Does Christ speak and how?

[tam]

May you have peace!

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

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

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


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


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

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

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



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

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

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

"Yes Lord," he answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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



My own personal testimony


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

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

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


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

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

**

I was asked how does He speak

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

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


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



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


**

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

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



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

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


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



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


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

[tam]

Peace again,

William, you are not going to be able to justify claiming that Christ leads people into deceptions/illusions/'rooms of hell' that you claimed were in the Father's house.

Moses encountered a bush that was on fire but was not consumed.

The bush was not on fire. A seraph ("fiery" aka "glowing") was in the bush.

To Moses, it may have looked like the bush was burning, especially if he had never seen a seraph before that time. He may have simply described what it looked like to him. But there was no deception or illusion from God involved.

**

To the rest, that discussion was thoroughly had in those provided links. I am not going to have it again from scratch.

viewtopic.php?p=1037195#p1037195
viewtopic.php?p=1030075#p1030075
viewtopic.php?p=1030598#p1030598
viewtopic.php?p=1030183#p1030183

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #457]

Which is more credible: a claim of direct divine communication that refuses to be tested, hides behind piety, and never evolves - or a method that is shared openly, documented over decades, welcomes testing, and continues to grow?

None! Neither must be given weight/credibility to the claims, per se, which are only, in their face values, testimonies to the one who is the giver [to the testifier] of what is being testified to. The credibility, in this case, should be looked at in the Almighty God [the Lord Jesus], who is the real object and focus of the testimony of the testifier, and the one who is the real credible in all respects.

[William]

What tam does
She reinterprets the burning bush to remove the illusion
What this reveals
She cannot accept that God would use illusion, so she explains it away - a seraph in the bush, Moses' mistaken perception

What tam does
She distinguishes between "illusion from God" and "Moses' misperception"
What this reveals
This is a distinction without a difference. The experience was the same. The phenomenon was the same.

What tam does
She insists there was "no deception or illusion from God"
What this reveals
No one claimed deception. I claimed illusion as a vehicle. She conflates the two.

What tam does
She refuses to re-engage
What this reveals
She has done this before (Post #40 in 2021, Post #348, etc.). The pattern holds.

By rejecting the burning bush as an illusion, she has now positioned herself as correcting the biblical text. The text says Moses saw a bush that was on fire but not consumed. She says, "No, it was a seraph in the bush." The text says nothing about a seraph. She is adding to scripture to protect/project her theology.

This is exactly what she accuses others of doing.

The deeper point - which she has missed entirely:

Whether the bush was literally on fire, or a seraph was in the bush, or Moses hallucinated, or the entire event was a vision - the experience was real. The communication was real. The truth conveyed was real. The medium (burning bush, seraph, vision, whatever) was unconventional - and that did not make the message false.

My argument never required the bush to be literally on fire. My argument was: divine communication can occur through unconventional, even illusion-like, means. The burning bush is such an example. Tam spent her energy arguing about what was "really" in the bush - missing the forest for the trees.

This is typical of tam. This is typical of any suckling. I point it out. I do not judge it for anything it is not. I test the spirit and find it is immature, inconsistent with the method of testing she claimed and lacking for that.

I think at this point it will be clear to the reader that my points have been clear and revealing rather than hidden.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #457]

Which is more credible: a claim of direct divine communication that refuses to be tested, hides behind piety, and never evolves - or a method that is shared openly, documented over decades, welcomes testing, and continues to grow?

None! Neither must be given weight/credibility to the claims, per se, which are only, in their face values, testimonies to the one who is the giver [to the testifier] of what is being testified to. The credibility, in this case, should be looked at in the Almighty God [the Lord Jesus], who is the real object and focus of the testimony of the testifier, and the one who is the real credible in all respects.

By all means - test what I offer "in the Almighty God [the Lord Jesus]" (יהוה) show how this testing is done. I have offered an verbatim example. I will be offering more.

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #457]

Which is more credible: a claim of direct divine communication that refuses to be tested, hides behind piety, and never evolves - or a method that is shared openly, documented over decades, welcomes testing, and continues to grow?

None! Neither must be given weight/credibility to the claims, per se, which are only, in their face values, testimonies to the one who is the giver [to the testifier] of what is being testified to. The credibility, in this case, should be looked at in the Almighty God [the Lord Jesus], who is the real object and focus of the testimony of the testifier, and the one who is the real credible in all respects.

By all means - test what I offer "in the Almighty God [the Lord Jesus]" (יהוה) show how this testing is done. I have offered an verbatim example. I will be offering more.

Tell me, William, what will my soul benefit if I test what you have offered? Just a simple question, maybe. Since you claim to have spoken to Jesus, what did Jesus tell you who and what He is, and what did He do to convince you He is Jesus?

[tam]

Peace again,

What tam does
She reinterprets the burning bush to remove the illusion
What this reveals
She cannot accept that God would use illusion, so she explains it away - a seraph in the bush, Moses' mistaken perception

I have no need to explain it away. It was a seraph in the bush (what most people refer to as an angel, a seraph - fiery flying serpent.)

And what I cannot accept is your claim that Christ leads His sheep into falsehood, illusions. As stated in those linked threads.

What tam does
She refuses to re-engage
What this reveals
She has done this before (Post #40 in 2021, Post #348, etc.). The pattern holds.

Yes, because at some point, there is nothing left to say that has not already said.

By rejecting the burning bush as an illusion, she has now positioned herself as correcting the biblical text. The text says Moses saw a bush that was on fire but not consumed. She says, "No, it was a seraph in the bush." The text says nothing about a seraph. She is adding to scripture to protect/project her theology.

There the angel of [the Lord] appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”

4 When [the Lord] saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

None of this was an illusion. This actually happened.

The deeper point - which she has missed entirely:

Whether the bush was literally on fire, or a seraph was in the bush, or Moses hallucinated, or the entire event was a vision - the experience was real.

Of course the experience was real. Not only that, but the event itself was real. Not an illusion.

The communication was real. The truth conveyed was real.

Indeed.

The medium (burning bush, seraph, vision, whatever) was unconventional - and that did not make the message false.

No one said 'unconventional = false.'

You are attempting to equate illusion with unconventional - but that is not what the word means.

Regardless, the message you are claiming is a false message.

Christ does not lead His sheep into illusion or falsehood or anything untrue. He promises to lead us into all truth. He speaks the truth. He IS the Truth. He said that He goes to His Father's house to prepare a room for us. He does not prepare rooms of 'illusion/falsehood/hell' for us in the Father's house.

As stated in those linked posts.

And here is another. Because at one point you did seem to understand that illusion is not truth:

As I suggested, perhaps The Father House is designed to house those who prefer illusion to truth. - William

viewtopic.php?p=1030702#p1030702

But that cannot be true. Because Christ said to His apostles:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”


Christ does not lead us into illusion, but rather into truth, all truth.

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #465]

What OneJack does in this post:

He ignores my request - I asked him to "show how this testing is done." He does not.

He shifts the burden - Instead of testing your evidence, he asks you a question: "What will my soul benefit if I test what you have offered?"

He asks for your testimony - "What did Jesus tell you who and what He is, and what did He do to convince you He is Jesus?"

What OneJack does NOT do:

Missing element
Provide a method for testing
Significance
He likely has no method. He likely never intended to test.

Missing element
Engage with your verbatim example
Significance
He ignores the evidence entirely.

Missing element
He does not answer my question.
Significance
I asked him to show testing. He responded with a different question.

He is doing exactly what tam does - deflecting, shifting, avoiding.

He says only God is credible. I agreed. I pointed verbatim examples and ask him to test them in God and explain his method. He responds by asking what his soul will benefit.

This reveals his true concern: not truth, but benefit. Not testing, but personal gain. Not God's credibility, but his own soul's advantage.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #466]

What tam does by quoting the scripture (Exodus 3:2-4) alongside her seraph claim:

She presents the text as if it supports her. But the text she quotes says:

"There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up... When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush."

The text does not say:

"A seraph was in the bush."

"The flames were an angel."

"There was no fire."

What the text actually says:

An angel appeared in flames of fire from within a bush.

The bush was on fire.

The bush did not burn up.

God called from within the bush.

The illusion is right there in the text she quoted:

A bush on fire that does not burn up is, by definition, an illusion - a phenomenon that appears to violate natural law. Whether the fire was literal fire, or the "flames" were the angel's appearance, or the entire event was a vision - the perception was a bush on fire. The reality was something other than a normal bush on fire.

She cannot escape this. She has quoted the proof of my point.

She claims יהוה does not use illusion and continues to conflate illusion with falseness. And why? So she can continue to call my witness false and coming not from Christ.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #465]

What OneJack does in this post:

He ignores my request - I asked him to "show how this testing is done." He does not.

He shifts the burden - Instead of testing your evidence, he asks you a question: "What will my soul benefit if I test what you have offered?"

He asks for your testimony - "What did Jesus tell you who and what He is, and what did He do to convince you He is Jesus?"

What OneJack does NOT do:

Missing element
Provide a method for testing
Significance
He likely has no method. He likely never intended to test.

Missing element
Engage with your verbatim example
Significance
He ignores the evidence entirely.

Missing element
He does not answer my question.
Significance
I asked him to show testing. He responded with a different question.

He is doing exactly what tam does - deflecting, shifting, avoiding.

He says only God is credible. I agreed. I pointed verbatim examples and ask him to test them in God and explain his method. He responds by asking what his soul will benefit.

This reveals his true concern: not truth, but benefit. Not testing, but personal gain. Not God's credibility, but his own soul's advantage.

The benefit that our souls can gain is what I am after, not personal gain. If what we're doing will not lead us to our salvation, why will we waste our time on those things?

[William]

Observing the exchange with OneJack:

He asks, "What will my soul benefit?" but does not define what he means by "soul." Without a definition, how would he recognize benefit in any answer from anyone else? And if he cannot recognize benefit, why demand it as a precondition for testing?

Earlier, he stated that neither my claims nor tam's claims should be given weight or credibility only God is credible. If that is true, then his own claims his demand for "soul benefit," his question about what Jesus told me, his assertion that salvation is the proper goal - must also not be given weight or credibility.

By his own rule, he has cancelled his own authority to speak.

The invitation to test my verbatim examples remains open. His excuses and questions carry no weight.

Observers can note the pattern: deflection, shifting the burden, and a framework that undoes itself.