Does Christ speak and how?

[tam]

May you have peace!

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

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

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


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


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

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

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



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

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

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

"Yes Lord," he answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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



My own personal testimony


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

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

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


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

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

**

I was asked how does He speak

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

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


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



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


**

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

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



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

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


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



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


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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 114 by tam]

I'll be responding to you later tam, just not now, since I've got to get to work. Just in case you think I've left this thread.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 114 by tam]

I don't think this is a language issue. I do think this may be a comprehension issue.

Christ said that everything HE does, He learned from His Father. Calls God His Father.

He, however, reflects His Father perfectly. So that if we see Christ, we are also seeing God. Not because they are the same being. But because Christ is as His Father is.

I'll comment on this, then I have to go. I'll get back to the rest later on this evening.

Again, another problem of tam language. Imagine instead of Christ and God, we're in the Marvel Comics universe, you and I are just two random people on the street and I suggest that to know who Spiderman is, you have to know who Peter Parker is first. I say that Peter Parker knows all about Spiderman, he takes his photos, he knows what Spiderman is like, etc. He presents Spiderman as a hero through selling his photos to the newspaper he works for. Imagine if I described Peter as being the Voice, the Truth, the Image of Spiderman.
Of course, we in the real world who've read the comics or seen the movies know that Peter Parker IS Spiderman.

So to sum up - it could be that you are correct, but it could also be that the RCC priest is correct, Christ IS God, in somewhat the same way that Parker IS Spiderman. I cannot fault either of you for your interpretations of Christian scripture.
However, what if someone went around in our world saying Parker ISN'T Spiderman? Never has been? Should we entertain this claim? Or should we point out to him that he is obviously being an idiot, since there is overwhelming evidence pointing to P is S?

[Divine Insight]

I don't think this is a language issue. I do think this may be a comprehension issue.

Christ said that everything HE does, He learned from His Father. Calls God His Father.

He, however, reflects His Father perfectly. So that if we see Christ, we are also seeing God. Not because they are the same being. But because Christ is as His Father is.

I would have no problem with this ideology at all if Jesus was being held up as a stand-alone religious theology.

The problem I have with this view is that it is not compatible with the overall big picture of Jesus being the sacrificial lamb and Son of Yahweh as described in the Old Testament.

In other words Tam, if you were willing to suggest that the Father God of Jesus is something other than the God described in the Old Testament then we could entertain this view of Jesus.

However there are extreme problems with this.

The first and most obvious problem is that Jesus himself is portrayed as having acknowledged that the Temple the Pharisees were preaching in was indeed the "House of his Father".

In other words, Jesus is already condoning the idea that Orthodox Judaism is the correct picture of God and represents God.

Jesus also argued with the Pharisees over the meaning of those original scriptures treating them as though they did indeed have something to do with God's Commandments and directives.

Finally, the New Testament has Jesus himself quoting the jot and tittle thing, proclaiming that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law.

So the very stories of Jesus have Jesus basically supporting the ideology that the Old Testament (or at least the Torah) came from God.

For me personally this is an extreme problem. Because Jesus neither acted anything like the God described in the Old Testament, nor did he himself stand by those jots and tittles.

The Old Testament demands (not merely suggests), but demands that we seek an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in order to rid the world of the evil around us. Jesus taught precisely the opposite even citing this original directive that he was replacing. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and to not resist evil.

Therefore we have a major difference between Jesus and Yahweh. This becomes further complicated because the Old Testament also proclaims that Yahweh is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So where is there any justification for Yahweh do dramatically changing his directives to mankind through Jesus?

Not only that but the New Testament has Jesus also proclaiming that he did not come to change the laws. Why would he make that claim if that's precisely what he was setting out to do?

So it doesn't make any sense to proclaim that Jesus reflects the Father God perfectly whist simultaneously holding up the ideology that the Old Testament is an accurate account of the original Father God.

I might note here also, the Jesus violated the directive of the original God concerning the stoning of sinners to death as well. Jesus refused to stone the woman at the well to death and taught people not to cast the first stone. That's in direct violation with the original commandments of the original Father God.

~~~~~

So it would seem to me that if you want to create a "Father God" who is like Jesus you would need to reject that Jesus had anything to do with the Old Testament God. But that itself is highly problematic and inconsistent with the claims of the New Testament.

So I don't see how this claim about Jesus could be supported via scriptures. The scriptures themselves demand that Yahweh, (the God described in the Old Testament) was the Father God that Jesus was claiming to know.

So while I agree with you that it might be "nice" if a religion could be built up on the idea that the Father God is like Jesus, I just don't see where that scenario can be made to stick with respect to the actual Jesus story.

It seems to me that this is nothing more than an unsupportable wish that the Old Testament God would just go away and we could create a new God entirely from Jesus alone. But there is no justification for that approach. That is clearly a hope and dream that is simply not compatible with the Jesus story at all.

So this is why I cannot accept those types of suggestions. And I've heard many people trying to do this. They want to create a Father God from Jesus rather than the other way around. But the Jesus story definitely has it the other way around.

There's simply no way to dismiss the God of the Old Testament and try to replace him with Jesus. Even though many Christians no doubt which that could be done.

I have even given that thought. I would be nice if it could be done, but it's just not possible. Jesus is nothing if not the Son of Yahweh. He simply cannot be made into a stand alone God who represents the "Real God". That isn't compatible with the New Testament narrative, pure and simple.

It's just not doable.

[KenRU]

Your questions:

First, ask.

"No one comes to me unless the Father draws them."

If you truly want to come to Christ, then ask for that. If you truly want ears to hear, then ask that you be given them. That you may hear Christ.

Asking would demonstrate at least some faith. (Unless you are not asking sincerely, such as if you are asking with the desire to prove him false, or to be able to say 'see... I asked, nothing happened, told you so'.)"

Done. I spent 20+ years as a Catholic. I believed Christ was the son of god.

I did ask.

No answer was forthcoming.

My question was actually relating to right now, since your original question was also about right now. But okay. The reason one must ask is because no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them.

Then why was I not worthy when I was a believer?

Now, I need to put something out there for you to consider (if you choose). You being a Catholic meant that you were looking at 'her' for truth, answers, etc - and 'her' voice interferes with His voice.

Um, who’s “her�?

Especially if she is the one you actually love(d).

Not sure what you know about Catholicism, but the education that was stressed to me was believing in and following the lessons of Christ. And the Sacraments of course, lol.

We listen to and obey the one we love, and so we show who it is we truly love by who it is we obey.

Agreed, I was taught to listen to and accept Christ. My question still stands.

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

Odd how that was not what I was taught, wouldn’t you say?

What happened to Matthew 18.20?

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.�

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

Please cite one lie. Mind you, I think all religions assert claims they could not possibly know are true, but I am curious as to your perceived lies told by the RCC.

She also has a lot of blood on her hands.

All of Christianity has blood on its hands.

You seem to be out of her now. But you may want to consider, again if you choose, that you may not have heard His voice while you were in 'her', because that would have meant that you needed to come OUT of her; and that is not something you would have wanted to hear.

All religions can be described this way. None are exempt from this logic.

People often dismiss that voice... due to fear that this means they are losing their faith. Religion has instilled and nurtured that fear, for what should be obvious reasons. But Christ does not just call His people to come out of 'her' (and her daughters). He also calls us to come to HIM.

You paint Catholicism as this damaged form of Christianity. They, as you may suspect, claim to have biblical support for their belief system. All forms of Christianity claim to have biblical support for their belief system. You claim to have biblical support for your belief system.

Seeing a pattern here?

"Second, obey and listen to Christ.

If anyone loves me, they will obey my commands. My Father will love them and we will come and make our home with them.

Follow His commands. Keep His word/teachings. The promise is that THEN they will come to you and make their home with(in) you, by means of holy spirit."

Well I can't listen if nobody is talking, but if you mean follow his words and teachings from the bible, yes, I did that as well.

Did you follow His words (even if just those written)... or did you follow 'her' words, and what she said His words meant?

That will depend on what you think the difference is between your interpretation and that of the RCC.

From the catholic catechism:

"The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.

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

But you trust Matthew right?

Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

You disagree that faith in god (as well as Christ) is important?

Mathew seemed to think the Holy Ghost was very relevant:
11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"

Why would stressing faith in god and the means to receive Christ’s (and God’s) message be considered a bad thing by you?

"Third, learn to speak and hear His language. Because He speaks the language of Truth.

Man is familiar with and too often prefers the lies that he tells himself, or that this world and others tell him. Christ will tell you the truth."

You might have to explain this a bit more. The only way we can do this is via lessons from the bible. Which, as I stated before, I did do.

This is not just about spiritual truth, but simply truth. Honesty, including to and about ourselves. That can be something we tend to shy away from, often without even realizing it. Sometimes from pride, sometimes from fear. Unless we know the truth, we cannot bring ourselves in line with the truth. We have a hard time hearing truth... unless the truth is what we already believe and want to be true.

Christ called the Pharisees hypocrites. Because that was true. Hearing truth, they have a choice what they will do with that. Ignore it, justify themselves, blame someone else (few people want to hear that they are doing a bad job)... or take a look in the mirror, correct themselves, ask forgiveness, and do better?

The truth is that God never instituted another religion after Christ. He put His spirit in His Son, and told us to listen to that Son. There are very, very few people able or willing to hear that. Some due to fear that their religion has instilled in them to begin with.

And yet, you and the Catholics believe in the veracity of the same gospels.

I guess truth is subjective.

So what I think you have said is that your past experience in this particular daughter, and the silence that you received while in her, is the reason that you cannot ask now?

You could argue that, though I would disagree. I could easily (if I were a Catholic still) argue that you are misled as well, and cite verse after biblical verse showing you the error of your ways. My point here is that it is easy to say: your religion gets it wrong, mine gets it right. Doesn’t make it a good argument though.

I can understand this being a reason you will not ask now. Just not the reason you cannot ask now.

Well, that would only be if you underestimate my desire to know the truth. It is quite easy for me to shrug off the shackles of catholic mysticism. But, as I said earlier, before I can believe in Christ or god, I will need evidence first. It is foolish to do so otherwise.

I am not judging you or your decision, or your experiences or your choices. I truly am not, and I hope that you can receive what I have shared in the spirit of truth that it is given.

How about “in the spirit of the quest for truth?� You and I disagree on who really knows the truth : )

But this... this is the reason that 'she' exists. To cost people their faith. To trap people in her (and so never coming to Christ, Himself)... or to keep them from coming to Him after they leave 'her' (or any other daughter they might turn to before they finally decide enough is enough). To make people so exhausted that just the thought of asking is... well... painful and exhausting.

Um, this is beginning to sound a little paranoid, sorry. In my experience, Catholicism (as it was taught to me) stresses the importance of Christ first and foremost.

Around the time I was ending a bible study with a particular religion (due to something my Lord showed me they taught that I had missed), and I could not figure out what was true, or which religion was the true religion (there is no true religion) - and I was so frustrated. I paced the floor, I was angry that God would not just come down and tell me what to do. I was 'figuratively' shaking my fist at Him. But it was not until I let go of all that, and just surrendered, putting myself in His hands, and said... whatever You will. No matter how long it takes, please just lead me where You want me to be.

He led me to His Son.

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

And may you be given ears to hear if you wish them, so as to get a sense of these things, and to hear the Spirit and the Bride saying to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life."

I appreciate the well-wishes, tam. Very kind.

Odd, how my biggest complaint about religion is that it creates an “us vs them� mentality.

You claim no religion is true, yet it seems your belief system seems to be just as guilty of this intolerance as the rest.

To me, that is a very big bright red flag. They all claim to know what god wants. And everyone else gets it wrong.

All the best

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

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

You have no doubt at all...yet you have little to no information on our lives to go on, other than what I have divulged on this site (I can't remember if Ken has done the same)?

Nope, no voices. None. Nada. Zilch. Despite many prayers and supplications offered.

Yet you are suggesting that a being infinitely more grand, important and powerful is going unheard by myself and Ken.
This doesn't make any sense.

Apparently, we're not worthy : )

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 125 by KenRU]

Okay I'm back, but I just want to comment on one thing KenRu said, first, before I get back to tam.

Not sure what you know about Catholicism, but the education that was stressed to me was believing in and following the lessons of Christ. And the Sacraments of course, lol.

Exactly. Growing up Roman Catholic, everything was centered on Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. In fact, now that I think about it, my own education had little to nothing to do with the Popes or the cardinals or being loyal to Christ's supposed vicar.
What I remember as a young child in primary school (ages 5-12) I remember reading Bible stories in class (though not direct from the Bible). I remember reading about Abraham, the Binding of Isaac, the Good Samaritan (thus teaching about charity), the birth of Jesus. When I went into secondary (what Americans call high school), I remember learning about other religions (Islam, Buddhism) and I remember a few lessons that were spent reading from the Bible (Good News translation). I know for a fact that we read the book of Job. Can't remember what the other Bible lessons involved though. I think we read the story of Ruth? Not sure.
Long story short, my education in the Roman Catholic Church involved learning about Jesus or about God the Father mainly. None of it was about the popes or about being loyal to this one mother church versus all those other churches and denominations.

Agreed, I was taught to listen to and accept Christ. My question still stands.

Same here. We were taught the RCC theology about the trinity (which tam disagrees with), but at no point in a lesson do I recall that the justification for this teaching being a pope or the popes being brought up at all. The trinity was taught, and it was supported by Bible passages (such as that "we are one" quote).

Odd how that was not what I was taught, wouldn’t you say?

Ditto. While I have to admit that I wasn't really aware that there was even such a thing as a different denomination of Christianity until I think I was about 9 or ten years old (as in, I thought that there was just the one body of churches that all taught the same thing about Jesus everywhere), neither was it stressed in my education that we HAVE to be loyal to the RCC, to the popes, bishops and cardinals. No, it was just RCC interpretation of scripture and their dogma.

Please cite one lie. Mind you, I think all religions assert claims they could not possibly know are true, but I am curious as to your perceived lies told by the RCC.

I would like to know as well. Is it tam's contention that the priesthood of the RCC are all willingly telling lies? There's a difference between being mistaken and promoting something you think is true, versus telling something as true that you know to be a lie.
I won't be the first to admit that not all popes were nice figures (Rodrigo Borgia comes to mind, a.k.a. Alexander VI

You could argue that, though I would disagree. I could easily (if I were a Catholic still) argue that you are misled as well, and cite verse after biblical verse showing you the error of your ways. My point here is that it is easy to say: your religion gets it wrong, mine gets it right. Doesn’t make it a good argument though.

Precisely what I've been saying all along. Both tam's and the RCC positions on matters of theology look equally as valid. They can both play this Bible verse game all day long if they want and I would have no way at all of picking a winner.

tam said

I can understand this being a reason you will not ask now. Just not the reason you cannot ask now.

Because (I don't know what the timeline is like for Ken) I stopped believing when I was around 12. I am now in my late 20's. If the Christ that you speak of was going to make himself heard, he surely would have done so long before now, back when I was still asking. I've said it before and I'll say it yet again - I asked, I knocked, I pleaded.
Yet nothing happened. What reason do I have to think that if I try this again, on December 10th 2015, that the result will be different to the thousands of times before?
If as tam says, my RCC background was somehow preventing me from hearing Jesus, why would Christ wait almost 20 years? Why not when I was 12? Or 15? Or 18? Why wait (and continue to wait, since it still hasn't happened) at this point in my life when I am a strict rationalist skeptic? I wasn't those three things right away at age 12. I went through phases, where I believed different things, as I learned more and more. There was a period where I was a deist, for example.

In my experience, Catholicism (as it was taught to me) stresses the importance of Christ first and foremost.

Again ditto, as I explained up above. The only time in my childhood that I learned about the popes was when John Paul II died, and I wrote and edited a biography of him for my school's annual student publication.
That was it. There was very little, if not no, emphasis placed on Mother Church. Rather the teachings about the theology behind the Trinity and stories from the Bible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 114 by tam]

Okay I FINALLY get around to doing this.

I understood from your post that you though baptism of fire meant literally setting a person on fire so that they are burned. That is incorrect.

But I cannot be faulted for interpreting it as involving fire, as in a naked flame. Okay, (in the case of your interpretation actually being true) I'd be mistaken, but it's an understandable mistake, right?

Remember the burning bush... that appeared as though to be on fire, but there was no heat; it was not burning?

But the story indicated that there was fire involved at some level, just that the plant was somehow immune to its effects. When one reads the story, even you, we picture a plant engulfed in flames but surviving nevertheless.

The tongues of fire may have looked like your picture. I do not have knowledge of that.

Correct, you don't, since neither of us were around 2,000 or so years ago. Still, why haven't you asked Christ this? What does he have to say? Surely Christ would have anticipated this very point that you are reading and would have told you not to write what I just quoted you as saying, and should have already have told you what the 'tongues of fire' looked like.

Yes, but what something is called and what something is, are not necessarily the same thing.

Agreed.

Because that is what people WANT. That is what people CHOOSE. He gives them their choice.

This doesn't answer the question. Apparently, if the RCC teachings are so bad and can only lead to negative consequences, why is Christ apparently this very quiet voice at the back of the mind? Why isn't he louder? You just said that he is quiet, and that people choose the RCC teachings, but this doesn't answer the question of WHY is he quiet?

Hopefully I have explained better as to 'fire'. I can't explain everything that I have learned from my Lord on the matter, sorry.

No you have not, and again, I find it quite curious that apparently you are unable to explain something, despite indicating in earlier posts that Christ tells you what to write. I wonder why?

I have not said this. I have said opposite this. If you could find the post where I have said this (who knows, maybe I made a typo somewhere), then your frustration has merit, and I will apologize.

I'm like...90% sure you did in fact say at some point over the past few months, either to me or to someone else, who asked this that yes, you do indeed hear Christ as a voice, just like anyone else's voice. However, I have to admit, I am unable (at the present time) to actually quote you on this, or to give a link where you said it. I could be mistaken, but again, I cannot be faulted for thinking this of you, what with your constant talk of hearing Christ, hearing his voice, having ears to hear.
If any one else is reading this and can indeed give me a quote or a link, I'd be grateful.

No, that story indicates that he was filled with zeal (call it anger if you must, I would not blame Him for it) at those who were fleecing the innocent, using His Father and his Father's house as a means to profit at the expense of sincere people simply trying to worship God.

Yes, and it indicates Jesus being violent and causing property damage and attacking people. Whether or not he is was 'justified' is beside the point. Someone can think oh, I dunno, only pure morally righteous people ought to be allowed in church, those who uphold the commandments, and thus point to this and say "Those homosexuals shouldn't be in here!" and chase them out. When later called on it, he can say he was only emulating Jesus. Sure the groups are different (moneylenders versus homosexuals) but both groups are apparently doing something that God apparently is against.

It makes me sick to my stomach for the poor people who are being taken advantage of, misled... and all for the profit of the men misleading them.

In this we are united, except that I think of you as also being one of these people who has been misled. I have to remind you of your words. I remember you saying before that you had to have it pointed out to you by someone else that Christ was talking to you (which is still something I can't wrap my head around)

As for the whip of chords, there were also cattle to get moving out (cattle that were there to be slaughtered if the people were buying animials to sacrifice).

Okay, I'm going to reread the gospels (I'm using Good News today FYI). First thing I see in Matthew 21 - Jesus apparently orders two of his followers to steal a donkey and her colt. That's what it looks like to me. They are told to go ahead, find a donkey and her colt, take it and if their owner objects, say that Jesus needs it.
Anyway, moving on to the actual temple story itself...
It says that he overturned tables, and the stools of those who sold pigeons.
Let's see...John 2 says that the whip indeed was used on the animals, (the KJV isn't as clear on this, it doesn't indicate that the whip was used on the animals alone, so one could point to the KJV version of John 2 and not be faulted for saying that Jesus attacked people with a whip)
I'd imagine that a whip or some other weapon would be necessary to use here, as why would the moneylenders and the animal tradesmen flee if Jesus wasn't using a weapon? In my opinion, the story doesn't make sense unless Jesus attacked someone with a weapon.

There is no account that Christ caused physical injury to anyone, or any animal.

Depends on the translation. English Standard Version of John 2 has Jesus using the whip on the people ALONG with the animals.

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen.

And if there had been injuries, the Pharisees would have had reason to arrest Him or have Him arrested, and they did not.

This makes the story implausible to me, that he wasn't arrested for blasphemy then, but only later.

He also did not torture, murder, or imprison anyone. As the RCC has done, and other religions as well.

The point I was making was partly that an argument can certainly be made that Jesus himself was violent AND that, as per the RCC's teaching, Jesus is one with God a.k.a. Jesus = God. The same God spoken about in the Old Testament, where that God did all sorts of horrible things, including torture, murder and imprisonment (in case you're puzzled at that last one, I would certainly call telling the wandering Hebrews that they'll wander a desert for forty years and that a specific generation will not enter the Promised Land a form of imprisonment).
So there's no fault if a person who's faithful to RCC teachings at the time of the Crusades believed that it's well within God's nature to command armies into war against heathens.

He, however, reflects His Father perfectly. So that if we see Christ, we are also seeing God.

You still are doing the same thing. You write these phrases that, in almost all other cases, WOULD indicate that A and B are indeed one and the same, and yet saying that's not what you mean!
If I said that if you see Spiderman, you're also seeing Peter Parker, anyone, you included, would take that to mean that I think that Spiderman and Peter Parker are one and the same, they are the same person.
If you want to get your claim across clearer, please don't use all these phrases that tend to mean, in all other cases, the opposite of what you say you mean.

Oh, I don't think that is all on me, Rik.

This may sound like a he-said/she-said thing here, but I tend to be very careful with what I write. If I want you to think a certain meaning, I think carefully about what I say. If I type something, I read over it and if I discover that someone might interpret it differently to what I want them to, I will change the wording.
You apparently don't do this. You say all sorts of phrases, without giving thought to how easily your readers can misinterpret them. You do it over and over and over again and then wonder why everyone thinks you're saying the opposite to what you claim to actually mean.
If you don't want your readers to be confused, to misinterpret what you write, then be a lot clearer in what you write.

Yes, you hearing for yourself would be proof for you. Unless you do that or hear Him, then I can only offer my own testimony on what I have learned from Him, some reasoning and evidence of what others do (to show that they are in conflict with Christ), and what is written.

I don't have to offer more than that in this part of the forum.

You don't have to here, correct...but it would help your case immensely. It would get me to shut up for one thing. I would have to say I was wrong, that yes tam is indeed hearing a voice not her own, a voice belonging to an entity that does indeed know a great deal.

The bad fruit would be? Surely if you have an accusation you will bring it to light to that I may defend myself... or apologize if need be?

Bearing bad fruit =/= bearing no fruit at all. In my opinion, the RCC bears bad fruit (e.g. pedophilia scandals), while you and your beliefs bear no fruit at all, as in, other than your own testimony, you offer nothing at all.

A Christian should know, yes.

Why? What if a person is a follower of everything that you say here on this forum...except that they also believe that literal fire, a naked flame, is involved with baptism, or ought to be involved?
Is there anything else that a Christian should automatically know?
This is starting to sound like "They're not true Christians, those people over there. They don't know or believe the things that I, the true Christian, know".

I have very specifically said the opposite, and on numerous occasions.

While continuing to use phrases and imagery that in almost all other usages, indicates that the two nouns (whatever they may be) are the one being. It makes little sense to me to say the following two sentences within spitting distance of each other
"If you see Christ, you see God"..."Christ and God are not the same being, they are one in purpose".

is because that is the bias you already have of what a Christian believes and does.

I cannot outright deny this. My Roman Catholic childhood continues to and will probably continue to, play a role in how I look at the world. It may very well be that what I subconsciously think as the 'default' or 'standard' teachings of Christianity are those that the RCC teaches. Which again, I cannot be faulted on, given that there are 1 billion Catholics (and just in case someone wants to call me on it, no this wouldn't be an argument from popularity. I am not saying that these teachings are correct or true, just that this is what the largest denomination of this group called Christian believe)

I learn from Christ who does not teach as they teach. So please stop assuming that I believe as religion believes.

So much of what you have said about yourself sounds EXACTLY like what religion does. You say that a third party told you to listen to Christ, so what? A priest like character?
The RCC teaches this too (in the form of prayer).
You justify some of your positions by using the Bible...just like the religion you claim not to be a part of.
(If you haven't used the word or concept of faith at all, just like religion, I'd be very surprised)
Basically, from where I'm standing, you look and sound JUST like a religion. What would I call a roomful of tams? All of them saying they hear Christ? That word begins with an R.

You would be. I would not be.

And if a reader who's not familiar with your many claims to the contrary were to read that into what you wrote, who can blame them?

No. He had no need to write anything down. HE was going to keep teaching as the Spirit.

And be completely ineffectual at it, given that not once in my life can I claim to have ever heard him.

Where did the Son say, "listen to Peter"?

We could only say this with certainty if we could all hear Christ. But we can't. It may be that somewhere along the line Peter was named the leader of the Church, it may be that there were letters talking about this, but that these documents were lost to the sands of time.
I say that I don't believe precisely because there's a lack of positive evidence. I don't say it definitely didn't happen (that the wandering preacher Jesus named Peter the leader of the religion he founded), just that there's little to no evidence in favour of it.

That would depend. If I thought milk was actually juice, I might - not knowing any better - turn my nose up when I was offered real milk.

Reread that. You're not the one being offered milk. I'm asking YOU for milk. AFTER you promise to fulfill requests in a timely manner. So I ask you for some milk, only you never do give it to me.
It wouldn't make sense for me to then go around saying that you fulfill promises, right? Why would that be true, if you never give me the milk?

It is not a fallacy if it is true. And it is true, even in this faith, that some will say "Lord, Lord' but do not belong to Christ, and never did. It is also true that Christ warned that there would be false christs and false prophets.

Hence, the whole "Listen to my Son" thing.

But you have to show that it's not a fallacy, which you have not done (yeah I know, not in this part of the site). As for the whole "listen to my son" thing, that's a bit hard to do when the son is being quiet and for all intents and purposes, undetectable? How can I listen to a being I cannot detect at all? What reason do I have to believe that this being is even present or existed at all, other than from you and a book of stories?

If they were to say that Christ commanded them to persecute, torture, steal from, harm, and even murder Jews (as Christianity has done), then I would know that they did not hear from Him, by testing their claim.

Okay, and if you were to confront them, in front of a crowd, why should anyone elevate what you say above that of these guys (the persecutors and the torturers?) Imagine I'm in the crowd. I don't detect your Christ at all. The torturers say they do. You say you do. Without being able to detect Christ myself, how am I supposed to pick between the two of you. You might say "test of love" but that is in and of itself part of the claims (so its circular at this point - the test to prove your claim is itself part of your claims)

Explained above.

Countered by me above saying that there are various translations that indicate the whip was used on the animals alone, versus some translations that say it was used on people as well.

When Peter used a literal sword, harming one of those who came to arrest Christ, Christ rebuked Peter, and healed the injured man.

Okay, one could read into that that Christ wanted to show off his magic healing powers. Or that he didn't want Peter to get into trouble. It's certainly understandable to think that Christ only wanted non-violence in that situation only, and not to read it as a blanket condemnation of violence everywhere, not with all the other verses I've indicated.

He also said that His followers would BE kicked out of 'synagogues', shunned, mocked, insulted, even killed.

Didn't he say something along the lines of not changing the Jewish laws? So one could interpret that as Jesus meaning keep the laws about keeping Jewish holy sites pure, attack those who blaspheme.
Again, this is due to the messy and often times contradictory nature of the Bible.

What people choose to see and do from what is written - when there are two conflicting ideas - reveals some of what is in that person.

Agreed. We all read the Bible differently.

Except that the OT is not the Truth, Image, or Word of God. Nor is it free from error. So in order to get an accurate knowledge of God, one must look first to Christ.

I'm not confusing the Bible, the book, with the entities called Christ, Jesus or God. I'm saying that in the Bible, there all these phrases that can very easily be interpreted as meaning that the God from the Old Testament, the one that has stories talking about him ordering Hebrew armies into battle to slaughter everything they and keep women as sex slaves, is the same entity as this Jesus character.
Jesus himself, in the NT, on at least one occassion, upholds the OT. What is conspicuous by its absence is anything from Jesus indicating that the stories about the violence are all false.

There is no law against love; so it is never against the law to show someone love or mercy or forgiveness.

Except for all those times in the OT where God gives laws and commands to the Hebrews to do the exact opposite. No forgiveness for the Hebrews who dance before the golden bull (even though when they do the dancing, Moses hasn't come down from the mountain with the commandments yet, so technically, they can't be said to be guilty of breaking a law they haven't received yet!), just death. No forgiveness for the man who picked up sticks - he gets a stoning! Onan pulls out rather than father children that won't be recognised as his own - he gets killed by God himself.

Actually, I said no one was going around ordering these men (the apostates) killed.

Jesus would have been regarded as an apostate, would he not? He spoke against the teachings of the religion of his day, did he not? (while also promising not one jot or tittle would change...), that it was wrong on some parts, and that he was himself the fulfilment of prophecy or something along those lines?

[tam]

Peace to you DI!

I won't be around a lot for the next while, but here are some things that you (and others) might consider concerning who or what accurately reveals God, as well as some of your concerns regarding various points in the law.

In other words, Jesus is already condoning the idea that Orthodox Judaism is the correct picture of God and represents God.

Do you think that perhaps there is something that you have not considered? That the people (and the scribes and the teachers) did not always know their God as well as they thought they did?

Consider the verse from Jeremiah:

"How can you say 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Jeremiah 8:8

There are errors written into the OT... by the scribes/pens.

Christ also said, "Woe to you, scribes!"

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of gehenna as yourselves. "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?

Not only does He speak 'woe to you scribes' (and explains to them what they hypocrisy entails), but also calls these religious leaders blind guides. Why? Because they do not see... they have no understanding; and they lead people into their own errors, and these errors in understanding are what get passed down. That was not a new thing then, and it is no different with religion today.


So that is one point. Another point is that some laws were given that were not the truth from God, but that were an allowance Moses made for the people whose hearts were too hard to hear or do better.

For example:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:3-9

And another translation makes the meaning even more clear:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.


Now the specific matter under discussion here was about divorce, but the truth in this is regarding the concessions made to the people because of their hard hearts. So that in this example, instead of a woman being abused, neglected, abandoned, etc (not to mention being placed in a position where she could not remarry even if she was abandoned or cast off, because she was still married); Moses allowed the men to divorce their wives, but they had to give her a certificate of divorce.

If you can grasp the underlying truth and apply that to the rest of the laws - that some laws (not just this one) were given as a concession to a people who could or would hear and do no better because of their hard hearts... then you can start to understand why some of them are in conflict with Christ; but that it is Christ who reveals the TRUTH .


As for the woman caught in adultery, Christ did not break the law in showing her mercy or in granting her forgiveness... He surpassed what the law said one could do... with LOVE and MERCY. And there is NO law against love. Besides even that, God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Christ said, in reference to what His Father wanted:

Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

I desire mercy, not sacrifice, is written from Hosea 6:6.


And as you said, since God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then God does not change. Which means, if Christ is His Truth and His Word and His Image, then God has always been as Christ reveals Him to be.



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

[Divine Insight]

Do you think that perhaps there is something that you have not considered? That the people (and the scribes and the teachers) did not always know their God as well as they thought they did?

I have considered all of these things in great depth Tam.

It is my conclusion that a supposedly omniscient omnipotent God should have been able to keep his own religious authorities under control. So as far as I'm concerned there is no excuse for a supposedly intervening omnipotent God to have ever allowed his Temple to fall into the hands of corrupt priests in the first place.

Moreover, even if that had happened, this God should have been able to correct this problem without having to "sacrifice his only begotten Son" in an act that could only be described as an act of extreme desperation.

So, yes Tam, I have considered this theology to the depths of hell and back.

There is no excuse for any God who would need to desperately have his own corrupt priests brutally crucify his innocent Son.

~~~~

Moreover, let's assume that there is any truth to these fables? What must we conclude then? Well, for one thing, we must conclude that no one who claims to speak for this God can be trusted. Absolutely no one.

After all, this God has already shown us that we can't trust his Temples or his Priests. So there would be no reason for us to trust any church, preacher, or temple. In fact, there would be no reason for us to even trust the New Testament Gossip.

This God would have shown us clearly that he himself is not trustworthy and that we cannot trust him.

And as you said, since God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then God does not change. Which means, if Christ is His Truth and His Word and His Image, then God has always been as Christ reveals Him to be.

But Christianity doesn't preserve this God being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On the contrary because the sacrificial lamb of Jesus was offered as a penal substitution for the sins of man, this means that prior to that time man needed to atone for his own sins through the blood sacrifice of actual lambs.

So Christianity is a God who has CHANGED dramatically. Not only in how he deals with the sins of man, but also in how he expects us to behave. Prior to Jesus we were commanded to judge people to be sinners and stone them to death, with no mercy and no pity. But Jesus CHANGED that, and now we are not to cast the first stone. This is a complete turn around. A God who has CHANGED dramatically in what he expects from humans.

Jesus also CHANGED "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" specifically referring this teaching, and taught that we should turn the other cheek and resist not evil. The original commandment to demand an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was specifically explained to be because we must put evil away from our pretense. And now Jesus is teaching us not to resist evil.

These are complete turnarounds. And CHANGED God to be certain.

~~~~~

Finally when you suggest that I have not considered things you are assuming quite a bit. I have been considering potential apologies for this religion for over half a century, and I find them all extremely lacking.

How about if you consider the following:

The Biblical God never succeeds in anything he sets out to do. Nothing he ever does has any positive or productive results.

This God curses the evil Serpent in the Garden of Eden to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days. The Christian Book of Revelation clearly tells us that this original Serpent was Satan himself. So we can ask, did this curse on Satan by God have any positive or productive effect? Clearly not, because the whole rest of the way through the Bible Satan continues to cause just as much trouble as ever before.

This God curses Eve to have greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth as part of her punishment for having disobeyed him. Again, we can ask, did this curse have any productive or positive outcome? Apparently not. Things still continued to go down hill anyway.

This God waits until everything gets totally out of control (his hallmark by the way), before finally flooding out all of many kind except a few sinners who he decides to offer Grace.

Did this solve the problem of sin or result in anything productive or positive? No. Things continue to go downhill right back to precisely as bad as they had always been.

This God commands his people to commit mass genocide on the Canaanites. Does this solve any problems? No.

This God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of Salt. Does this solve any problems? No.

Where does this God ever do anything intelligent? Where does anything he ever does result in anything positive, constructive, or productive?

Notice also that every action this God takes is violent, gory, and brutal. Never do we ever see this supposedly all-wise loving benevolent God doing anything intelligent that actually works.

We we get to the New Testament this brutal violent character of God doesn't change one iota. You might be tempted to claim that Jesus taught love, peace, and all that is good. But Jesus would be meaningless in the bigger picture. It's the Father God who is actually in control, and he's still up to his brutal violent unproductive ways.

This Father God is the one who arranges to have Jesus brutally and violently crucified to supposedly pay for the sins of mankind. Sins that this God clearly could not deal with up to this point. And even this final act of extreme desperation is an act of gory violence having his supposedly innocent Son brutally butchered to pay for our sins.

This also sends to us the message that brutally beating an innocent person somehow justifies and makes good bad behaviors. That's a terrible message to be sending humans.

Also, what good did it do? Even according to Jesus himself only FEW will be saved, and the vast majority will be condemned to "Everlasting Punishment".

So it's a story of a God who frantically tried to solve the problem of sin using violent, crude, and brutal methods. Methods that were always extremely belated and never had any positive outcome.

It's a story of a God who apparently finally throws in the towel and gives up, sacrificing his only begotten son in what can only be seen as an extreme act of desperation to do what? To save a mere FEW souls?

This would be a God who is not only extremely desperate, but who is extreme inept as well. Many mere mortal men and women could teach this God an extremely powerful lesson in just a few words:

"Don't wait until things get totally out of control before you offer assistance"

And perhaps secondly:

"When looking to solve a problem try using productive, positive, and supporting actions, and never lose your temper."

These would be two pieces of advice the God of the Bible would do very well to employ.

~~~~~

So yes Tam, I have indeed considered this mythology in extreme depth.

My conclusion is quite simple. The people who wrote these fables have no clue how to deal with problems effectively. And these fables clearly cannot have anything to do with any actual supreme being because they simply aren't intelligent enough. They teach extremely unintelligent and immoral principles, right up to, and including, the principle that brutally butchering an innocent person on a pole could somehow make up for wrong-doings.

Even most children know better than to think that two wrongs make a right.

But evidently the God of the Bible has no clue. He seems to think that having a perfectly innocent demigod brutally beaten and nailed to a pole will somehow atone all the bad things that all humans have done.

Hardly.

Christianity is a paradigm that is based upon extremely poor ethics.

How anyone can argue to support it is beyond me.

How anyone would actually wish it were true on pure faith, is even further beyond my ability to comprehend.

If Christianity were true, it would be the greatest nightmare I could ever imagine. And it would be representative of a God that I could never love. At best I could fear him for the evil demon that he would necessarily be.

Being damned by him would supposedly be "Hell".

Cowering down to his demands to avoid death and be forced to live under his evil authority for the rest of eternity, would be an even greater "Hell".

Christianity, if true, would be the greatest nightmare possible. It would be a "Hell" that would be inescapable.

Not much different from being given the choice to either serve Hitler or die in one of his fiery furnaces. It would be a choice to choose which would be the "Lesser Hell". Nothing here to rejoice over, and certainly nothing worthy of believing on pure faith alone to be sure.

[tam]

Do you think that perhaps there is something that you have not considered? That the people (and the scribes and the teachers) did not always know their God as well as they thought they did?

I have considered all of these things in great depth Tam.

I don't think you have. Because you did not actually respond to the point... that it is Christ who shows us God, not the OT, not men, not religion.

It is my conclusion that a supposedly omniscient omnipotent God should have been able to keep his own religious authorities under control.

Man is the one who chose to have other men to lead them. Not God. God would have led Israel themselves, except that Israel wanted a king like every other nation. Even though God told them the bad things that this human king would do, they still demanded a king like every other nation. So they cannot say that they were not forewarned. Because they were.

God also came to speak and show Himself to Israel, directly. But in their lack of faith, they said NO. They chose to have and place a mediator between themselves and God. They told Moses to go and speak to God, then tell them what God said, and that they would listen to Moses.

Man chooses to look to other men, including those men who prophecy and rule by their OWN authority:

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"


It is no different today. Man STILL chooses to look to other men, rather than to Christ, Himself.


Even you look at the OT (some parts of the OT at least, whereas you choose to ignore the parts that show God as Christ reveals Him to be: the God who desires mercy, not sacrifice; the God who desires that every yoke be broken, that the poor be fed, that the chains of injustice be broken, etc, etc.) instead of at Christ.


But there are some, now, as there were then, who do listen to Christ, as God said to do, and so may see and know God as well.



"If you have seen me, you have seen my Father."

"If you know me, you know my Father also."

How about if you consider the following:

The Biblical God never succeeds in anything he sets out to do. Nothing he ever does has any positive or productive results.

He has protected the Seed from the start - and the line through which the Seed would come. Everything He has done has been to protect the Seed (Christ, the Life, and all who belong to Him), out of love for that One and for us, so that we may have life. So He has succeeded in exactly what He set out to do.



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