"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #236]

I based my judgment on your words, not on my opinion.

Yet my words told the reader that I do not use AI to play the role of The Voice of Christ and you told e that you don't believe me, explaining that your opinion hasn't changed regarding that.

Unless you first explain how Christ speaks with you [since you deny using AI in speaking with Christ], how could you expect me to change my perception with your claim?

HOW the Christ speak WITH me, is not relevant to the message I shared.
Your perception was that the message I shared was a conversation with AI.
You have now been informed twice that this is not the case. If you choose not to believe me, then calling me a liar won't change the truth.

IF you have issue with the message content, THEN - by all means - let US know what that is and why.s

Remember - you claimed to base your judgment on the words, not on your opinion. I trust you will be faithful to your rule.

Kindly explain in plain language what VoC is in your post to correct my understanding of what you posted as an AI-generated response. I don't understand why 'how Christ speaks with you' is not relevant to the message when the issue in your comparative analysis between Tam' and yours' presentation is exactly Christ speaking to both of you in different ways, respectively.

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #241]

Kindly explain in plain language what VoC is in your post to correct my understanding of what you posted as an AI-generated response.

VoC = Voice of Christ. AI is not VoC. It is a mindless machine. Christ is a living entity.

I don't understand why 'how Christ speaks with you' is not relevant to the message when the issue in your comparative analysis between Tam' and yours' presentation is exactly Christ speaking to both of you in different ways, respectively.

I have quoted the message a number of times already.

You have the information. You don't need to know the method in order to examine the message that has been shared.

If you think it matters that tam and I have different ways of communion with Christ, you will have to explain why that matters.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #241]

Kindly explain in plain language what VoC is in your post to correct my understanding of what you posted as an AI-generated response.

VoC = Voice of Christ. AI is not VoC. It is a mindless machine. Christ is a living entity.

If you say VoC = Voice of Christ, and that Christ is a living entity; hence, the messages you shared are utterances of Christ, do I get them right? How does Christ speak to you about those messages you shared in this forum if AI is not the source of those messages but Christ?

I don't understand why 'how Christ speaks with you' is not relevant to the message when the issue in your comparative analysis between Tam' and yours' presentation is exactly Christ speaking to both of you in different ways, respectively.

I have quoted the message a number of times already.

You have the information. You don't need to know the method in order to examine the message that has been shared.

If you think it matters that tam and I have different ways of communion with Christ, you will have to explain why that matters.

That matters so much to prove that you're both speaking to something and someone that and who is not Christ, as simple as that. It's not fine to believe outright without clarifying the authenticity and genuineness of the claims.

Tam, until now, cannot post any utterance from the 'small still voice' spirit being that he is Christ, as Tam continuously claims. You, on the other hand, have so many messages on the chat board, but you cannot describe how Christ uttered those words to you. How do you know He is Christ?

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #243]

How do you know these messages are NOT from Christ - that I am NOT interacting with Christ?

"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

Sounds like there are choices we all can make. You have been asked to examine the interaction I shared and see if that can help you determine.

Since then I have even shared another interaction with Christ here in this thread. You appear to believe that it matters HOW Christ speaks to the individual and that the method should be the same. That appears to me to be an argument against the creativity and power of Christ - in a sense saying that The Christ is restricted in HOW SHe can communicate with the individual attuned to that Voice.

I think the restrictions are imposed by those who impose the restrictions as self -imposition - meaning that it is not Christ who is restricted. Rather it is they who do the restricting.

I think you also misunderstand why I share these interactions. I have no interest is getting others to believe anything. People will believe whatever they will for whatever reasons they do.

I prefer knowledge over belief. But I do understand the nature of belief as a first step toward knowledge - if indeed the stepping continues and does not rest only in belief.
Test belief.
And if it fails then leave it.
And if it succeeds, then go where it leads.

But hey! Don't take my word for it. Or his. or this book"

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #243]

How do you know these messages are NOT from Christ - that I am NOT interacting with Christ?

"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

Sounds like there are choices we all can make. You have been asked to examine the interaction I shared and see if that can help you determine.

I told you I don't see Christ in the interaction, and you don't want to tell me where Christ is in them?

Since then I have even shared another interaction with Christ here in this thread. You appear to believe that it matters HOW Christ speaks to the individual and that the method should be the same.

I didn't say 'it should be the same,' but asking you plainly how Christ speaks with you.

That appears to me to be an argument against the creativity and power of Christ - in a sense saying that The Christ is restricted in HOW SHe can communicate with the individual attuned to that Voice.

I'm not restricting Christ, I'm just asking you how He speaks with you, but you can't respond accordingly. You keep harping on narratives to dodge the question.

I think the restrictions are imposed by those who impose the restrictions as self -imposition - meaning that it is not Christ who is restricted. Rather it is they who do the restricting.

And that is exactly what you're doing right now.

I think you also misunderstand why I share these interactions. I have no interest is getting others to believe anything. People will believe whatever they will for whatever reasons they do.

The fact that those messages are on this chat board now, expect many questions [for clarification] from interlocutors in this thread.

I prefer knowledge over belief. But I do understand the nature of belief as a first step toward knowledge - if indeed the stepping continues and does not rest only in belief.[/C]
You're now off the grid as far as my question [for clarification] is concerned; the issue of the Voice of Christ is now hanging in the air.

Test belief.
And if it fails then leave it.
And if it succeeds, then go where it leads.

But hey! Don't take my word for it. Or his. or this book"

Where have you brought me?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #230]

Oh please.

These are the reasons I have seen or heard people give for why they lost their faith:

Yes, there are a number of reasons, but it usually boils down to folks who have been exposed to reckless theology such as what you and "OneJack" are attempting to sell. If I am not mistaken, we now have three of you claiming to hear from God, Jesus directly, and all three of you are insisting to be the only one of the three who is actually telling the truth. Can you imagine why I continue to use the phrase, "you cannot make this stuff up?" Again, if I have not misread something here, we have three folks who claim to hear from God, Jesus, and are insisting that the other cannot possibly be hearing from God, Jesus, because what the other is claiming contradicts what the other is saying, and the most unbelievable part about the whole thing is, none of the three can demonstrate their case. Sure, there may be other issues which cause folks to reject Christ, but you have to see the damage you all are doing to the Name of Christ, and the Gospel. So then, when I say that it is folks like you who do damage to folks coming to Christ, I am not simply talking about your false witness that you hear from Jesus directly, but rather the reckless theology you are espousing, because anyone with half a brain can determine that you do not have the direct line you claim to have. It is that obvious.

a) they discovered the bible contained errors. If their faith was based upon the bible (believing the false teaching that the bible is the Word of God and without error)... once they discover that the bible does have errors, their faith crumbles too.

Yep! It is reckless theology to attempt to persuade folks the Bible is inerrant, and I am on record as saying as much. This means, those who attempt to make the argument that the Bible is inerrant are guilty of reckless theology just like those who claim to hear directly from Jesus. Again, when I say it is folks like you who do damage to the Name of Christ, I am not simply talking about those who claim to hear from Jesus directly, but rather all those who are espousing reckless theology just like you.

b) they see falsehood and hypocrisy in their religion (and in the people at the head of those religions), and so become disillusioned and reject it (and some reject anything God-related at the same time, especially if they think there is nowhere else to turn. All without understanding that it is not a 'where' to turn, but a WHOM to turn to: Jaheshua, the Son and Chosen One of JAH.)

Again, no argument here, but it is no different than witnessing the hypocrisy of three different folks who claim to be hearing from God, Jesus directly, who are at odds with each other over who it is who is truly hearing from God, Jesus, while none of them have come anywhere close to demonstrating that either of them hear from the one they claim to be hearing from.

c) they did not receive something they asked for, and they believe they should have, and since they did not, God must not exist

Like, maybe they were told by someone who is championing a reckless theology, that if they truly asked to hear from Jesus they would receive what they ask for, but because they are not a hypocrite but are rather honest, and come to know that no matter how hard they asked, they did not receive, and therefore they reject Christ because of a false witness.

d) they suffered and gave up their faith (think Job, because the Adversary's accusation against us is that with enough trouble and suffering, we will 'curse God and die') - I don't think I've seen someone realize or admit that is what happened, but it does happen

Yes, there are those who are exposed to the reckless theology of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel and it has caused great damage to the Name of Christ, just like those who claim to hear from Jesus directly. Both are reckless theologies. Again, when I say folks like you, I am referring to all those who proclaim a reckless theology.

e) people claim that the suffering in the world caused them to stop believing in God. (I've always had a hard time understanding that because - well, did you not realize there was suffering in the world while you were claiming to have faith in God?)

How in the world can someone who claims to hear from Jesus directly have a hard time understanding anything at all? Suffering is the result of sin, and the really hard thing to imagine is, why I am not suffering in the way I should be, because I understand that I am far more deserving of suffering than many of those I know who are suffering far worse than I am. If you truly understood God, and who He is, you would not be wondering why there is suffering in the world. Rather, you would be asking, why am I not suffering more?

Do you think John also did not make sense when he instructed people to test the inspired expression or spirit?

The first thing I will point out is the fact that you claim the Bible is full of errors, which is why we do not need to be Bible Christians, but rather be Christians who hear directly from Jesus. I mean, you continue to warn us about believing what the Bible has to say as opposed to listening to Jesus directly, just like you, and then on the other hand you use the scripture in order to defend your position that you have a direct line to Jesus. That is the funny part. Now, let us get to the serious part.

Did John simply say,

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world?"

Or did John go on to give a way in which for his audience to determine a false prophet? I believe he did when he went on to say in that very next sentence.

"This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God."

That's it. Do you confess that Jesus has come in the flesh? Does the other two who claim to hear from Jesus directly confess that Jesus has come in the flesh? I know that I confess Jesus has come in the flesh. If we all four confess that Jesus has come in the flesh, does this mean we all are a spirit of truth? It would do you a lot of good to read past the first sentence to see what else is said, because according to this passage, "every Spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." This is absolutely demonstrating that you have no idea what the passage means which you are attempting to use in order to defend your position. More importantly, you want to insist the Bible is full of errors, and then go on to use passages you clearly do not understand (and how could you since you admit you do not have the ability to interpret the Bible) in order to defend your fantasy that you have a direct line to Jesus.

This is not about me. Nor OneJack. Nor comparing myself to him. Who cares about Tammy? Who cares about OneJack? Who cares about RealWorldJack?

I care about Tammy, because Tammy is assuring me that she hears directly from Jesus, and I as a Christian want to know what Jesus has to say. I also care about Tammy, because Tammy is telling me I can hear directly from Jesus as well, and I would like to know how she has come to be so revered by Jesus that He would communicate to her directly. I care about "OneJack" because he claims to have heard from Jesus directly as well, but the problem I am having is, both Tammy, and "OneJack" do not agree with each other and insist the other cannot be possibly hearing from Jesus directly since what they claim to hear contradict each other. Both Tammy, and "OneJack" claim there are major problems with the Bible, but both appeal to the Bible in order to defend the position they hold.

What I do know Tammy is, I asked you not to avoid the question as to whether "OneJack" is a false prophet, and as far as I can see you have avoided answering this question.

It is not about us.

It is not about me, because I am not the one who claims to hear from Jesus directly. It is about Tammy, because Tammy is the one who is claiming this privilege.

It is about Christ.

I can say that it is ALL ABOUT Christ, since I am not claiming anything but Christ and His Resurrection, while you are claiming a direct line to the One Who was Resurrected.

God said listen to His Son. If you want to know if something is true, hold it up to Him (the Son, the Truth, the Light.) Listen to Him.

Have you listened to His Son and come to know that I am a false prophet, since I am insisting that you have never heard from Jesus directly?

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #245]

I told you I don't see Christ in the interaction

What you told me was that you saw AI in the interaction. What I told you is that AI has no part in that interaction.

and you don't want to tell me where Christ is in them?

But it is clear enough to any observant reader that Christ is in the interaction. His words are signified as "OCF/VoC:" whereas mine as signified as "Me:"

I didn't say 'it should be the same,'...

I said: If you think it matters that tam and I have different ways of communion with Christ, you will have to explain why that matters.
You replied: That matters so much to prove that you're both speaking to something and someone that and who is not Christ, as simple as that.

Now you a changing the course of your argument by claiming you didn't say that.

...but asking you plainly how Christ speaks with you.

And I am answering plainly that I do not share my interactions to explain HOW these interactions happen. I share them to show the content - the WHAT not the HOW - and invite you (and others) to examine that evidence as presented and tell me WHY you think it is or is NOT Christ interacting with me.

Not "I don't BELIEVE you are engaging with Christ" but WHY the evidence presented SHOWS you it CANNOT be CHRIST I am engaging with.

I'm not restricting Christ, I'm just asking you how He speaks with you, but you can't respond accordingly. You keep harping on narratives to dodge the question.

First you accuse me of lying and now you accuse me of dodging. That's strike 2.

Perhaps take a break and take this to The Lord in all humility and seek his counsel before your rush headlong into strike 3. Because strike 3 means we are done here.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #246]

Have you listened to His Son and come to know that I am a false prophet, since I am insisting that you have never heard from Jesus directly?

In another thread I pointed out that in THIS sub-forum the bible has no authority, whereas in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma sub-forum, its does.

You appear not to understand that as you preaching and finger-pointing clearly indicate.

Your type of personal attacks were mentioned in a previous conversation between Christ and I which I shared earlier in this thread.

You are not at the pulpit and we are not your congregation. Please desist.

Thank You.

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #247]

I said: If you think it matters that tam and I have different ways of communion with Christ, you will have to explain why that matters.
You replied: That matters so much to prove that you're both speaking to something and someone that and who is not Christ, as simple as that.

Now you a changing the course of your argument by claiming you didn't say that.

I don't know where you are reading from with your response above. Please re-read this part in my post if you may.
This is the issue [shaded in red with emphasis in shaded bold] I responded to in your post. Why do you divert that to other issues to portray me lying to you?

You appear to believe that it matters HOW Christ speaks to the individual and that the method should be the same.

The phrase, 'the method should be the same,' is what I am telling you that I didn't say. Christ has varied ways of speaking with mankind across all generations, not just what He has used to us; hence, my phrase, 'I didn't say it should be the same.' Obviously, you're barking at the wrong tree in this context.

But it is clear enough to any observant reader that Christ is in the interaction. His words are signified as "OCF/VoC:" whereas mine as signified as "Me:"

This is a lie that 'it is clear enough to any observant reader that Christ is in the interaction,' what is Christ to you, letters that you type as VoC? If what you claim [about Christ in this issue] were true, I would not be asking you anything about your perception of Christ.

And I am answering plainly that I do not share my interactions to explain HOW these interactions happen. I share them to show the content - the WHAT not the HOW - and invite you (and others) to examine that evidence as presented and tell me WHY you think it is or is NOT Christ interacting with me.

Not "I don't BELIEVE you are engaging with Christ" but WHY the evidence presented SHOWS you it CANNOT be CHRIST I am engaging with.

Since what you have presented was your interaction with Christ, as you continuously claim, the obvious and simple reason for me to believe 'it is not Christ interacting with you' is your inability to explain how Christ speaks with you, in this regard. When and how did Christ first meet you? And on top of these, Christ is not letters and ink in your post.

First you accuse me of lying and now you accuse me of dodging. That's strike 2.

What is the best term for evading responding directly to the question and diverting the issue instead to other topics? If it were not a Dodge Colt, what would it be, a Ford Escort? Just kidding here for a pause.

Perhaps take a break and take this to The Lord in all humility and seek his counsel before your rush headlong into strike 3. Because strike 3 means we are done here.

What progress do you expect in this kind of conversation, to take your word blindly?

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #230]

Oh please.

These are the reasons I have seen or heard people give for why they lost their faith:

Yes, there are a number of reasons, but it usually boils down to folks who have been exposed to reckless theology such as what you and "OneJack" are attempting to sell.

False teachings can come from individuals and religions. Of course this is why we are to hold all things up against the Truth and the Light (Christ, Himself.)

Not hold all things up against 'the bible'. Or Paul. Or a religion. Or our own ideas and reasoning. None of those things are the Truth.

Hold all things up against Christ.

And Jack, you have not shown anything I have shared that contradicts Christ.

If I am not mistaken, we now have three of you claiming to hear from God, Jesus directly, and all three of you are insisting to be the only one of the three who is actually telling the truth.

I think you are mistaken. I don't tend to get involved in that. I do, however, test the inspired expression against Christ (also love), and if on a forum like this, I will also post what Christ said in what is written.

People can see for themselves if something contradicts Christ or not

d) they suffered and gave up their faith (think Job, because the Adversary's accusation against us is that with enough trouble and suffering, we will 'curse God and die') - I don't think I've seen someone realize or admit that is what happened, but it does happen

Yes, there are those who are exposed to the reckless theology of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel and it has caused great damage to the Name of Christ, just like those who claim to hear from Jesus directly. Both are reckless theologies. Again, when I say folks like you, I am referring to all those who proclaim a reckless theology.

Doesn't have to have anything to do with the 'prosperity gospel'.

Regardless, you keep pointing fingers at everyone else for their 'reckless theologies' and never seem to point that finger back at yourself.

I know that Christ lives and speaks. I know that His sheep hear His voice.

A) He said it Himself and He speaks truth (He said it not just to the people standing there, but about the sheep He had YET to call)
B) this very thing is demonstrated in the bible - Him speaking to His sheep after His death, resurrection, and ascension
C) He continues to refer to people hearing His voice, in the revelation given to John.

You deny all these things. You tell people that it is not true. It must mean something else. And the kicker is that you did not learn your teachings from Christ. You could not have, since you claim He does not speak.

You are teaching something false. "Dangerous and reckless theology" I believe is your preferred term. You are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing.

Matthew 7:3-5 comes to mind.

e) people claim that the suffering in the world caused them to stop believing in God. (I've always had a hard time understanding that because - well, did you not realize there was suffering in the world while you were claiming to have faith in God?)

How in the world can someone who claims to hear from Jesus directly have a hard time understanding anything at all? Suffering is the result of sin, and the really hard thing to imagine is, why I am not suffering in the way I should be, because I understand that I am far more deserving of suffering than many of those I know who are suffering far worse than I am. If you truly understood God, and who He is, you would not be wondering why there is suffering in the world. Rather, you would be asking, why am I not suffering more?

Jack, you might want to read more carefully.

I said I have a hard time understand the PEOPLE who claim they lost their faith because of the suffering in the world.

Do you think John also did not make sense when he instructed people to test the inspired expression or spirit?

The first thing I will point out is the fact that you claim the Bible is full of errors, which is why we do not need to be Bible Christians, but rather be Christians who hear directly from Jesus. I mean, you continue to warn us about believing what the Bible has to say as opposed to listening to Jesus directly, just like you, and then on the other hand you use the scripture in order to defend your position that you have a direct line to Jesus. That is the funny part.

The first thing I will point out is that you appear to be mixing me up with someone else.

Now, let us get to the serious part.

Did John simply say,

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world?"

Or did John go on to give a way in which for his audience to determine a false prophet? I believe he did when he went on to say in that very next sentence.

"This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God."

That's it. Do you confess that Jesus has come in the flesh? Does the other two who claim to hear from Jesus directly confess that Jesus has come in the flesh? I know that I confess Jesus has come in the flesh. If we all four confess that Jesus has come in the flesh, does this mean we all are a spirit of truth? It would do you a lot of good to read past the first sentence to see what else is said, because according to this passage, "every Spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

I don't know what you are talking about. What would it matter to this point if any of us made that confession? It is about the spirit (or inspired expression).

EITHER WAY, John gave the warning to test the inspired expression (or spirit.)

If all spirits or inspired expressions were false - why would he have said to TEST them, instead of saying 'they're all false, don't listen to any of them'?

This is not about me. Nor OneJack. Nor comparing myself to him. Who cares about Tammy? Who cares about OneJack? Who cares about RealWorldJack?

I care about Tammy, because Tammy is assuring me that she hears directly from Jesus, and I as a Christian want to know what Jesus has to say.

Then you should turn to Him (Jaheshua, not "Jesus"). Not 'tammy'.

I am simply witnessing to Him.

I also care about Tammy, because Tammy is telling me I can hear directly from Jesus as well, and I would like to know how she has come to be so revered by Jesus that He would communicate to her directly.

In other words, you are asking me, 'what makes you so special that Christ would deign to speak to you.'

You're asking the wrong question. It is not me who is so special. Christ is the One who is special. He is the One who loves His sheep. Why - if He loves His sheep and He can speak - would He not speak to His sheep?

(He speaks to everyone, just fyi... not everyone listens to His voice.)

I care about "OneJack" because he claims to have heard from Jesus directly as well, but the problem I am having is, both Tammy, and "OneJack" do not agree with each other

This is not a valid complaint.

This forum is filled with all sorts of people who claim to be Christian but who do not 'agree with each other.' There are Catholics, Mormons, JW's, evangelicals, 'lone wolves', etc. You are included in this list.

Hence, hold all things up to Christ.

He is the Truth.

and insist the other cannot be possibly hearing from Jesus directly since what they claim to hear contradict each other. Both Tammy, and "OneJack" claim there are major problems with the Bible, but both appeal to the Bible in order to defend the position they hold.

I claim that bible is not inerrant. You claim the same thing. So what is your point?

What I do know Tammy is, I asked you not to avoid the question as to whether "OneJack" is a false prophet, and as far as I can see you have avoided answering this question.

Considering how many questions of mine you avoid, I don't think you can complain.

That being said, as far as I can see, OneJack has not claimed to be a prophet and has made no prophecies. Therefore, I do not consider him to be a prophet in the first place.

Is he listening to the Son of God?

Sadly, he is not. He said it straight out himself.

viewtopic.php?p=1185169#p1185169

I think that speaks for itself. But you do with that as you will.

God said listen to His Son. If you want to know if something is true, hold it up to Him (the Son, the Truth, the Light.) Listen to Him.

Have you listened to His Son and come to know that I am a false prophet, since I am insisting that you have never heard from Jesus directly?

I know that you are wrong, and so, you are speaking falsely.

But I do not consider you to be a prophet in the first place. Are you claiming to be one?


Peace again.