could have shunned (or worse) his sister Mary, but he loved her and he let that love surpass the written law (and there is no law against love). He could not approve of her actions, but he never cast her out either or shunned her. Later his fellow Pharisees shunned him though (because of his illness, which they would have believed made him unclean - think Lazarus and the Rich Man, because that is who the parable is about and it was directed at those Pharisees).




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

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #190

Post by Diagoras »

tam wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:36 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:54 amI've read through the whole (currently 19 pages) thread, just to check that you're not being asked to repeat yourself - always tedious - so would you object to a few questions coming from a point of reason and logic at least?
Sure, but also love, right?
I intend my questions to be respectful, but I can't honestly say they are 'coming from a point of love' - that's too nebulous a description.

I am certainly appreciative of you answering all my questions, and for (I feel) being as helpful as possible to further my understanding. What you've written has made the picture in my mind of what you experience when you talk to Christ that bit clearer - thank you.

You said, "He is always with me, so I tend to talk to Him all the time, either in words or in spirit." and elaborated on a few other things, e.g. that either of you might initiate conversation, that it's often just a single exchange, and often a question answered with a question (as befits a teacher). You also clarified:

Sometimes it is just understanding that has been given, a knowing down to the bones.
* Does this 'knowing' feel like a sort of 'A-ha!', like suddenly seeing a picture in a different light, or when an answer to a puzzle 'clicks'? Or is it a gradual, "I might be sure... I think I'm sure... I AM sure!" process?

Something that intrigued me when I asked you how often Christ instructs you to do something specific: you said:

I don't have an answer for how often... except to say whenever needed (no doubt I have missed some though, from not listening). Nothing allegorical that I can recall.
* Are you saying that sometimes Christ is at times talking to you 'when needed', but you don't listen properly? Is that due to being distracted, or something like that?

Your example of the co-worker being down and you being told "Is that what love would do?" actually reinforces my initial supposition that Christ's words to you might be heard like that. It sounds rather like an 'inner voice of conscience' of someone who lives by strong personal principles of caring for others - a description that I imagine could well apply to you. Same thing actually, with your JW memorial meeting story.

Moving to my question about ambiguous or unusual responses, you replied (in part):

Dreams can often be ambiguous (and some dreams are just regular dreams). What I do is... I do not interpret them. I wait until my Lord makes clear their meaning (even if it might not come for years). In the meantime, I 'chew' and ponder, and often learn other useful things along the way.
* I'm puzzled by a couple of things here: firstly, whether there's still a clear distinction between a 'regular dream' and an 'ambiguous message from Christ'. Secondly, are you learning these 'other useful things' from external sources unrelated to Christ? Wouldn't that suggest that you are in fact 'working things out for yourself' over time? Do you ascribe all your personal insights to Christ's teachings, no matter their level of ambiguity?

Another rather telling response came when I asked, "Has Christ ever said outright anything comparable to "I won't tell you / You're not to know that?" You replied:

The closest I can think of is when I was curious about others' sin (if it even was a sin), though I could not actually form the question to ask, because I knew (the spirit given me knew) that it was NOT my business. I could not ask the question.
* Didn't this feel quite uncomfortable (unsettling)? You must have realised that Christ would have been able to read your thoughts and know that you were curious about something that you knew was 'none of your business'. Did you feel you have to confess or apologise to Christ for this? And would you agree that (broadly), the idea of a 'guilty conscience' might feel very similar for many people who try to live a 'good life' (however they perceive it)?

You also answered my last two questions pretty much as I expected. Paraphrasing you slightly, you "tend not to ask <specific> questions", but instead 'listen to his voice'. Would you accept a mild criticism from a scientifically-minded person such as myself that the surest way to test the reality of something is to ask as specific questions as possible?

For instance, the kind of person who claims to be able to talk to the dead (and typically charges money to help people 'connect' to past relatives) never confirms specific details to prove their methods. You might hear "He's remembering something around water", for example - which could refer to any number of family vacations - but never "He's confirming that he was a midshipman aboard the 'Charlotte Grey' from 1936 to 1941". I'd hope you can see that a skilled charlatan might use the former, but never anything like the latter in a private reading.

The closest you got to anything specific was deciphering some symbolism in a dream of Revelation:
I understand what some of the symbolism represents in Revelation - not because I figured it out, but because my Lord told me (or confirmed to me what another of His servants shared as He gave them). For example, one time in a dream, I was seeing something just as it is described in Revelation, but I could not remember what the symbol represented, and so I asked in my dream - what are these again, Lord, I forget... and they immediately changed into what they represented. That was pretty specific, lol.
I've seen a response from you in another thread (will have to go and check the details) claiming to have been told by Christ what the symbolism in Revelation means. And in the recent '144,000' thread, you did suggest that you'd found studying such symbolism to be one of your least favourite subjects. I hypothesise that having such symbolism 'explained' to you in dream form is simply a way of getting over those feelings of displeasure in studying them in more conventional ways.

In summary, thanks again for taking the time to answer. Not many people would do so like you did. As this is another fairly long post, I just went back and placed an asterisk next to where I've asked a follow-up question. Hopefully not too onerous! At some point, I may feel inclined to open a thread on interpreting Revelation, so as a final question, is that something you'd be interested in debating - given your unique perspective?

Post Reply