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
Does Christ speak and how?
Moderator: Moderators
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #431[Replying to tam in post #1]
Since the ‘small still voice’ that talks to you denies that Jesus is the name of Christ, it only proves he’s deceiving you, as well as speaking lies to you.tam wrote: 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.)
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #432[Replying to tam in post #1]
Nothing in your narratives says ‘I am Christ, tam’ yet you claim what you hear until now is Christ. Worse, you resorted to biblical verses to warrant your supposition that Christ speaks to you this time. And on top of these, you continuously fail to ask the ‘small still voice’ who he really is, why is that so, tammy dear?tam wrote: 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.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6818
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 383 times
- Been thanked: 350 times
- Contact:
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #433Peace to you,
For the reader (if interested):
**
If desired, I would suggest doing a little research on the evolution of the name "Jesus." That is not what Christ would have been called in Israel a couple thousand years ago. In a best case scenario, the name "Jesus" went through a few different renditions to get to this rendition (from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).
But in English, the closest transliteration of the name of Christ would be Joshua - and that directly from the Aramaic. The Hebrew name that Joshua is derived from means JAH saves.
My dear Lord's name has the name of His Father in it as well. As did many of the prophets of old. And if the prophets of old had the name of God in their names, how much more so the Son, who came in the name of His Father?
ZecharIAH
JeremIAH
EliJAH - meaning, My God is JAH
And the phrase Hallelu'jah - means Praise JAH.
The meaning of the Son's name has the name of His Father as part of it (JAH saves/salvation of JAH, so that name MUST contain the name of the Father.)
Jah'eshua (JAH saves/savior of JAH)
Peace again to you,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy
For the reader (if interested):
**
If desired, I would suggest doing a little research on the evolution of the name "Jesus." That is not what Christ would have been called in Israel a couple thousand years ago. In a best case scenario, the name "Jesus" went through a few different renditions to get to this rendition (from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).
But in English, the closest transliteration of the name of Christ would be Joshua - and that directly from the Aramaic. The Hebrew name that Joshua is derived from means JAH saves.
My dear Lord's name has the name of His Father in it as well. As did many of the prophets of old. And if the prophets of old had the name of God in their names, how much more so the Son, who came in the name of His Father?
ZecharIAH
JeremIAH
EliJAH - meaning, My God is JAH
And the phrase Hallelu'jah - means Praise JAH.
The meaning of the Son's name has the name of His Father as part of it (JAH saves/salvation of JAH, so that name MUST contain the name of the Father.)
Jah'eshua (JAH saves/savior of JAH)
Peace again to you,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #434Post #1 (tam): Tam testifies that Christ speaks through scripture, personal inner witness, dreams, and direct words, urging others not to take her word but to ask Christ directly for ears to hear.
Post #177 (William): William challenges Tam's claims by asking for a testable instrument to distinguish Christ's voice from lying spirits, questioning why Christ would not speak through all religious traditions equally.
Post #179 (tam): Tam responds to William by clarifying that Christ’s words are heard inwardly with "spiritual ears" rather than physical sounds, reiterates that all communication must align with Christ’s own teachings and love as the testing standard, and ultimately points back to Christ Himself as the only one who can confirm such experiences to any seeker.
Post #180 (William): William challenges Tam to recognize that her reliance on the Bible as the exclusive test for Christ's voice may itself be a limitation, questioning why experiences outside scripture—including his own—must automatically be dismissed as "lying spirits" rather than as the unrecorded teachings of Christ.
Post #181 (tam): Tam reiterates that her test for any spiritual message is alignment with what Christ has already taught—not exclusively the Bible, but Christ's character of truth and love—and argues that the Father's house cannot be a place of self-created illusions or lies, since Christ Himself is preparing that place and leading His sheep into all truth.
Post #182 (William): William questions why Tam assumes her own experiences are from Christ while dismissing his and others' as potentially from lying spirits, suggesting that she may be the one limited by church tradition and a book that contains only a fraction of what Christ actually taught.
Post #183 (tam): Tam clarifies that she does not believe the Bible is the Word of God—Christ alone holds that title—and argues that William cannot simultaneously use Jesus' words from John 14 about the Father's house while dismissing the rest of Scripture, pointing out the inconsistency in his approach.
Post #184 (William): William presses Tam on her use of the Bible as an authoritative source for Christ's words while simultaneously claiming the Bible is not the Word of God, pointing out that if the Bible was created by an institution she considers "false," then her reliance on it to dismiss other experiences becomes logically inconsistent.
Post #185 (tam): Tam insists that Christ, who is Truth itself, cannot lead anyone into deception, and therefore the Father's house cannot contain self-created illusions or hells—arguing that William's interpretation contradicts the very character of Christ as revealed in the same scriptural passages William himself invokes.
Post #186 (William): William argues that Tam cannot claim her interpretations come from Christ while dismissing his as coming from "lying spirits," since neither knows what Jesus taught in private—and suggests that the afterlife evidence points to individuals creating their own realities based on beliefs, a process he sees as just rather than deceptive.
Post #187 (tam): Tam challenges William's inconsistency in using biblical quotes like John 14:2-3 to support his assumptions while dismissing the same source as unreliable, and questions why he accepts modern afterlife testimonies but rejects the eyewitness accounts of Christ's original disciples.
Post #193 (William): William argues that the inner voice Tam identifies as Christ cannot be distinguished from one's own conscience or psychological processes, and since such claims are unverifiable, he questions why they are offered at all as evidence.
Post #194 (tam): Tam responds simply that she shares her testimony to bear witness to Christ, assist those seeking Him, and answer honest questions—not to provide verifiable proof.
Post #197 (William): William shifts to a mystical reflection on the Hebrew letter Nun, symbolizing humility, the soul, and faithfulness, concluding with a reference to Yeshua as the transformative power that unites and reveals vision.
Post #206 (William): William describes the mystical path where distinguishing Christ's voice from one's own ego becomes impossible as the initiate learns to co-create with Christ, dissolving the anxiety of "getting it wrong" through alignment rather than competition.
Post #207 (tam): Tam gently corrects William's use of the name "Jesus," offering instead "Jaheshua" (meaning "JAH saves"), and reiterates Christ's own declaration that He is the gate and the way—no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Post #208 (William): William responds that "the Gate to Life" refers to the entry into mysticism, which he asserts biblical Jesus embodied, and encourages Tam not to get hung up on the name "Jesus" while offering Hebrew letter symbolism for salvation and divine sound.
Post #209 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ referred to Himself—not mysticism or a gateway concept—as the gate and the way, and she maintains that caring about the accuracy of His name matters if one cares about truth.
Post #210 (William): William argues that Christ's teachings belong to the same mystical tradition understood by mystics across ages, defends that nothing he has offered contradicts Christ, and suggests that Tam's discomfort with his framework may reflect limitations in her own understanding of how Christ speaks.
Post #211 (tam): Tam observes that despite William's lengthy mystical explanation, he still has not answered her direct question about whether he affirms that Christ Himself—not a mystical concept—is the gate.
Post #212 (William): William claims he did answer Tam's question, suggesting she missed it, and redirects to his broader point that Christ speaks in many ways beyond just an inner voice.
Post #213 (tam): Tam presses William to simply quote the scripture or give the book, chapter, and verse he claims contains the answer, asking why he is giving her "the runaround" instead of providing a straightforward reference.
Post #214 (William): William challenges why Tam demands book, chapter, and verse from him when she herself claims the Bible is not the Word of God and has no authority over one's direct interaction with Christ.
Post #215 (tam): Tam directly states her suspicion that William cannot actually provide the biblical reference he claims exists for "the Gate to Life," and that this is the real reason for the ongoing runaround.
Post #216 (William): William responds that there are nearly 100 mentions of "gates" in the Bible, including the Matthew quote about scribes and Pharisees shutting the kingdom of heaven, and asks whether Tam's suspicion comes from her own voice or from Christ.
Post #218 (tam): Tam reiterates that William still has not provided the biblical reference he claimed existed for "the Gateway to Life as Jesus called it," and she notes that experience suggests he is taking scripture out of context to create his own doctrine.
Post #219 (William): William interprets the Matthew quote to argue that if Christ is the gate, then religious leaders can misuse that gate to prevent people from entering the kingdom of heaven—suggesting that Christ Himself is not the destination but the gateway to a larger mystery.
Post #220 (William): William shifts to a poetic reflection, asking whether Christ sings through others and what inspires poetry, offering verses about a lost soul returning to the One with open arms.
Post #224 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ is not merely a gate to be opened but the one through whom one must pass, and explains that religious leaders can prevent people from entering by setting up a false image of the gate or by teaching doctrines that lead people away from Christ Himself.
Post #225 (William): William distinguishes between the gate (which guards the gateway) and the gateway itself, suggesting that religious leaders are false gatekeepers who turn people away or point them elsewhere, while the true path is to bypass the gatekeepers entirely and go directly through the Gateway to the Source.
Post #226 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ alone is both the Gate and the Way—no religious leaders function as gatekeepers—and that the path is direct: man to Christ to God, with no religion or priesthood standing between.
Post #227 (William): William questions whether Tam's focus on Christ as the mediator inadvertently places Christ between her and direct communion with the Father, suggesting that any intermediary—even Christ Himself—could function as a form of gatekeeping if it becomes the object of communion rather than the connection to the Source.
Post #228 (tam): Tam firmly restates that Christ is the exclusive mediator between man and God, as Christ Himself declared—no one comes to the Father except through Him—and that listening to Christ is not gatekeeping but obedience to the Father's own command.
Post #229 (William): William responds that he does not differentiate between YHWH and any entities connected in relationship with YHWH, and he is unsure what Tam's point is in distinguishing them.
Post #230 (tam): Tam clarifies that God the Father (Jah or YHWH) and His Son (Jaheshua/Christ) are distinct persons, not the same entity, though they are one in union—responding to William's apparent confusion about whether she differentiates between them.
Post #231 (William): William acknowledges that Tam sees God the Father and Christ as distinct persons in union, while he sees them as the same entity playing different roles, concluding that they simply see the same reality from different perspectives.
Post #232 (tam): Tam clarifies that "I and the Father are one" means union, not numerical identity—just as believers are one with Christ without becoming the same person—and concludes that while their understandings differ, she trusts Christ's words as true regardless of human perception.
Post #233 (William): William states that he sees YHWH as a single consciousness playing all roles, with no real separation between Father and Son, and asks Tam whether YHWH has ever spoken to her directly without using the voice of others—suggesting that her distinctions may be a form of judgment he himself cannot make.
Post #234 (tam): Tam distinguishes between judging/condemning (forbidden) and discerning/testing (permitted and even commanded), and reiterates that God speaks to her through His Son, Christ, not through others—referring back to her original post for examples.
Post #235 (William): William accepts Tam's position without judging it as good or bad, and suggests their only quibble is her attempt to make a distinction between Father and Son—whereas he hears divine words within the person with no discernible distinction.
Post #177 (William): William challenges Tam's claims by asking for a testable instrument to distinguish Christ's voice from lying spirits, questioning why Christ would not speak through all religious traditions equally.
Post #179 (tam): Tam responds to William by clarifying that Christ’s words are heard inwardly with "spiritual ears" rather than physical sounds, reiterates that all communication must align with Christ’s own teachings and love as the testing standard, and ultimately points back to Christ Himself as the only one who can confirm such experiences to any seeker.
Post #180 (William): William challenges Tam to recognize that her reliance on the Bible as the exclusive test for Christ's voice may itself be a limitation, questioning why experiences outside scripture—including his own—must automatically be dismissed as "lying spirits" rather than as the unrecorded teachings of Christ.
Post #181 (tam): Tam reiterates that her test for any spiritual message is alignment with what Christ has already taught—not exclusively the Bible, but Christ's character of truth and love—and argues that the Father's house cannot be a place of self-created illusions or lies, since Christ Himself is preparing that place and leading His sheep into all truth.
Post #182 (William): William questions why Tam assumes her own experiences are from Christ while dismissing his and others' as potentially from lying spirits, suggesting that she may be the one limited by church tradition and a book that contains only a fraction of what Christ actually taught.
Post #183 (tam): Tam clarifies that she does not believe the Bible is the Word of God—Christ alone holds that title—and argues that William cannot simultaneously use Jesus' words from John 14 about the Father's house while dismissing the rest of Scripture, pointing out the inconsistency in his approach.
Post #184 (William): William presses Tam on her use of the Bible as an authoritative source for Christ's words while simultaneously claiming the Bible is not the Word of God, pointing out that if the Bible was created by an institution she considers "false," then her reliance on it to dismiss other experiences becomes logically inconsistent.
Post #185 (tam): Tam insists that Christ, who is Truth itself, cannot lead anyone into deception, and therefore the Father's house cannot contain self-created illusions or hells—arguing that William's interpretation contradicts the very character of Christ as revealed in the same scriptural passages William himself invokes.
Post #186 (William): William argues that Tam cannot claim her interpretations come from Christ while dismissing his as coming from "lying spirits," since neither knows what Jesus taught in private—and suggests that the afterlife evidence points to individuals creating their own realities based on beliefs, a process he sees as just rather than deceptive.
Post #187 (tam): Tam challenges William's inconsistency in using biblical quotes like John 14:2-3 to support his assumptions while dismissing the same source as unreliable, and questions why he accepts modern afterlife testimonies but rejects the eyewitness accounts of Christ's original disciples.
Post #193 (William): William argues that the inner voice Tam identifies as Christ cannot be distinguished from one's own conscience or psychological processes, and since such claims are unverifiable, he questions why they are offered at all as evidence.
Post #194 (tam): Tam responds simply that she shares her testimony to bear witness to Christ, assist those seeking Him, and answer honest questions—not to provide verifiable proof.
Post #197 (William): William shifts to a mystical reflection on the Hebrew letter Nun, symbolizing humility, the soul, and faithfulness, concluding with a reference to Yeshua as the transformative power that unites and reveals vision.
Post #206 (William): William describes the mystical path where distinguishing Christ's voice from one's own ego becomes impossible as the initiate learns to co-create with Christ, dissolving the anxiety of "getting it wrong" through alignment rather than competition.
Post #207 (tam): Tam gently corrects William's use of the name "Jesus," offering instead "Jaheshua" (meaning "JAH saves"), and reiterates Christ's own declaration that He is the gate and the way—no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Post #208 (William): William responds that "the Gate to Life" refers to the entry into mysticism, which he asserts biblical Jesus embodied, and encourages Tam not to get hung up on the name "Jesus" while offering Hebrew letter symbolism for salvation and divine sound.
Post #209 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ referred to Himself—not mysticism or a gateway concept—as the gate and the way, and she maintains that caring about the accuracy of His name matters if one cares about truth.
Post #210 (William): William argues that Christ's teachings belong to the same mystical tradition understood by mystics across ages, defends that nothing he has offered contradicts Christ, and suggests that Tam's discomfort with his framework may reflect limitations in her own understanding of how Christ speaks.
Post #211 (tam): Tam observes that despite William's lengthy mystical explanation, he still has not answered her direct question about whether he affirms that Christ Himself—not a mystical concept—is the gate.
Post #212 (William): William claims he did answer Tam's question, suggesting she missed it, and redirects to his broader point that Christ speaks in many ways beyond just an inner voice.
Post #213 (tam): Tam presses William to simply quote the scripture or give the book, chapter, and verse he claims contains the answer, asking why he is giving her "the runaround" instead of providing a straightforward reference.
Post #214 (William): William challenges why Tam demands book, chapter, and verse from him when she herself claims the Bible is not the Word of God and has no authority over one's direct interaction with Christ.
Post #215 (tam): Tam directly states her suspicion that William cannot actually provide the biblical reference he claims exists for "the Gate to Life," and that this is the real reason for the ongoing runaround.
Post #216 (William): William responds that there are nearly 100 mentions of "gates" in the Bible, including the Matthew quote about scribes and Pharisees shutting the kingdom of heaven, and asks whether Tam's suspicion comes from her own voice or from Christ.
Post #218 (tam): Tam reiterates that William still has not provided the biblical reference he claimed existed for "the Gateway to Life as Jesus called it," and she notes that experience suggests he is taking scripture out of context to create his own doctrine.
Post #219 (William): William interprets the Matthew quote to argue that if Christ is the gate, then religious leaders can misuse that gate to prevent people from entering the kingdom of heaven—suggesting that Christ Himself is not the destination but the gateway to a larger mystery.
Post #220 (William): William shifts to a poetic reflection, asking whether Christ sings through others and what inspires poetry, offering verses about a lost soul returning to the One with open arms.
Post #224 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ is not merely a gate to be opened but the one through whom one must pass, and explains that religious leaders can prevent people from entering by setting up a false image of the gate or by teaching doctrines that lead people away from Christ Himself.
Post #225 (William): William distinguishes between the gate (which guards the gateway) and the gateway itself, suggesting that religious leaders are false gatekeepers who turn people away or point them elsewhere, while the true path is to bypass the gatekeepers entirely and go directly through the Gateway to the Source.
Post #226 (tam): Tam clarifies that Christ alone is both the Gate and the Way—no religious leaders function as gatekeepers—and that the path is direct: man to Christ to God, with no religion or priesthood standing between.
Post #227 (William): William questions whether Tam's focus on Christ as the mediator inadvertently places Christ between her and direct communion with the Father, suggesting that any intermediary—even Christ Himself—could function as a form of gatekeeping if it becomes the object of communion rather than the connection to the Source.
Post #228 (tam): Tam firmly restates that Christ is the exclusive mediator between man and God, as Christ Himself declared—no one comes to the Father except through Him—and that listening to Christ is not gatekeeping but obedience to the Father's own command.
Post #229 (William): William responds that he does not differentiate between YHWH and any entities connected in relationship with YHWH, and he is unsure what Tam's point is in distinguishing them.
Post #230 (tam): Tam clarifies that God the Father (Jah or YHWH) and His Son (Jaheshua/Christ) are distinct persons, not the same entity, though they are one in union—responding to William's apparent confusion about whether she differentiates between them.
Post #231 (William): William acknowledges that Tam sees God the Father and Christ as distinct persons in union, while he sees them as the same entity playing different roles, concluding that they simply see the same reality from different perspectives.
Post #232 (tam): Tam clarifies that "I and the Father are one" means union, not numerical identity—just as believers are one with Christ without becoming the same person—and concludes that while their understandings differ, she trusts Christ's words as true regardless of human perception.
Post #233 (William): William states that he sees YHWH as a single consciousness playing all roles, with no real separation between Father and Son, and asks Tam whether YHWH has ever spoken to her directly without using the voice of others—suggesting that her distinctions may be a form of judgment he himself cannot make.
Post #234 (tam): Tam distinguishes between judging/condemning (forbidden) and discerning/testing (permitted and even commanded), and reiterates that God speaks to her through His Son, Christ, not through others—referring back to her original post for examples.
Post #235 (William): William accepts Tam's position without judging it as good or bad, and suggests their only quibble is her attempt to make a distinction between Father and Son—whereas he hears divine words within the person with no discernible distinction.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #435Post #236 (tam): Tam clarifies that she never assumed William was judging her, and asks what he means by "no distinction discernable" in hearing divine words—pressing for clarity on his claim that there is no discernible difference between hearing Christ and hearing the Father.
Post #237 (William): William explains that by "no distinction discernable" he means the Father and Son are so perfectly aligned that no difference can be perceived between them, regardless of their distinct roles or positions.
Post #238 (tam): Tam presses William to clarify whether by "no distinction" he means God and Christ are the same person, noting that this would contradict what Christ Himself teaches about their relationship.
Post #239 (William): William clarifies that he does not mean God and Christ are the same person, but rather the same personality and consciousness expressed through different perspectives.
Post #240 (tam): Tam challenges William's distinction between "person" and "personality," asking him to define what he means by personality if it can exist separately from the person themselves.
Post #241 (William): William explains that a person can have a personality different from YHWH's, but the Son's personality is not different—it is the same as the Father's.
Post #242 (tam): Tam notes that William still has not defined "personality" as he uses it, and asks directly whether he agrees that God the Father and His Son are two distinct beings/people, each with their own will and consciousness, even though the Son perfectly reflects the Father and willingly does His will.
Post #243 (William): William explains that YHWH has no form and is not a "person" in a human sense but is a Spirit with personality; the Son has the same Spirit and personality, making them indistinguishable, and he questions why Tam sees the Son's having form as a meaningful distinction from the formless Father.
Post #244 (tam): Tam states she cannot make sense of William's role-play definition, clarifies that she sees YHWH as a distinct person with His own personality and the Son as another distinct person who perfectly reflects the Father but is not YHWH, and asks William to provide support if he claims otherwise, since Christ does not teach that the Son is the same person as the Father.
Post #245 (William): William asks Tam to define what she understands as "the Body of Christ," the image of YHWH, the word of YHWH, and the perfect representation of God—questioning how anything could be all these things and yet not be YHWH, and asking how Christ teaches if not through form.
Post #246 (William): William describes the risen human form of the Son as not the true image of Christ, which he says is instead visible in the actions of the Body of Christ—a spiritual, interconnected whole akin to mycelium or a jellyfish—where every integrated individual can hear YHWH's voice through that collective body.
Post #247 (tam): Tam responds that Christ is not a "what" but a "who"—the Image of God, the Word of God, and the perfect representation of the Father, yet distinct as the Son—and that Christ teaches this by consistently calling God His Father, since a son is not his father.
Post #248 (William): William reiterates his description of how Christ teaches—through the collective Body of Christ, visualized as a mycelium or jellyfish network—where each integrated individual can access shared information and hear YHWH's voice within that body.
Post #249 (tam): Tam directs William back to the original post (OP) of the thread, which was created specifically to answer the question of how Christ speaks, inviting further questions but noting that the foundation has already been laid there.
Post #250 (William): William extends his metaphor, comparing the Body of Christ to an operating system within the human form—the underlying structure that enables personality and character, and ultimately allows for integration with YHWH through that Body.
Post #251 (William): William analyzes Tam's three forms of evidence and argues they all ultimately rely on external, written validation rather than an internal voice of Christ—questioning whether any internal impression would be rejected if it didn't align with those external filters, and whether she is truly hearing Christ or merely processing externally learned criteria.
Post #252 (tam): Tam clarifies that her written testimony is only evidence, not the sole means of hearing Christ—she points others to ask Christ directly—and explains that when Christ spoke directly to her (e.g., "test the message"), she followed that instruction and later found corroboration; if a written text conflicted with what Christ personally taught her, she would trust Christ, who is the Word of God.
Post #253 (tam): Tam reiterates her earlier clarification that Christ's voice is heard inwardly with "spiritual ears," not as physical, audible sounds—distinguishing internal, spiritual hearing from external, written or spoken words.
Posts #254 & #255 (William): William states he has communion with YHWH himself, and in the linked post he compares Tam's claim of hearing Christ's voice to others who hear voices (e.g., Joey Knothead), explaining that this very claim naturally draws attention to the claimant—which is why people discuss Tam rather than just the topic.
Post #258 (William): William asks Tam directly for a crucial clarification: whether the voice she identifies as Christ's is, in her experience, a distinct internal male voice—distinguishable from her own inner voice.
Post #280 (William): William presses Tam for a clear, testable answer: whether she hears Christ's voice as a distinct internal male voice separate from her own inner dialogue, and why readers should accept that this is Christ rather than a mental hallucination—noting that her thread has not yet provided that clarity.
Post #282 (tam): Tam responds that she has already answered William's questions as fully as she can and has nothing more to add to what she has already said throughout the thread.
Post #290 (William): William summarizes that Tam claims ongoing confirmation from Christ's voice, but argues that true integration means eventually reaching a point where there is no distinction between self-voice and Christ-voice—and that this process takes time and discipline, with the kindness of inner voices being the best guide.
Post #292 (William): William, engaging with another user (Clownboat), presses Tam on the psychological implications of hearing a voice separate from her own personality—asking whether she should be alarmed, how she applies critical thinking to that voice, whether the mechanism is subjective or objective, and noting that her claim about denominations implies a superior position that has not yet been established as truth.
Post #293 (tam): Tam links to her detailed response elsewhere, where she explains that hearing one voice versus many matters for accuracy, defends her testing mechanism of love and alignment with Christ, clarifies that Christ does not force obedience but invites loving service, and notes that even apostles called themselves slaves of Christ out of free choice, not coercion.
Post #294 (William): William brings Clownboat's critique into this thread, reiterating that Tam claims a separate voice from her own personality—which psychology would classify as "hearing voices"—and presses his questions: whether she should be alarmed, how she first tested the voice's authenticity, whether the mechanism is subjective or objective, and which voice claims that most people are not listening to Christ (which implies she is superior).
Post #295 (tam): Tam clarifies that William missed the context of her exchange about changing "voice and Him" to "voices and them," explains she has no reason to be alarmed because Christ has never lied to her, and argues that the existence of tens of thousands of contradictory denominations is common-sense evidence that most are not listening to Christ.
Post #296 (tam): Tam adds a reminder from her original post that Christ's language is truth and love, and He has never spoken anything untrue to her—which is why she sees no reason for alarm
Post #297 (William): William presses Tam on whether her claim about denominations is an "inspired expression" or her own personality voice, asks if she is engaging online because the voice told her to or on her own, questions whether she can distinguish her perspective from Christ's, and challenges her basis for saying denominations contradict Christ—especially if the Bible itself may have been concocted by the very religions she condemns.
Post #301 (William): William questions how Tam can claim a relationship with Christ while begging Him to make Himself known—finding the entire premise of hearing a male entity's voice in one's head off-putting due to its link with mental unwellness—and reiterates his unanswered questions about why she engages online, whether the voice told her to, whether she dialogues internally with it, and how she knows the Bible wasn't concocted by the religions she condemns.
Post #237 (William): William explains that by "no distinction discernable" he means the Father and Son are so perfectly aligned that no difference can be perceived between them, regardless of their distinct roles or positions.
Post #238 (tam): Tam presses William to clarify whether by "no distinction" he means God and Christ are the same person, noting that this would contradict what Christ Himself teaches about their relationship.
Post #239 (William): William clarifies that he does not mean God and Christ are the same person, but rather the same personality and consciousness expressed through different perspectives.
Post #240 (tam): Tam challenges William's distinction between "person" and "personality," asking him to define what he means by personality if it can exist separately from the person themselves.
Post #241 (William): William explains that a person can have a personality different from YHWH's, but the Son's personality is not different—it is the same as the Father's.
Post #242 (tam): Tam notes that William still has not defined "personality" as he uses it, and asks directly whether he agrees that God the Father and His Son are two distinct beings/people, each with their own will and consciousness, even though the Son perfectly reflects the Father and willingly does His will.
Post #243 (William): William explains that YHWH has no form and is not a "person" in a human sense but is a Spirit with personality; the Son has the same Spirit and personality, making them indistinguishable, and he questions why Tam sees the Son's having form as a meaningful distinction from the formless Father.
Post #244 (tam): Tam states she cannot make sense of William's role-play definition, clarifies that she sees YHWH as a distinct person with His own personality and the Son as another distinct person who perfectly reflects the Father but is not YHWH, and asks William to provide support if he claims otherwise, since Christ does not teach that the Son is the same person as the Father.
Post #245 (William): William asks Tam to define what she understands as "the Body of Christ," the image of YHWH, the word of YHWH, and the perfect representation of God—questioning how anything could be all these things and yet not be YHWH, and asking how Christ teaches if not through form.
Post #246 (William): William describes the risen human form of the Son as not the true image of Christ, which he says is instead visible in the actions of the Body of Christ—a spiritual, interconnected whole akin to mycelium or a jellyfish—where every integrated individual can hear YHWH's voice through that collective body.
Post #247 (tam): Tam responds that Christ is not a "what" but a "who"—the Image of God, the Word of God, and the perfect representation of the Father, yet distinct as the Son—and that Christ teaches this by consistently calling God His Father, since a son is not his father.
Post #248 (William): William reiterates his description of how Christ teaches—through the collective Body of Christ, visualized as a mycelium or jellyfish network—where each integrated individual can access shared information and hear YHWH's voice within that body.
Post #249 (tam): Tam directs William back to the original post (OP) of the thread, which was created specifically to answer the question of how Christ speaks, inviting further questions but noting that the foundation has already been laid there.
Post #250 (William): William extends his metaphor, comparing the Body of Christ to an operating system within the human form—the underlying structure that enables personality and character, and ultimately allows for integration with YHWH through that Body.
Post #251 (William): William analyzes Tam's three forms of evidence and argues they all ultimately rely on external, written validation rather than an internal voice of Christ—questioning whether any internal impression would be rejected if it didn't align with those external filters, and whether she is truly hearing Christ or merely processing externally learned criteria.
Post #252 (tam): Tam clarifies that her written testimony is only evidence, not the sole means of hearing Christ—she points others to ask Christ directly—and explains that when Christ spoke directly to her (e.g., "test the message"), she followed that instruction and later found corroboration; if a written text conflicted with what Christ personally taught her, she would trust Christ, who is the Word of God.
Post #253 (tam): Tam reiterates her earlier clarification that Christ's voice is heard inwardly with "spiritual ears," not as physical, audible sounds—distinguishing internal, spiritual hearing from external, written or spoken words.
Posts #254 & #255 (William): William states he has communion with YHWH himself, and in the linked post he compares Tam's claim of hearing Christ's voice to others who hear voices (e.g., Joey Knothead), explaining that this very claim naturally draws attention to the claimant—which is why people discuss Tam rather than just the topic.
Post #258 (William): William asks Tam directly for a crucial clarification: whether the voice she identifies as Christ's is, in her experience, a distinct internal male voice—distinguishable from her own inner voice.
Post #280 (William): William presses Tam for a clear, testable answer: whether she hears Christ's voice as a distinct internal male voice separate from her own inner dialogue, and why readers should accept that this is Christ rather than a mental hallucination—noting that her thread has not yet provided that clarity.
Post #282 (tam): Tam responds that she has already answered William's questions as fully as she can and has nothing more to add to what she has already said throughout the thread.
Post #290 (William): William summarizes that Tam claims ongoing confirmation from Christ's voice, but argues that true integration means eventually reaching a point where there is no distinction between self-voice and Christ-voice—and that this process takes time and discipline, with the kindness of inner voices being the best guide.
Post #292 (William): William, engaging with another user (Clownboat), presses Tam on the psychological implications of hearing a voice separate from her own personality—asking whether she should be alarmed, how she applies critical thinking to that voice, whether the mechanism is subjective or objective, and noting that her claim about denominations implies a superior position that has not yet been established as truth.
Post #293 (tam): Tam links to her detailed response elsewhere, where she explains that hearing one voice versus many matters for accuracy, defends her testing mechanism of love and alignment with Christ, clarifies that Christ does not force obedience but invites loving service, and notes that even apostles called themselves slaves of Christ out of free choice, not coercion.
Post #294 (William): William brings Clownboat's critique into this thread, reiterating that Tam claims a separate voice from her own personality—which psychology would classify as "hearing voices"—and presses his questions: whether she should be alarmed, how she first tested the voice's authenticity, whether the mechanism is subjective or objective, and which voice claims that most people are not listening to Christ (which implies she is superior).
Post #295 (tam): Tam clarifies that William missed the context of her exchange about changing "voice and Him" to "voices and them," explains she has no reason to be alarmed because Christ has never lied to her, and argues that the existence of tens of thousands of contradictory denominations is common-sense evidence that most are not listening to Christ.
Post #296 (tam): Tam adds a reminder from her original post that Christ's language is truth and love, and He has never spoken anything untrue to her—which is why she sees no reason for alarm
Post #297 (William): William presses Tam on whether her claim about denominations is an "inspired expression" or her own personality voice, asks if she is engaging online because the voice told her to or on her own, questions whether she can distinguish her perspective from Christ's, and challenges her basis for saying denominations contradict Christ—especially if the Bible itself may have been concocted by the very religions she condemns.
Post #301 (William): William questions how Tam can claim a relationship with Christ while begging Him to make Himself known—finding the entire premise of hearing a male entity's voice in one's head off-putting due to its link with mental unwellness—and reiterates his unanswered questions about why she engages online, whether the voice told her to, whether she dialogues internally with it, and how she knows the Bible wasn't concocted by the religions she condemns.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #436Post #302 (tam): Tam refers William back to the original post for her witness on Christ's voice, denies making negative statements about Christians, and argues that Christ does not teach contradictions because He is truth—so any claim about the Father's house containing illusions or self-deception must be false, regardless of whether the Bible was "concocted" by religion.
Post #305 (William): William presses Tam for a direct quote from the OP answering his question about internal dialogue, clarifies that her comparison of religions as "not following the Lord's voice" is itself a negative statement, argues that YHWH creates "true illusions" (simulation), and asks for a concrete example of the type of conversation she has with the voice she claims is Christ.
Post #306 (tam): Tam reiterates that Christ alone prepares the rooms in the Father's house, so there can be no illusion or deception there; she notes that her statements about religion may be perceived as negative but are not untrue; and she directs William back to examples already shared in the OP and elsewhere rather than providing a new conversation transcript.
Post #308 (William): William confirms that Tam has an internal dialogue with the voice she hears, presses her to directly answer questions rather than pointing back to the OP, argues that YHWH creates "true illusions" (simulation), accuses her of cutting off his message, and warns that denying Christ's role as a bridge to YHWH makes her claimed voice suspect—repeating his request for a concrete example of a conversation with this voice.
Post #317 (William): William asks Tam to provide a sample dialogue formatted as a transcript between herself and the voice she claims is Christ, in order to facilitate ongoing testing of her claim.
Post #318 (tam): Tam responds simply by asking William why he wants a sample dialogue, rather than providing one.
Post #319 (William): William points out a contradiction: Tam condemns religions like the RCC, WTS, LDS, Christianity, and Judaism as false, yet she binds the voice she claims is Christ to the Bible—a religious icon produced and sold by those same religions—asking why the alleged voice of Christ would be subject to the dictates of the very religions she condemns.
Post #320 (tam): Tam denies any contradiction, explaining that the biblical texts were composed by individual people (John, Paul, Peter, etc.)—not by religions—and that Christ is not bound by any religious icon, even the Bible; she insists William's assumptions are simply incorrect.
Post #321 (William): William presses that the people who composed the biblical books were themselves religious, and it is Christian religious tradition that tells us who wrote what—so using that same Bible to support her claim while condemning the religions that preserved and canonized it is contradictory; he asks what makes her think the existing texts are sufficient for discerning truth.
Post #322 (William): William explains that he needs a sample dialogue between Tam and the voice she claims is Christ as part of the procedure for testing her claim—since quoting Bible verses alone does not distinguish her from any other Christian, and her claim to be different warrants such examples.
Posts #323 & #324 (tam): Tam argues that the biblical writers were individuals coming out of religion, not religion itself, and that the content of their letters remains unchanged regardless of later canonization; she also notes that she has already shared examples of what she has received from her Lord, and she questions why William quoting the Bible doesn't make him the same as any other Bible-quoting Christian.
Post #325 (William): William presses that the biblical writers are religious figures within a story, not testable witnesses; he argues that the NT's formation over centuries suggests deliberate creation by religion; he questions whether Tam would hear the voice without Bible knowledge; and he reiterates his request for a verbatim, court-stenographer-level transcript of an internal conversation with the voice—warning that refusal will leave readers with the impression her claim is untrustworthy.
Post #326 (tam): Tam argues that the NT writers were not part of religion but were cast out of synagogues, dismisses William's "conspiracy theory" about religion creating the NT as unsupported, states she would still hear Christ's voice without Bible knowledge, and insists she has already shared His words verbatim on multiple occasions—including in the OP and in previous exchanges about love, Christian identity, and testing teachings.
Post #327 (William): William reiterates that religious folk wrote the NT, which became source material for a new religion; he insists that Tam's effort to use the Bible to support her claim is a distraction, since she says she would hear the voice without it; he repeats that testing her claim requires verbatim back-and-forth transcripts of her internal conversations with the voice; and he concludes that without such evidence, she is no different from any other Christian and in no better position for hearing a voice claiming to be Christ.
Post #328 (tam): Tam tells William that she has already given him verbatim words and exchanges, and if he refuses to believe what he can see with his own eyes, he would not believe something spiritual; she reiterates that the NT writers were not part of any religion, and accuses him of either not reading or not believing what has been placed right in front of him.
Post #329 (William): William insists that verbatim conversation transcripts are necessary for readers to test Tam's claim, notes that no such examples exist even in the OP, and argues that since her relationship with the voice is ongoing, she could easily record and share current dialogues—suggesting that her hesitation to share interactions while eagerly defending the Bible raises questions about the claim's credibility.
Post #330 (tam): Tam responds that she has already given William what he is asking for, yet the conversation continues regardless—implying that providing more would not satisfy him either.
Post #331 (William): William warns that if Tam continues to refuse to supply the requested verbatim conversation transcripts, the spirit will be tested and found to be something other than what she claims, and the verdict will have to be that there is no truth to her claim that the voice she hears is Christ—case closed.
Post #332 (tam): Tam provides a direct link to a previous post where she shared a verbatim exchange with her Lord (asking if she was ashamed of Him), demonstrating that she has indeed provided the kind of dialogue William requests, and she reiterates that Christ alone—not the Bible, not religion—is the living person and the Truth.
Post #333 (William): William answers the thread's title question directly: Christ speaks, but in his understanding, not as a separate, distinctive voice from one's own internal thought-voice—rather, new thoughts arise that replace older, untrue ones as one learns to listen, and he sees no reason to change this view.
Post #334 (tam): Tam reiterates that she has already provided William with the verbatim examples he requested, implying that his continued waiting and restating his own view does not change that fact.
Post #335 (William): William counters that he himself regularly shares verbatim interactions with YHWH on this forum, providing a link to an example, and reiterates his own answer to the thread's question: Christ speaks, and one way is through new thoughts arising that replace old, untrue ones.
Post #335 (William) with linked content: William points to his own "Generated Messages" as verbatim examples of communion with YHWH, contrasting his approach with Tam's—his method produces transcripts of what he receives (e.g., phrases like "The Eigengrau Mind Screen," "A time prior to human beings," "Sophia and Han," etc.), whereas he maintains that Tam has not provided similar real-time, stenographer-level transcripts of her claimed conversations with Christ.
Post #336 (tam): Tam quotes William's own admission that he only has one internal voice (his own) and at most argues with himself, then contrasts this with Christ's statement that "My sheep listen to MY voice"—implying that William's described experience does not match what Christ said about hearing the Shepherd's distinct voice.
Post #337 (William): William challenges Tam's implication by asking whether hearing a distinct other voice is necessary to declare one is hearing Christ, accuses her of quote-mining without providing a link, and presses three questions about her original experience: why she didn't know it was Christ at the time, whether she was shocked to hear a distinct voice, and what makes that advice true.
Post #339 (tam): Tam clarifies that she is simply holding William's words up to Christ's words for comparison, denies requiring a "distinct other voice in one's head" as the only way to hear Christ, explains she didn't recognize Christ's voice initially because she didn't know He speaks, and uses the analogy of testing a scientific claim rather than the scientist to defend the advice to test the message, not the person.
Post #340 (William): William presses Tam for direct clarification on whether the voice she hears is an independent voice distinct from her own thought-voice, notes that her phrasing "within me" typically means "in one's mind," and asks how often on average she hears this voice—arguing that because her claim is purely subjective, she must answer such questions for the reader to understand what she is even claiming.
Post #341 (tam): Tam responds that she has already answered William's questions multiple times, dismisses his complaint about a missing link as "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel," asserts that she has provided verbatim examples he refuses to acknowledge, and questions how he can recognize spiritual hearing if he cannot even see what is right in front of his eyes—adding that she cannot answer how often she hears the voice, nor would it matter if she could.
Post #342 (William): William redirects Tam to his own answer in Post #333 (Christ speaks through new thoughts replacing old, untrue ones) and asks her to hold that against Christ's words; he presses whether others are allowed to question the voice, notes that she still hasn't provided a link or reposted the verbatim quote, and argues that her inability to say how often she hears the voice is not convincing—science would disagree that it doesn't matter.
Post #342 (supplemental link - "YHVH & I"): William provides a link to his own "Generated Messages" (Post #427) as a verbatim example of his communion with YHWH, contrasting his practice of sharing real-time transcripts with Tam's refusal to provide similar dialogue—and in the linked content, the GM includes phrases like "The Sensation of God's Presence Inside Us," "In The Mirror - Mirror Sense," and "Fling That Veil Aside," among others.
Post #343 (tam): Tam invites William to clarify his long sentence if he feels misunderstood, asks how one can test spirits without holding words against Christ's word, reiterates that she has already provided multiple links and verbatim examples (including one from a direct conversation with William), and notes that he continues to demand more while ignoring what has already been given.
Post #38 (from "Eternal Hell: Yes or No" thread, linked by tam): Tam firmly states she will not ask Christ to show her the alternate-reality afterlife William proposes, because Christ is Truth and cannot show deception; she rejects the idea that believers create their own afterlife realities as contradictory to Christ's promise to prepare a place for them in His Father's house and to lead His sheep into all truth, concluding that the source William listens to cannot be from Christ or His Father.
Post #40 (from "Eternal Hell: Yes or No" thread, linked by tam): Tam reiterates that she rejects William's claims because they lack evidence and contradict what Christ teaches; she explains that Christ prepares the rooms in the Father's house, so believers do not create their own realities; she clarifies that "hell" (sheol/hades) means the world of the dead, not a place of torment or self-created illusion; and she affirms that her relationship is with the living Christ, not with the Bible as an idol, though she quotes His words as recorded.
Post #344 (William): William responds to Tam's claim that she has already answered his questions by reposting large sections of her own earlier posts (from Post #179, #181, #185, #38, #40, and others) without adding new commentary—effectively holding her own words up for the reader to examine, while implicitly arguing that she has still not provided the verbatim conversation transcripts he requested.
Post #345 (William): William continues quoting from Tam's exchange with Clownboat (Post #1104063), where she discusses being undeserving, mercy, forgiveness, and her Lord's reminders—then reiterates that despite all the quoted material, a quick glance still does not show the reader where the verbatim conversation transcripts with the voice are; he says he will scan through everything when he has more time.
Post #346 (tam): Tam clarifies that the links she provided were evidence of her testing William's claims against Christ and His word, not transcripts of her own conversations with Christ—and she notes that she has provided links as William requested when referencing him.
Post #347 (William): William clarifies one last time that his request has always been for links to verbatim conversations between Tam and the voice she claims is Christ—not links to her testing his claims against scripture.
Post #348 (tam): Tam responds that she has already shared Christ's words when appropriate—including in the original post of this thread—and she cannot do more than that, adding that she does not wish to put her Lord on display as a sideshow.
Post #305 (William): William presses Tam for a direct quote from the OP answering his question about internal dialogue, clarifies that her comparison of religions as "not following the Lord's voice" is itself a negative statement, argues that YHWH creates "true illusions" (simulation), and asks for a concrete example of the type of conversation she has with the voice she claims is Christ.
Post #306 (tam): Tam reiterates that Christ alone prepares the rooms in the Father's house, so there can be no illusion or deception there; she notes that her statements about religion may be perceived as negative but are not untrue; and she directs William back to examples already shared in the OP and elsewhere rather than providing a new conversation transcript.
Post #308 (William): William confirms that Tam has an internal dialogue with the voice she hears, presses her to directly answer questions rather than pointing back to the OP, argues that YHWH creates "true illusions" (simulation), accuses her of cutting off his message, and warns that denying Christ's role as a bridge to YHWH makes her claimed voice suspect—repeating his request for a concrete example of a conversation with this voice.
Post #317 (William): William asks Tam to provide a sample dialogue formatted as a transcript between herself and the voice she claims is Christ, in order to facilitate ongoing testing of her claim.
Post #318 (tam): Tam responds simply by asking William why he wants a sample dialogue, rather than providing one.
Post #319 (William): William points out a contradiction: Tam condemns religions like the RCC, WTS, LDS, Christianity, and Judaism as false, yet she binds the voice she claims is Christ to the Bible—a religious icon produced and sold by those same religions—asking why the alleged voice of Christ would be subject to the dictates of the very religions she condemns.
Post #320 (tam): Tam denies any contradiction, explaining that the biblical texts were composed by individual people (John, Paul, Peter, etc.)—not by religions—and that Christ is not bound by any religious icon, even the Bible; she insists William's assumptions are simply incorrect.
Post #321 (William): William presses that the people who composed the biblical books were themselves religious, and it is Christian religious tradition that tells us who wrote what—so using that same Bible to support her claim while condemning the religions that preserved and canonized it is contradictory; he asks what makes her think the existing texts are sufficient for discerning truth.
Post #322 (William): William explains that he needs a sample dialogue between Tam and the voice she claims is Christ as part of the procedure for testing her claim—since quoting Bible verses alone does not distinguish her from any other Christian, and her claim to be different warrants such examples.
Posts #323 & #324 (tam): Tam argues that the biblical writers were individuals coming out of religion, not religion itself, and that the content of their letters remains unchanged regardless of later canonization; she also notes that she has already shared examples of what she has received from her Lord, and she questions why William quoting the Bible doesn't make him the same as any other Bible-quoting Christian.
Post #325 (William): William presses that the biblical writers are religious figures within a story, not testable witnesses; he argues that the NT's formation over centuries suggests deliberate creation by religion; he questions whether Tam would hear the voice without Bible knowledge; and he reiterates his request for a verbatim, court-stenographer-level transcript of an internal conversation with the voice—warning that refusal will leave readers with the impression her claim is untrustworthy.
Post #326 (tam): Tam argues that the NT writers were not part of religion but were cast out of synagogues, dismisses William's "conspiracy theory" about religion creating the NT as unsupported, states she would still hear Christ's voice without Bible knowledge, and insists she has already shared His words verbatim on multiple occasions—including in the OP and in previous exchanges about love, Christian identity, and testing teachings.
Post #327 (William): William reiterates that religious folk wrote the NT, which became source material for a new religion; he insists that Tam's effort to use the Bible to support her claim is a distraction, since she says she would hear the voice without it; he repeats that testing her claim requires verbatim back-and-forth transcripts of her internal conversations with the voice; and he concludes that without such evidence, she is no different from any other Christian and in no better position for hearing a voice claiming to be Christ.
Post #328 (tam): Tam tells William that she has already given him verbatim words and exchanges, and if he refuses to believe what he can see with his own eyes, he would not believe something spiritual; she reiterates that the NT writers were not part of any religion, and accuses him of either not reading or not believing what has been placed right in front of him.
Post #329 (William): William insists that verbatim conversation transcripts are necessary for readers to test Tam's claim, notes that no such examples exist even in the OP, and argues that since her relationship with the voice is ongoing, she could easily record and share current dialogues—suggesting that her hesitation to share interactions while eagerly defending the Bible raises questions about the claim's credibility.
Post #330 (tam): Tam responds that she has already given William what he is asking for, yet the conversation continues regardless—implying that providing more would not satisfy him either.
Post #331 (William): William warns that if Tam continues to refuse to supply the requested verbatim conversation transcripts, the spirit will be tested and found to be something other than what she claims, and the verdict will have to be that there is no truth to her claim that the voice she hears is Christ—case closed.
Post #332 (tam): Tam provides a direct link to a previous post where she shared a verbatim exchange with her Lord (asking if she was ashamed of Him), demonstrating that she has indeed provided the kind of dialogue William requests, and she reiterates that Christ alone—not the Bible, not religion—is the living person and the Truth.
Post #333 (William): William answers the thread's title question directly: Christ speaks, but in his understanding, not as a separate, distinctive voice from one's own internal thought-voice—rather, new thoughts arise that replace older, untrue ones as one learns to listen, and he sees no reason to change this view.
Post #334 (tam): Tam reiterates that she has already provided William with the verbatim examples he requested, implying that his continued waiting and restating his own view does not change that fact.
Post #335 (William): William counters that he himself regularly shares verbatim interactions with YHWH on this forum, providing a link to an example, and reiterates his own answer to the thread's question: Christ speaks, and one way is through new thoughts arising that replace old, untrue ones.
Post #335 (William) with linked content: William points to his own "Generated Messages" as verbatim examples of communion with YHWH, contrasting his approach with Tam's—his method produces transcripts of what he receives (e.g., phrases like "The Eigengrau Mind Screen," "A time prior to human beings," "Sophia and Han," etc.), whereas he maintains that Tam has not provided similar real-time, stenographer-level transcripts of her claimed conversations with Christ.
Post #336 (tam): Tam quotes William's own admission that he only has one internal voice (his own) and at most argues with himself, then contrasts this with Christ's statement that "My sheep listen to MY voice"—implying that William's described experience does not match what Christ said about hearing the Shepherd's distinct voice.
Post #337 (William): William challenges Tam's implication by asking whether hearing a distinct other voice is necessary to declare one is hearing Christ, accuses her of quote-mining without providing a link, and presses three questions about her original experience: why she didn't know it was Christ at the time, whether she was shocked to hear a distinct voice, and what makes that advice true.
Post #339 (tam): Tam clarifies that she is simply holding William's words up to Christ's words for comparison, denies requiring a "distinct other voice in one's head" as the only way to hear Christ, explains she didn't recognize Christ's voice initially because she didn't know He speaks, and uses the analogy of testing a scientific claim rather than the scientist to defend the advice to test the message, not the person.
Post #340 (William): William presses Tam for direct clarification on whether the voice she hears is an independent voice distinct from her own thought-voice, notes that her phrasing "within me" typically means "in one's mind," and asks how often on average she hears this voice—arguing that because her claim is purely subjective, she must answer such questions for the reader to understand what she is even claiming.
Post #341 (tam): Tam responds that she has already answered William's questions multiple times, dismisses his complaint about a missing link as "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel," asserts that she has provided verbatim examples he refuses to acknowledge, and questions how he can recognize spiritual hearing if he cannot even see what is right in front of his eyes—adding that she cannot answer how often she hears the voice, nor would it matter if she could.
Post #342 (William): William redirects Tam to his own answer in Post #333 (Christ speaks through new thoughts replacing old, untrue ones) and asks her to hold that against Christ's words; he presses whether others are allowed to question the voice, notes that she still hasn't provided a link or reposted the verbatim quote, and argues that her inability to say how often she hears the voice is not convincing—science would disagree that it doesn't matter.
Post #342 (supplemental link - "YHVH & I"): William provides a link to his own "Generated Messages" (Post #427) as a verbatim example of his communion with YHWH, contrasting his practice of sharing real-time transcripts with Tam's refusal to provide similar dialogue—and in the linked content, the GM includes phrases like "The Sensation of God's Presence Inside Us," "In The Mirror - Mirror Sense," and "Fling That Veil Aside," among others.
Post #343 (tam): Tam invites William to clarify his long sentence if he feels misunderstood, asks how one can test spirits without holding words against Christ's word, reiterates that she has already provided multiple links and verbatim examples (including one from a direct conversation with William), and notes that he continues to demand more while ignoring what has already been given.
Post #38 (from "Eternal Hell: Yes or No" thread, linked by tam): Tam firmly states she will not ask Christ to show her the alternate-reality afterlife William proposes, because Christ is Truth and cannot show deception; she rejects the idea that believers create their own afterlife realities as contradictory to Christ's promise to prepare a place for them in His Father's house and to lead His sheep into all truth, concluding that the source William listens to cannot be from Christ or His Father.
Post #40 (from "Eternal Hell: Yes or No" thread, linked by tam): Tam reiterates that she rejects William's claims because they lack evidence and contradict what Christ teaches; she explains that Christ prepares the rooms in the Father's house, so believers do not create their own realities; she clarifies that "hell" (sheol/hades) means the world of the dead, not a place of torment or self-created illusion; and she affirms that her relationship is with the living Christ, not with the Bible as an idol, though she quotes His words as recorded.
Post #344 (William): William responds to Tam's claim that she has already answered his questions by reposting large sections of her own earlier posts (from Post #179, #181, #185, #38, #40, and others) without adding new commentary—effectively holding her own words up for the reader to examine, while implicitly arguing that she has still not provided the verbatim conversation transcripts he requested.
Post #345 (William): William continues quoting from Tam's exchange with Clownboat (Post #1104063), where she discusses being undeserving, mercy, forgiveness, and her Lord's reminders—then reiterates that despite all the quoted material, a quick glance still does not show the reader where the verbatim conversation transcripts with the voice are; he says he will scan through everything when he has more time.
Post #346 (tam): Tam clarifies that the links she provided were evidence of her testing William's claims against Christ and His word, not transcripts of her own conversations with Christ—and she notes that she has provided links as William requested when referencing him.
Post #347 (William): William clarifies one last time that his request has always been for links to verbatim conversations between Tam and the voice she claims is Christ—not links to her testing his claims against scripture.
Post #348 (tam): Tam responds that she has already shared Christ's words when appropriate—including in the original post of this thread—and she cannot do more than that, adding that she does not wish to put her Lord on display as a sideshow.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #437[Replying to tam in post #39]
You called my statement a lie. The statement was that you refuse to provide verbatim examples of your conversations with the voice you claim is Christ. Across our exchanges, you have not provided a single stenographer-level transcript of a back-and-forth dialogue with that voice. You have provided summaries, interpretations, doctrinal conclusions, and one summarized interaction. When pressed further, you said you do not wish to put your Lord on display as a sideshow. That is a refusal. Therefore, my statement was accurate, not a lie.
You also suggested I feel hurt. I am grieved, but not for the reason you assume. I am grieved because you place your claim above my own witness despite my providing verbatim samples of my interactions with YHWH through the UICD, and despite my never claiming to hear a distinct internal voice as you describe. However, my grief is not why I question you. I question you because your claims contain inconsistencies you have not resolved, and because you have not provided the evidence I have requested.
You cannot engage with concepts your voice does not compel you to examine. You do not ask your voice about near-death experiences, the transfiguration, or Jesus' statement that God is the God of the living. You remain disinterested in evidence that challenges your beliefs. Your voice does not lead you into uncomfortable truth. It reinforces what you already believe.
You claim to be a slave to this voice. But you test the voice against external standards. A slave does not test the master. A slave obeys. Your testing demonstrates that you do not fully trust the voice, or that you have placed something above it.
Nothing you have provided indicates that this voice produces anything better or more reliable than what any Christian with a Bible could claim without an internal voice. Yet you consistently criticize anyone whose approach differs from your own.
What I find most revealing is that you make no effort to help build the Body of Christ. You continue to elevate through your claims what is nothing more than a protective bubble above all others. You care not for the consequences of doing so. You use the voice you hear as a means through which to imply that my relationship with Christ is not only questionable but beneath your own. I find that this alone provides evidence that whatever the voice is you are worshipping, it is not Christ's.
These are my observations. They are based on the record of our exchanges. I offer them not from hurt, but from a commitment to honesty and truth.
You called my statement a lie. The statement was that you refuse to provide verbatim examples of your conversations with the voice you claim is Christ. Across our exchanges, you have not provided a single stenographer-level transcript of a back-and-forth dialogue with that voice. You have provided summaries, interpretations, doctrinal conclusions, and one summarized interaction. When pressed further, you said you do not wish to put your Lord on display as a sideshow. That is a refusal. Therefore, my statement was accurate, not a lie.
You also suggested I feel hurt. I am grieved, but not for the reason you assume. I am grieved because you place your claim above my own witness despite my providing verbatim samples of my interactions with YHWH through the UICD, and despite my never claiming to hear a distinct internal voice as you describe. However, my grief is not why I question you. I question you because your claims contain inconsistencies you have not resolved, and because you have not provided the evidence I have requested.
You cannot engage with concepts your voice does not compel you to examine. You do not ask your voice about near-death experiences, the transfiguration, or Jesus' statement that God is the God of the living. You remain disinterested in evidence that challenges your beliefs. Your voice does not lead you into uncomfortable truth. It reinforces what you already believe.
You claim to be a slave to this voice. But you test the voice against external standards. A slave does not test the master. A slave obeys. Your testing demonstrates that you do not fully trust the voice, or that you have placed something above it.
Nothing you have provided indicates that this voice produces anything better or more reliable than what any Christian with a Bible could claim without an internal voice. Yet you consistently criticize anyone whose approach differs from your own.
What I find most revealing is that you make no effort to help build the Body of Christ. You continue to elevate through your claims what is nothing more than a protective bubble above all others. You care not for the consequences of doing so. You use the voice you hear as a means through which to imply that my relationship with Christ is not only questionable but beneath your own. I find that this alone provides evidence that whatever the voice is you are worshipping, it is not Christ's.
These are my observations. They are based on the record of our exchanges. I offer them not from hurt, but from a commitment to honesty and truth.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #438[Replying to William in post #437]
Christians, not the self-proclaimed denominational Christians of various classes, do not use the bible in testifying to their Master/Teacher/Pastor, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in defending their faith in God. The only source of their defenses and testimonies is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, to whom they listen and follow everything that they've heard and learned from Him.Nothing you have provided indicates that this voice produces anything better or more reliable than what any Christian with a Bible could claim without an internal voice
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #439Coming to and calling on the Almighty God alone, and asking Him for the truth about His name, is the surest way to arrive at the truth. What say ye, Tammy?tam wrote: ↑Sat Dec 20, 2025 2:31 am Peace to you,
For the reader (if interested):
**
If desired, I would suggest doing a little research on the evolution of the name "Jesus." That is not what Christ would have been called in Israel a couple thousand years ago. In a best case scenario, the name "Jesus" went through a few different renditions to get to this rendition (from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).
But in English, the closest transliteration of the name of Christ would be Joshua - and that directly from the Aramaic. The Hebrew name that Joshua is derived from means JAH saves.
My dear Lord's name has the name of His Father in it as well. As did many of the prophets of old. And if the prophets of old had the name of God in their names, how much more so the Son, who came in the name of His Father?
ZecharIAH
JeremIAH
EliJAH - meaning, My God is JAH
And the phrase Hallelu'jah - means Praise JAH.
The meaning of the Son's name has the name of His Father as part of it (JAH saves/salvation of JAH, so that name MUST contain the name of the Father.)
Jah'eshua (JAH saves/savior of JAH)
Peace again to you,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
OneJack
- Guru
- Posts: 1662
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:57 am
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Does Christ speak and how?
Post #440Coming to and calling on the Almighty God alone, and asking Him for the truth about His name, is the surest way to arrive at the truth. What say ye, Tammy?tam wrote: ↑Sat Dec 20, 2025 2:31 am Peace to you,
For the reader (if interested):
**
If desired, I would suggest doing a little research on the evolution of the name "Jesus." That is not what Christ would have been called in Israel a couple thousand years ago. In a best case scenario, the name "Jesus" went through a few different renditions to get to this rendition (from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).
But in English, the closest transliteration of the name of Christ would be Joshua - and that directly from the Aramaic. The Hebrew name that Joshua is derived from means JAH saves.
My dear Lord's name has the name of His Father in it as well. As did many of the prophets of old. And if the prophets of old had the name of God in their names, how much more so the Son, who came in the name of His Father?
ZecharIAH
JeremIAH
EliJAH - meaning, My God is JAH
And the phrase Hallelu'jah - means Praise JAH.
The meaning of the Son's name has the name of His Father as part of it (JAH saves/salvation of JAH, so that name MUST contain the name of the Father.)
Jah'eshua (JAH saves/savior of JAH)
Peace again to you,
servant to the household of God and a slave of Christ,
tammy
