"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?

[tam]

Peace again,

[Replying to tam in post #79]

Tammy, all you continue to do is to filibuster.

More accusations, Jack?

I have responded to the very many questions you have asked me (including this current question earlier in this thread.)

How many questions have you ignored of mine?

I suspect you won't answer this question either (of whether or not Phillip heard a voice.) Perhaps because the answer would not support the post you are working on that is supposed to 'pretty much end my claim to hear from Jesus' Jaheshua.

Which brings me to another question or two:

Why are you working on a post that is supposed to 'pretty much end my claim' if you don't have all the information you need to make that judgment call?

Either you have a post that can 'pretty much end my claim' - in which case why would you need more information from me? OR... you DO need more information to complete that post - in which case, haven't you put the conclusion you desire first, regardless of the evidence?

The question is, do you hear a voice? You do not answer a question by asking a question.

You did this very thing (answered questions with a question) in post 15 and 17.

I stated straight out that that I hear the voice of my Lord, just as He said His sheep would do.

We discussed this in posts 18 and 22.

Here as well Jack (the OP):

viewtopic.php?p=738377#p738377

Peace again.

[William]

posting.php?mode=post_reply&post_num=81&f=8&p=1184448
I've been following this exchange with interest, and I want to offer an observation from outside the immediate debate.

What strikes me is that you're not actually arguing about the same thing.

Realworldjack, you are arguing from within a paradigm where scripture - particularly Paul's writings - is the final authority, and correct interpretation is the path to truth. Your questions to tam make sense within that framework: if someone claims to hear from Jesus, they should be able to interpret Paul correctly. If they can't, their claim is suspect. This is logical and consistent.

Tam, you are operating from a different paradigm entirely. For you, scripture is not the source of truth about Christ but a witness to Him - and you see yourself as a witness in the same lineage. When Realworldjack demands your interpretation of Paul, you refuse because you see that as putting the relationship to a test it was never meant to pass. You're not playing the same game.

And this brings us back to Zzyzx's original question in the OP.

He asked: "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?"

The question assumes a framework that most share - believer and atheist alike. They want evidence. They want verification. They want something they can examine, test, and potentially agree upon. This is the framework of the teacher and the debater. It's the framework Realworldjack is using when he demands tam produce a correct interpretation as proof. It's also the framework Zzyzx is using when he asks what it would take to be convinced.

But tam's response throughout this thread has been a quiet challenge to that very framework. She keeps saying, in essence: "I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm pointing to someone you can ask for yourself."

This is the framework of the witness.

And here's where the tension becomes unavoidable. Zzyzx, as an atheist, is asking for evidence that can be examined and verified within a shared public framework. Tam is offering an invitation to a private, unverifiable encounter. From Zzyzx's perspective, this is no answer at all - it's precisely the kind of "take my word for it" that his OP rejects.

Tam would likely respond that she's not asking anyone to take her word - she's asking them to test the One she points to. But from outside, that distinction may be invisible. What the atheist sees is another person asking them to believe something based on a claim of private revelation.

The atheist asks for verifiable evidence. The witness offers an invitation to a relationship. These are not compatible frameworks. They never will be. But perhaps that's the point Zzyzx was making all along.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #69]

I have noticed that while you claim the bible is all that we need, you don't use much of it in your arguments.

Okay, you asked for it, so you are about to get it. However, unlike you I do not tend to take one verse completely out of its context, in order to build a whole theology upon it, because using scripture is hard work, as it involves taking the whole of the context into consideration. With that being said, we are about to embark upon a study of scripture in order to determine there was indeed a difference between the apostles, and the normal everyday believer in the time of the apostles, and the apostles possessed different gifts, abilities, communication with Jesus, and authority over the everyday Christian at the time, that the Christians under the authority of the apostles did not possess, nor did they claim to possess. So then, to be clear, we are about to demonstrate from the scripture that the apostles were on a different plain than the normal Christian at the time as far as miraculous power, gifts, communication with Jesus, and authority than the normal Christian at the time. If we can demonstrate this to be the case, then I think we can rest assured that none of us today possess the abilities that only the apostles had at the time, which those under the authority of the apostles at the time did not possess, which you are now claiming to possess.

We start in Acts chapter 1 verses 1 and 2.

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen."

Okay, you can clearly see above that Jesus gave instructions to the apostles. No one else is mentioned. Continuing on

"After his suffering, he presented himself to them"

Okay, who was the "THEM?" That would be the apostles, correct?

"and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive."

So then, he gave the apostles "many convincing proofs that He was alive," correct?

"He appeared to them"

Okay, who did he appear too? That's right, the apostles.

"over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."

Whom did He speak concerning the "kingdom of God?" The apostles.

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them"

Who was Jesus eating with? You got it, it was the apostles.

"he gave them this command: Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about."

Who was it that was commanded "not to leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about?"

That would be the apostles. Moreover, I was not there to hear Jesus speak about the promise He is referring too, so I cannot be involved.

"For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Who is it which will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in just a few days? That would be the apostles. As we move on what we read is,

"So, when they (who is the "they?" That would be the apostles) had come together, they (apostles) began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus answers the apostles by saying,

"It is not for you (apostles) to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority; but you (apostles) will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you (apostles); and you (apostles) shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

As we can see, Jesus is addressing the apostles, and the apostles only, and it will be the apostles whom the Holy Spirit comes upon, and it will be the apostles who would be witnesses of Jesus. This is a key point! Because you see, you, I, and no one alive today can be witnesses of Jesus, because the point here is, the apostles were witnesses of Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and none of us today have such a qualification. In fact, Paul says that being a witness of Jesus alive after the crucifixion was one of the qualifications of being an apostle. Again, no one today qualifies. In other words, I have not seen the risen Jesus, you have not seen the risen Jesus, no one alive today has seen the risen Jesus.

Okay, what occurs next is extremely important so please read carefully. Jesus is taken up before the apostle's very eyes, and then here is what happened while Jesus was ascending,

"And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, and they said, “Men of Galilee"

The most important thing here is to understand how the apostles were identified as, "Men of Galilee." This will become extremely important as we move on.

Okay, so the apostles go to Jerusalem as they were commanded by Jesus to do, and it says they went to an upper room, and the thing is, Luke makes sure to identify who was present. Luke gives the list as being,

"When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

If you will notice all eleven apostles are mentioned as being present, and the only others mentioned would be the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, along with the brothers of Jesus. We then move on to read this,

"At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together)"

Notice carefully that there were not 120 people in the upper room. Rather, there were about 120 people who were gathered there together, and Peter went on to talk about what happened to Judas and the need to fill his position as one of the apostles, and Peter is about to give the qualifications of being an apostle. Peter stands to speak to the 120 who were gathered and said,

"Therefore, it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us (apostles) all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us (apostles)— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us (apostles)—one of these must become a witness with us (apostles) of His resurrection.”

It is clear from this passage the qualifications of an apostle, one of which would have been the witnessing of Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Again, you, nor I, nor anyone else alive today have witnessed the resurrected Jesus, nor were we there at the baptisms of John. Paul was not there to witness these things, but did witness the risen Christ, and went on to acknowledge that he was "abnormally born." All of this is going on to demonstrate that to be an apostle you had to meet certain qualifications, and to be an apostle meant one who had divine authority, along with possessing certain gifts and abilities which were not available to the ordinary believer, and we are about to see proof of this being the case.

From here they choose Mathis to take the place of Judas since he met all the qualifications and Mathis was added to the eleven in order to make twelve. From here we move on to chapter 2 were we read,

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place."

Okay, who were the "they" in the sentence above? Well, who were we just reading about at the end of chapter 1? That would be the eleven, who are now twelve. It goes on,

"And suddenly a noise like a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting."

Again, who is the "they" in this sentence? Again, it would only be the apostles. It goes on to tell us that the 12 apostles began to speak in tongues, and the crowd was bewildered, and one of the ways in which we can be sure that it was only the 12 apostles is when some in the crowd were saying, (read carefully here)

"Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?"

Now, let us go back to chapter 1 at the ascension of Jesus when those in white appeared to the eleven and addressed the eleven as, "men of Galilee." This demonstrates that only the 12 apostles were speaking in tongues, because it is a fact that the 120 would not have all been from Galilee. I will go on to tell you that the fact the crowd could identify these men were from Galilee, pretty much demonstrates the apostles were not speaking in a language they did not speak, and we will see more evidence of this as we move on, but this is for another time. However, another clue that the apostles were not speaking a language they did not know how to speak is the fact that they were accused of being drunk. I can tell you for a fact that if I saw someone, I knew who was speaking in a language that I knew they did not speak, the last thing I would think of is that they must be drunk, because being drunk would not cause such a thing. In fact, what being drunk tends to cause is one who may not even be able to speak in their own language, much less be capable of speaking a language which they do not know. But the main thing here is the fact that the crowd identified the twelve as all being Galilean in the same way as the "men in white" did at the ascension, which goes on to demonstrate that only the twelve were speaking in tongues. However, as we move on Luke tells us,

"But Peter, taking his stand with the other eleven"

Notice here, Luke does not say, "Peter took his stand with the 120" but rather "with the other eleven" who were the only ones speaking in tongues. And here is what Peter had to say,

"For these are not drunk, as you assume, since it is only the third hour of the day;"

Okay, from here Peter goes on to speak to the whole of the crowd, and the question I have is, how many languages could Peter be speaking in? Peter could only be speaking in one language, but somehow the whole of the crowd was able to understand him which goes on to demonstrate the crowd, along with the apostles shared a common language. At any rate, Peter goes on preaching to the crowd, and in the end, we learn that about 3000 souls were added to their number. But here is the thing. What does it tell us that these new Christians were doing?

"They (the new converts) were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

Notice, the new converts were devoting themselves to the apostles teaching, meaning they had to have someone teaching them, because they did not have a direct line to Jesus. In other words, they were not depending on what they heard from Jesus directly, but were rather depending upon what the apostles were teaching them. However, in the very next verse we read this,

"Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles."

Who was it who were performing the "many signs and wonders?" That would be only the apostles. What were the normal Christians under the authority of the apostles doing? We read in the very next sentence,

"And all the believers were together and had all things in common; and they would sell their property and possessions and share them with all, to the extent that anyone had need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved."

My friend, we are seeing a clear distinction between the apostles, who had divine authority, and the ordinary believer. It was only the apostles who were performing miracles, and it was only the apostles who were going around preaching the gospel, with some later who were commissioned by the apostles, with the laying on of hands by the apostles. But again, the normal believer was not involved in all these signs wonders, and miracles, and most important is the fact that they were having to depend on the authority of the apostles teaching, which demonstrates they were not hearing directly from Jesus as you claim to be doing. However, it does not get any better for you as we move on.

As we read chapters 3 and 4 (and you should really read these chapters because it is powerful) we read of Peter and John who of course were apostles, healing a man, and then were arrested for the preaching of Jesus, and when they were released they returned to the believers, and at the end of chapter 4 we read again,

"And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them."

The above was what the normal everyday Christians were doing, but in the very next sentence we see the contrast between the normal everyday Christian, as opposed to what the apostles were doing.

"And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all."

Do you see that? It was only the apostles who were giving testimony of the resurrected Jesus, with great power, because it was the apostles who had witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and was given this great power an authority.

You see, all you are doing is to read in scripture of how Jesus spoke to those who He gave authority to, and what they experienced, along with how they may have had communication with Jesus and reading into this that this should be your experience as well. Not only this, but you also attempt to convince other Christians this should be the normal experience of all Christians leading others astray with this dangerous, and reckless theology. One of the comical things about all of this (if it was not so tragic) is the actual fact that you are attempting to use scripture to back this reckless theology, all the while insisting that it is not scripture which we need to listen to but rather the voice of Jesus. This is comical in the fact that you would have never known a thing in the world concerning Jesus, and you would have never thought you were hearing the voice of Jesus, if it had not been for what is contained in the Bible. The thing is you tell us that we do not need to put a whole lot of faith in what Paul authored, and we should not hold the Bible in all that high of regard, but rather put our faith in the voice we hear from Jesus apart from scripture, while you are continuing to point to this same scripture in order to defend this reckless theology. One of the points here of course would be, if we should not hold the scripture in such high regard, then how can you trust what you claim it is pointing to, when you claim, it is pointing to Christ? In other words, if the scripture points to Christ, but we should not hold the scripture, along with what Paul has to say in such high regard, then why should I believe the scripture to be correct when and if it points to Christ? I am just telling you, it is thinking such as this which certainly caused the saying, "you cannot make this stuff up."

The actual fact of the matter is, when we actually read the scripture, what we find is, the sort of communication you are referring too, as far as God and or Jesus communicating with folks directly, was a rare occasion. In other words, when you take the whole of the Bible, with how many folks are mentioned in the Bible, compared to how many folks actually had such communication with God and or Jesus, what we find is, what you are attempting to promote was not the norm in the least, and yet you are acting as if this should be the normal experience of every believer. At any rate, we need to continue on with our study in Acts.

When we arrive at the very next verse we read,

"For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet"

Again, can you see what is going on here? Who did the normal Christian bring their proceeds to? That would be the apostles. Notice, these folks were not hearing from Jesus directly and giving the proceeds to those they felt needed the proceeds, but rather they brought the proceeds to those who had authority given to them directly by Jesus. In other words, the normal everyday Christian did not possess a direct line to Jesus, so they brought the proceeds to those who did.

As a side here, but I think it is extremely powerful, have you ever wondered why these folks were so confident to sell their land and give the money to the apostles for those in need? Could it be the fact that Jesus had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and they believed this to be the case, and understood the land would be taken away from them anyway?

As we continue on, we begin to read about Ananias and his wife Sapphira, and how they sold a plot of land they owned and did not bring the whole of the proceeds to the apostles, and they both dropped dead. We then read,

"And great fear came over the whole church"

Fear came upon the normal everyday believer, but what does it say in the very next verse concerning what the apostles were doing?

"At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people"

Over, and over what we are seeing is the fact that the apostles possessed these abilities and authority over the normal everyday Christian, and the normal everyday believer did not have a direct line to Jesus but was rather depending on the teaching of the apostles who did have such communication, and authority. What this is demonstrating is, out of all the thousands of folks who came to Christ it was only the apostles who had such communication with Jesus, which goes on to demonstrate that such communication was extremely rare when compared to the number of actual believers, and yet you not only claim to have such communication, but want to insist this should be the norm for every Christian today.

Again, you are attempting to use scripture in order to defend this dangerous and reckless theology, all the while you insist to us that we should not hold what Paul and the scripture has to say in high regard, but we should hold in high regard that the scripture points to Jesus, and one of the most important passages in this scripture which we should hold in such high regard, is when it says, "my sheep will hear My voice" and we can be sure from this passage which is contained in the scripture which we should not hold in high regard, that we should not hold what the scripture has to say in such high regard, but rather listen to that voice in our head which is surely the voice of Jesus. On top of all of this nonsense, you want to tell us you do not possess the ability to interpret what the scripture has to say, but somehow you have the ability to interpret what Jesus is telling you directly.

If you are being honest, you would have to agree that the above is complete, and utter nonsense, and yet that is exactly what you are claiming. Let's go through it again. You know from scripture that you hear from Jesus directly. You go on to tell us that we should not hold what Paul, or the scripture has to say in such high regard, but rather listen to the voice of Jesus. However, you admit you do not have the ability to interpret scripture. Can you spell NONSENSE?

What we have done is to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not hearing from Jesus directly. The normal Christian claims to hear from Jesus through the scripture, but you cannot even claim this to be the case, since you admit you do not possess the ability to interpret plain language. If you cannot see the comedy in all of this then all I can say is, you do not have much of a sense of humor.

Allow me to tell you the problem as I see it. The scripture you admit you do not have the ability to interpret, is not about you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Rather, the scripture you admit you do not have the ability to interpret, is ALL about Jesus Christ and what He has done to save sinners like me. You see, sinners like me do not put ourselves, and or our experience as the star of the show as to how we have the great and wonderful relationship with the creator of the universe. Rather, we point to the fact that one does not need to chase some sort of experience with Jesus, but rather by faith accept the forgiveness of sin because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The forgiveness of sin is what we all need, and it has been supplied. You are encouraging folks to insist for more.

God has supplied all we need to experience Him through His ordained means which include, the preached word, prayer, baptism, communion, along with the reading of the word. God has supplied these means in order to hide Himself in these means for our protection. However, there will be those who are not satisfied with the means God has supplied and will create their own means to experience God in the nude. God hid Himself from Moses for the protection of Moses, but there are those today who believe they are greater than Moses. Most all folks in the Bible who actually had an experience with God did not come away with some sort of great experience but were rather terrified. However, we have those today who want to convince us that they have this friendly daily communication with the Creator of the universe, and they are not terrified in the least with such an encounter with the Creator. Rather, an encounter with the Creator of the universe should be the absolute norm for all of us as Christians.

We have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you do not have this direct communication with the Creator of the universe you claim to have. However, I am sure you will ignore this fact, since the facts, evidence, and scripture do not trump what you have convinced yourself you have experienced. You continue to want to insist that folks like me are holding on to the teaching of religion, and man, when the fact of the matter is, you would not be holding the position you have if it were not for religion, and the teaching of man.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #83]

Since you are using Acts, we can start there:

You claim that only the 12 (after choosing Mathias and making an exception for Paul) received gifts (such as speaking in tongues), and had communication with "Jesus".

So:

Was Ananias one of the 12?

Acts 9:

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

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11 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. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—[Jesus], who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”


Were Cornelius and his household some of the twelve?

Acts 10

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

.... (skipping some text, but this is all Acts 10)

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.


Explaining himself later to the circumcised believers who objected to this, Peter said:

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with[a] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Was Agabus one of the 12?

During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.

What about the disciples Ephesus? Were they some of the 12?

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in [Jesus].” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord [Jesus]. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

And what about Stephen, a man filled with the spirit and wisdom, appointed to take care of the distribution of food?

Acts 6 and 7

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.


***

Moving past Acts to 1John,

1John 2:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

What anointing is that? It is the anointing of holy spirit.

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Who is is that did not need anyone to teach them? The 12? Or all who had received this anointing from Christ?


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

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #84]

The witness cannot escape the teacher. The voice comes packaged in words that were taught.

[William]

A community forms around a shared tradition (in this case, the Johannine churches)

Dissent emerges - people who experience or understand things differently

The community labels the dissent as deception ("antichrists," "deceivers," "false teachers")

The labels stick in the tradition, and later generations inherit them as fact

The Gnostics weren't necessarily deceivers. They were different. They had different experiences, different interpretations, different ways of relating to the divine. But because they stood outside the emerging orthodox dynamic, they were framed as enemies within it.

And now, centuries later, Realworldjack uses that same dynamic against tam:

She stands outside his interpretive framework

She claims direct experience rather than submission to taught tradition

Therefore, she must be deceived

The Johannine community called the Gnostics deceivers because they left. Realworldjack calls tam deceived because she won't play by his rules. Same pattern. Different century.

The outsider is always the deceiver - to those inside.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #84]

This is utterly incredible. You completely ignore the fact that the normal Christians at the time were completely dependent on the teaching of the apostles, which demonstrates beyond doubt that the normal Christian at the time did not have a direct line to Jesus, but rather had to be taught. I mean, let us just take a look at what Luke had to say in his first letter to Theophilus.

"Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

I have a question for you. If Jesus speaks to people directly, and we can expect this to be the norm, then why in the world would Luke have to sit down in order to write not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to Theophilus, in order for Theophilus to know the exact truth? I mean, at this time the apostles were still alive, and so Jesus was still, if rarely speaking to certain folks, and since this is the case, and we should expect this to be the norm for all of us as Christians, then why in the world would there have been a need for any of them to write down anything at all, since Jesus communicating to all directly was expected to be the norm ?

I have another question for you. We know that Luke traveled with Paul, and we know that Paul did have communication with Jesus directly. So then, why in the world would Luke have to do any sort of investigation concerning any of these matters, when Luke could have obtained his information directly from Jesus? I want you to notice that Luke clearly explains to Theophilus exactly how he obtained this information, and Luke does not mention God, and or Jesus supplying him with the information, and he does not even say a word about being inspired by God or Jesus in order to write out this information to Theophilus. Was Luke filling the head of Theophilus with the doctrine of man? Why would Luke not simply instruct Theophilus to listen for the voice of Jesus, and rely upon his anointing to teach him?

You actually have the nerve to accuse those opposed to you as holding on to the doctrines of man, when the fact is, you did not come up with the idea that Jesus communicates with us directly all on your own. Rather, it is a fact that another member of the human race (man) taught you this idea. Ergo, you are holding to the doctrine of man. I mean, you really need to think about what I am saying. You actually have the nerve to accuse others of holding to the doctrines of man, as if you are not in need of learning from others since you have this direct line to Jesus and so you are not leaning on the teachings of man, but it is a fact which cannot be denied that you did not come up with the idea that Jesus communicates to you directly on your own. Rather, it was taught to you by another. Therefore, you cannot in any way claim that you are not beholding to the doctrines of man, because you certainly are. Moreover, and again, you would not have ever known the name of Jesus without what is contained in the Bible, which goes on to demonstrate that you would have never known the name of Jesus if it was not a source from outside yourself.

I mean, it is so comical! Jesus communicates to you directly, but He does not have the power, or maybe it is Jesus does not have the permission to identify who exactly He is, and so Jesus is dependent upon others to teach you who He is, before you can identify who it is who is communicating with you. I keep saying, you cannot make this stuff up, but I guess some folks can, because it is for sure that you are pretending to hear from Jesus directly, but you did not make it up because it is also for certain that you did not come up with the idea that Jesus communicates with you directly on your own. Rather, this doctrine was communicated to you by the doctrine of man.

As we move on, you continue to use these events recorded in the Bible, as if these things are to apply to you as well. In other words, "so and so" had a direct communication with Jesus, so this must be the norm for all of us as Christians. As an example, Paul had communication with Jesus, so we all should expect to have the same experience. Okay, well Paul also raised the dead, and we also have it recorded that Paul, along with some of the other apostles healed the sick. Do you suppose that since this is recorded in the scripture as occurring with these folks that this should be the norm for all of us as Christians? Are you raising the dead, and healing the sick like the apostles were doing? Of course, you are not. Do you claim to have such an ability? Of course, you will not claim to have such an ability. So then, why would you claim to have the same ability as the apostles when it comes to a direct line to Jesus, but would never dream of claiming the ability to raise the dead, and or heal the sick? We all know why that would be the case, and it is because it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that you cannot raised the dead or heal the sick, but you are under the impression that it cannot be demonstrated that you do not have the same direct communication with Jesus the apostles had, but we are demonstrating this to be the case as well. I mean, think about what I am saying. You read in the Bible where the apostles, along with a few other folks had this rare communication with Jesus, and therefore this applies to you as well, but for some strange reason, these other miraculous gifts these folk possessed, you do not claim for your own. Can anyone imagine why that would be? I am afraid we do not have to imagine. Rather, we all know why this is the case.

As we look at what you have to say in your last post, I guess you overlooked the fact that I said that only the apostles had these certain gifts and abilities, but I also went on to talk about others later on who the apostles commissioned by the laying on of hands, who obtained certain gifts given to them by the apostles. Can you imagine who would be on that list which received these gifts through the apostles by the laying on of hands? Well, that would be Stephen, and Philip. So then, we can eliminate when you refer to Stephen and Philip, since they did not begin to display these sorts of gifts until after they had been commissioned by the apostles.

We then move on to your reference of Ananias, which was a one-time event, and guess who else was involved? Well, that would be Paul who became an apostle. So then, you are taking a passage of scripture where Luke describes to Theophilus of how Jesus communicated to Ananias what he should do in order to bring Paul in as an apostle, and somehow you are under the impression that this is to apply to you as well. Why don't you explain to us exactly what it is in this passage which causes you to believe that Luke was communicating this event in order for Theophilus to be under the impression that this sort of thing should be expected by all Christians? As I have already mentioned, when you take the whole of the Bible, these sorts of miraculous encounters were rare events, and there is nothing in the passages which suggests that we as Christians should expect to have the same experience as recorded. And again, the funny thing is the fact that you pick and choose those things which apply to you when reading the Bible, because when we read of those in the Bible raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, etc., you do not claim to have these sorts of experiences, but for some strange reason you claim to have direct communication with Jesus. The other funny thing is the fact that when I asked you to demonstrate this to be the case by giving us an interpretation of scripture, you hide behind the idea this would be testing God and then go on to tell us you do not even have the ability to interpret scripture. I can tell you for a fact that it is not to test God for one to give their understanding of a passage of scripture. We all know that you did not want to get involved in the interpretation of the passage, so as to not be found in error, which would demonstrate your inability to correctly read the scripture, which would go on to question your ability to interpret the passages you use in order to defend this so called "direct communication" you claim to have. It would also call into question whether you even have the ability to interpret what Jesus would be communicating to you directly correctly. All of this is going a long way in demonstrating that you do not possess such a communication with Jesus.

As we move on to the household of Cornelius, what we discover is the fact that the apostles, and all the Jewish Christians were under the impression that the gospel was only intended to be for the Jewish people and did not include the gentiles. With this being the case, it took a vision for Peter to even go to the house of a gentile. In fact, when Peter entered the house of Cornelius the first thing Peter said was, "you know it is unlawful for me to enter the house of a gentile." However, when Peter began to preach to them, they began to speak in tongues. One thing I would like you to notice is, when Peter went back to report this to the apostles in Jerusalem, Peter reported that, "they began to speak in tongues just as we did in the beginning." Do you see that? Peter does not say, "they spoke in tongues just as we do" but rather, just as "we did (past tense) in the beginning as if they no longer speak in tongues in this way. At any rate, the speaking in tongues by the household of Cornelius was not intended for the household of Cornelius but was rather a sign to the Jewish Christians that the gentiles were allowed into the same promise of the gospel. So again, what is it in this passage which causes you to believe that you are to be included? Do you speak in tongues in the same way as the household of Cornelious? Exactly what did it mean to speak in tongues? Surely you can tell us what the meaning of tongues is, with your direct communication with Jesus.

I want to stress the fact to you that the Gospel of Luke, and the Actions of the Apostles were letters authored by Luke who only intended Theophilus as his audience. Luke did not have me in mind as he wrote, he did not have you in mind as he wrote, and he did not have anyone else in mind as he wrote, other than Theophilus. When Luke communicated to Theophilus the direct communication the apostles had with Jesus Luke was not intending that Theophilus come to the conclusion that he too could have this direct line. When Luke communicated to Theophilus the events concerning the household of Cornelius speaking in tongues, Luke was not intending for Theophilus to be under the impression he should have the same experience as the household of Cornelius, and Theophilus certainly would not have taken it this way. Rather, as Luke clearly says, he is communicating these things to Theophilus, in order for Theophilus to "know the exact truth of the things he had been taught" and if Theophilus would have had a direct line to Jesus then he would have had no need in anyone teaching him at all, on top of the fact that Luke would not have had to sit down in order to write out these two long and detailed letters. I mean, if Jesus communicates to us all directly, then what in the world would we need the Bible for? I mean, if you cannot see the nonsense here then I do not know how to help you. You cannot insist that we needed the Bible in order to know who was communicating with us, because this would seem to be suggesting that Jesus is somehow prevented from being able to communicate His identity to us, along with His death and resurrection, and He needed the apostles help with that. So then, please do tell us what we need the Bible for?

As far as Agabus being a prophet that is indeed the case, and a prophet is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit. A prophet speaks on God's behalf, but not everyone is a prophet. Let us recall what Paul had to say to the Corinthians,

"All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?"

So then, are you a prophet? Do you hear from God and speak on His behalf? What we know for a fact is, there are no more apostles which means, the gift of apostle has ceased to exist. There are no more workers of miracles, so we know that this gift has ceased to exist. There is no one today who has the gift of healing, so we know this gift ceased to exist. There is no need for the gift of tongues today, and since this is the case, there is no need for the gift of interpreting. We do have prophets today and these prophets do speak on God's behalf, as they read, interpret, and rightly divide the word of truth. In other words, the canon of scripture is complete which means there is no more need for the miraculous gifts. In fact, let us look at what Paul had to say to Timothy late in his life,

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Notice here how Paul says that Timothy "learned" these things, as opposed to hearing directly from Jesus. Next, notice how Timothy is said to have "learned" it (not heard directly from Jesus) "from infancy" and Paul refers to those from whom Timothy "learned" it from. Well, if it was from infancy, who would it be that would have been responsible for this teaching from infancy? Well, that would be the grandmother, and mother of Timothy Paul referred to in chapter 1,

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also."

This is doing a whole lot of damage to your idea that we can all hear directly from Jesus. However, it is about to get even worse for you. Paul goes on to say this to Timothy,

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Okay, so if the Scripture is "God-breathed" as Paul says, then this would mean we are hearing directly from God as we read. However, as we move on, we see what Scripture is useful for, which is teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. GOOD GRIEF! What else do we need? But then Paul goes on to say, "so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped." Do you happen to know what thoroughly means? It means, completely, fully, comprehensively, from the ground up, totally, perfectly.

So then, the Scripture is sufficient to equip the servant of God. In other words, it is all we need. We do not require anything else other than what God has supplied. But what does the scripture which is sufficient, equip us with the ability to do? Well, according to Paul, "EVERY good work!" Do you see that? The scripture supplies us with everything we need to do EVERY good work. In other words, Paul does not simply say, "some good works." He does not say, "many good works." He does not say, "a whole lot of good works." You see, Paul does not say any of these things, and then go on to say, "but you also need to listen for the voice of Jesus to accomplish what scripture does not supply." No! Paul is saying the scripture is all we need in order to do EVERY good work which we are called to do. There is nothing left out.

But let us move on to what Peter had to say in one of his letters,

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."

Could you tell me who the "WE" in this passage refers too? I can tell you the "WE" does not refer to you, me, or anyone else today who may be reading this passage. Rather, Peter is referring to when he, John, and James were taken up on the mountain, and Jesus was transformed before their very eyes, and they (that is Peter, John, and James) all heard a voice from heaven. Well now, does Peter tell us to expect to hear a voice from heaven in the same way? Let us look at what Peter had to say immediately after this reference,

"So, we have the prophetic word made more certain, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Do you see that? Peter refers to a voice he heard from heaven, but he does not teach us that we should expect the same sort of experience, but rather tells us that the scriptures are more certain than any voice you could hear from heaven, and it is the scripture we need to pay close attention to, not a voice in our head. The reason for this is the fact that as Paul says, 'the scripture equips us with all we need to perform every good work" our father requires, which means we have no need to hear from Jesus directly.

As far as the disciples in Ephesus, these disciples had only heard of the baptism of John the Baptist and so they were about to be baptized in the Name of Jesus, but before doing so it clearly says in the scripture you supply, "When Paul placed his hands on them." Do you recall when I said there were those later whom the apostles laid their hands upon who received certain gifts? Well, here is an example, and again, what in this passage would cause us to believe that this should be the norm for us as Christians today? There is nothing whatsoever in this passage which would cause us to believe this to be the case. Has an apostle laid his hands upon you? Have you only heard of the baptism of John? Or has the scripture explained to you the baptism in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin? The speaking in tongues and prophesying by these folks were a sign to them, and to all those present that these folks had received the promise. Because you see, at this point these folks did not have the canon of scripture, so they could not have possibly known about being baptized in the Name of Jesus, and so we have this unique experience in which the sign of tongues and prophecy were given to these folks (which does not mean they continued to speak in tongues and prophesy) in order to allow them to know what they had just received was from God. Again, what is it in this passage which causes you to believe this should be the norm for all of us as Christians? Did you speak in tongues and prophesy, when an apostle laid his hands upon you? Did you speak in tongues and prophesy when you were baptized? Exactly what in this passage causes you to believe it has anything at all to do with you today?

Finaly, we get to the passage in 1 John where John talks about an anointing. Exactly who is the target audience of John in this letter? Do you know? Because you see, all of the authors of the letters contained in the Bible had a particular audience at the time in mind as they wrote, and I can guarantee you that none of the authors could have possibly known about any sort of Bible which would be hundreds of years away. In other words, the authors contained in the NT were addressing a particular audience at the time, with concerns for that particular audience, and the authors were not at all concerned about anyone else reading what they had to write, other than that particular audience, which means that not everything which is recorded would apply to us. Moreover, you cannot simply pick and choose what it is you would prefer to apply to you, while dismissing what it is you would like to ignore the way in which you do. You know, like when you pick to having the direct communication to Jesus apply to you, but you reject the raising of the dead, healing of the sick, casting out demons, etc.

But you see, it entails far more than that. Paul authored a personal letter to Timothy, and had no one else in mind as he wrote, and in this letter, he told Timothy,

"Diligently try to come to me soon."

Does this apply to you? Are you diligently attempting to get to where Paul is? Paul goes on to tell Timothy,

"Get Mark, and bring him with you"

Are you attempting to round up Mark and take him with you? Paul also tells Timothy,

"When you come, bring with you the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, but especially the parchments."

Are you attempting to gather all these things and deliver them to Paul? Of course, you are not, and the reason you are not attempting to do any of these things which are clear commands contained in the Bible, is because you have the ability to understand what would apply to you, as opposed to what would only apply to those audiences being addressed at the time. However, for some strange reason you pick out what you prefer to apply to you. You know, like you choose to have a direct line to Jesus just like recorded in the Bible, but for some strange reason you reject the raising of the dead, healing of the sick, and casting out demons. The funny thing is, you have enough sense to realize that when Paul commands Timothy to do such things as to "diligently try to come to me soon" you are able to determine this would not apply to you. How exactly does that work?

What we are doing is to clearly demonstrate you do not have a direct line to Jesus. I mean, even you admit you do not have the ability to interpret scripture, but you use this scripture you admit you cannot interpret in order to defend your direct communication to Jesus. I am just telling you, you do not need a direct line to Jesus in order to know that you cannot possibly make that make sense. You cannot claim to have a direct line to Jesus and go on to claim not to have the ability to interpret the scripture which testifies about Him.

I am going to end with this. I have been on this site for well over a decade now, because I enjoy conversing with the unbeliever, agnostic, and atheist. Not at all in an attempt to convert them to what it is I believe, but rather to determine what it is I believe, and why I believe as I do. I can go on to tell you this. The unbeliever, agnostic, and atheist, does far less damage to the Name of Christ, than those who expose us all to a dangerous, and reckless theology.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #87]

Okay, so if the Scripture is "God-breathed" as Paul says, then this would mean we are hearing directly from God as we read.

If ‘God-breathed’ scriptures mean we’re hearing directly from God as we read them, would it mean the scriptures would be God, too?

However, as we move on, we see what Scripture is useful for, which is teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. GOOD GRIEF! What else do we need?

Paul’s words are not Jesus’ teachings, are they? Not all of Paul’s teachings are consistent with Jesus’ teachings. ‘God-breathed,’ as the Lord Jesus said, means ‘allowed by God to be written,’ no more, no less.

But then Paul goes on to say, "so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped." Do you happen to know what thoroughly means? It means, completely, fully, comprehensively, from the ground up, totally, perfectly.

So then, the Scripture is sufficient to equip the servant of God. In other words, it is all we need. We do not require anything else other than what God has supplied.

The phrase, ‘the scripture is all we need,’ is a big lie, even if it came from the mouth of Paul. How can a thing that cannot save us be all that we need? The real and forever living Christ Jesus, from whom our salvation and eternal life always emanate, is the one that we all need. The Lord Jesus alone is the Savior, who can always save us, not the scriptures. He is the only Good Pastor and Teacher who shepherds and guides His sheep to their salvation, and eternal life across all generations!

Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ:

“Remember, eternal life and your salvation are in My hands. If you want to be saved, come and draw near to Me. If you want eternal life, come and call upon Me. Trust in Me, because if you don't, you will have no salvation and no eternal life. You will have nowhere to go but to calamity and suffering.”

"I am the Pastor, I am the Good Pastor. Remember, no one else will teach you except Me. If you explain to one another, it's only according to your own will, according to your own thoughts. So remember, anyone who stands as a pastor, who stands as a leader of My church, is working iniquity and stealing My place as the Good Pastor.”

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #88]

Before we get started here, allow me to ask you, where did you hear about this Jesus you are talking about?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #88]

Before we get started here, allow me to ask you, where did you hear about this Jesus you are talking about?

I first heard about Jesus from my parents when I was still a child, and we were still in the Catholic fold. I then heard more about Jesus from Catholic priests for almost three (3) decades. I further heard about Jesus from local pastors when I shifted to the Born Again Movement and stayed there for almost two decades, and then finally encountered the Lord Jesus [in 2001] from whom I’ve heard the things I’m now saying about Him.