"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]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to OneJack in post #94]
No, see, I have responded to OneJack. On multiple occasions. We have had many - many - conversations on the board. Me not responding to him on this thread means nothing more than that I have no desire to go around and around and around... and around... and around.

I also stopped responding to Onejack because of accusations he lobbed against my Lord, and I do not want to continue a conversation that may end up with him doing worse (or more of the same.)


But if the reader is interested in what OneJack is asking me about:

viewtopic.php?p=1177986#p1177986

viewtopic.php?p=1178207#p1178207

viewtopic.php?p=1178910#p1178910

viewtopic.php?p=1181083#p1181083



Peace again.

It's good that you posted those links; readers can now see the vacuum and emptiness of ‘direct utterances’ from the ‘small still voice’ spirit whom you continuously presume to be Christ. Worse, that spirit denies the name Jesus as the name of Christ, who is the Almighty God.

[William]

Peace to you all,


No, see, I have responded to OneJack. On multiple occasions. We have had many - many - conversations on the board. Me not responding to him on this thread means nothing more than that I have no desire to go around and around and around... and around... and around.

I also stopped responding to Onejack because of accusations he lobbed against my Lord, and I do not want to continue a conversation that may end up with him doing worse (or more of the same.)


But if the reader is interested in what OneJack is asking me about:

viewtopic.php?p=1177986#p1177986

viewtopic.php?p=1178207#p1178207

viewtopic.php?p=1178910#p1178910

viewtopic.php?p=1181083#p1181083



Peace again.

It's good that you posted those links; readers can now see the vacuum and emptiness of ‘direct utterances’ from the ‘small still voice’ spirit whom you continuously presume to be Christ.

Perhaps the problem you see with tam and her claim is that she resorts to the scripture - both old and new - giving her opinion on those while "the still small voice of Christ" stays silent through her witness?

Worse, that spirit denies the name Jesus as the name of Christ, who is the Almighty God.

Why? By referring to the name "Jaheshua" instead? Why not Yeshua? What is in a name and why does it matter?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #55]

Tammy, you are not hearing from Jesus directly and never have. You cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case. In fact, you cannot even demonstrate it to yourself. Now, of course, if you were healing the sick, and raising the dead, this would be something we all could measure. But we, and you cannot measure your claim of such communication. I mean, the simple fact that you admit to not having the ability to interpret the scripture demonstrates this to be the case. Of course, I do not in any way believe you do not possess the ability to interpret the scripture, rather it is a way in which to avoid finding out if you truly have a direct line to Jesus. But the crazy part of this whole avoidance of yours is the fact that while you insist you do not have the ability to interpret the scripture, you use this same scripture which you claim not to be able to interpret, in order to defend the idea that you have communication with Jesus.

One of the main passages you have used in defense of this fantasy, is when Jesus says, "My sheep will hear My voice." You want us to believe you take this passage literally, but the fact is, you do not in any way whatsoever. Because you see, Jesus refers to His followers in this passage as sheep. However, you do not believe the followers of Jesus to be literal sheep and correctly understand this to be a metaphor. With the followers of Jesus being referred to as sheep, this would mean that Jesus is a Shepherd of sheep, but you do not believe that Jesus is a literal shepherd of literal sheep, but again correctly understand this to be a metaphor as well. We then arrive to "hearing My voice" and this is the part you would like us to believe you take as literal. However, this is not the case in the least, because you do not even take this as being literal, because you do not claim to actually hear the literal voice of Jesus, but rather claim it is in some other form in which you receive this communication. The point is you want to insist you hear the voice of Jesus just like it says in the passage, and then on the other hand insist that you really do not hear His voice.

I never said that the gifts were only given to the apostles. That would be "fake news." Rather, it was the miraculous gifts which only the apostles were exhibiting, while the rest of the Church was said to be dependent on the teaching of the apostles which demonstrates the need for them to be taught, which goes on to demonstrate that these folks did not possess a direct line to Jesus because if they did then there would be no need in them being dependent on the teaching of the apostles.

We have already addressed the household of Cornelius by understanding this household was the first Gentiles to receive the gospel. The sign of tongues and prophecy were given to them as a sign, not for the household of Cornelius, but rather as a sign to Peter and the other apostles that the Gentiles had been allowed in. This does not in any way mean that the household retained these gifts. But the thing is, you are attempting to use this passage in such a way as to defend your direct communication with Jesus.
I mean; do you actually believe that when Theophilus read this passage that he came away from this reading believing he should have the same sort of experience as this household? Luke recorded this event to demonstrate that the Gentiles were added in, and there is nothing in the passage which would cause us to believe that this is something we all should experience.

NO! "A gift is not a gift." There were different gifts, for different purposes, and not everyone had all the gifts. Moreover, there were gifts which we possess today such as teaching, prophecy, encouragement, edification, service, wisdom, faith, and discernment, as opposed to the miraculous gifts, which would include tongues, the working of miracles, and such. Another gift which is on the list would be apostle, and we know that this gift is no longer with us today. Ergo, when the apostles died off, so did the miraculous gifts. In fact, we can see in the Bible that the miraculous gifts were waning out even before the apostles died out. However, you are now claiming to at least know of folks who possess the gift of healing, and I would like to know who this would be, and the evidence for this occurring today?

You say,

"I would also just correct one thing: it is Christ who speaks on behalf of His Father (God). He is the mediator between man and God."

Exactly who were the apostles speaking on behalf of?

I brought up the gifts in order to demonstrate that all of the gifts are not with us today. We know this to be a fact because we know the gift of apostle is no longer with us, and one of the things which we no longer have the need for, is to hear the voice of Jesus directly. We have already dealt with the fact that you do not even take the "hearing of the voice of Jesus" literally in the passage you are referring to. This is another example of moving the goal posts on your part. I mean, you claim to hear the voice of Jesus, but you insist it is not the actual audible voice you are hearing.

You say,

"Let the one with ears HEAR what the Spirit SAYS to the churches" and "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door..."

Correct, but were these folks actually hearing what the Spirit said to the Churches? Or were they reading what the Spirit said to the Churches? Were they actually hearing a voice? Or were they reading a page? Did they open an actual door? Or was this a metaphor?

Your own private understanding of a verse will tell us if you have the ability to interpret what is being said correctly. If you do not demonstrate such an ability, then we cannot be sure if you are interpreting the passages you use in order to defend the idea that you have direct communication with Jesus correctly. However, you go on to claim not to have the ability to interpret scripture, because you know what I am saying is correct. In other words, you realize that if you are mistaken, then this would demonstrate that you could be mistaken concerning the passages you use in order to defend this fantasy you have. Otherwise, there would be no reason whatsoever to shy away from giving us an interpretation, whether that interpretation was given to you by Jesus, or if it were your own interpretation. I am just telling you, your refusal to even participate in this conversation concerning your interpretation of scripture is speaking volumes. BTW, when I say "speaking volumes" I am not referring to an actual voice you will hear.

As far as our understanding as opposed to our interpretation, one must have the ability to interpret before one can have the ability to understand. This means, if one claims not to have the ability to interpret what is being said in scripture, they certainly cannot understand it. Ergo, if you cannot interpret what the scripture says, you certainly do not understand it, which is more than likely the whole problem.

You are correct to say, "Many more people than just the apostles make up His sheep, are called by name" but just like you have admitted yourself, they do not hear the actual audible voice of Jesus call their name.

I cannot interpret Revelations, and do not even bother, but I do not know what that would have to do with the rest of scripture, and your claim to hear the voice of Jesus, when it is not really a voice you hear.

All you have to do is to go and read 2 Corn. Chapter 10 and you will clearly see that Paul is referring to himself, and those traveling with him as "taking every thought captive" and it is a clear warning to the Corinthians that if they do not straighten up their act, they will discover this to be the case. I mean, just read what Paul has to say to the Corinthians in verses 10 and 11.

"For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present."

What Paul is saying is, there are some in the Corinthian Church who are questioning Paul's authority over them and saying that Paul is not all that impressive in person, but when he is away, he writes us these weighty letters. Paul is clearly warning these folks that when he returns, what he is in his letters, he will be in his presents. It is as plain as the nose on your face. You go on to ask, "how does that work?" You want to know how it works as to how Paul had such an ability to "take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ?" I have no idea how it works, because I do not possess the ability, and Paul does not explain how it works. What I do know is, Paul claimed to have the ability to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ, and he shared with the Corinthians that he possessed such an ability, and he did so as a warning. You want to insist that this is some kind of mind control, but your argument would be with Paul, because I am not the one who is claiming to have such an ability.

At any rate, if you believe this to be some sort of mind control, and you do not believe this is what Paul is communicating, then I would welcome you to give us the correct interpretation. However, we both know that ain't gonna happen, and the reason it ain't gonna happen, is the fact that you cannot afford to give us any interpretation, for fear it will reveal that your fantasy is not real. But the thing is, if you do not believe that Paul could possibly be saying such a thing, then what is he saying? You seem to want to insist that this is my interpretation, as if there could be another interpretation, but it is not that this is my interpretation, but rather it is the only interpretation, and I am confident I can demonstrate this to be the case, beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I was pondering your question and listing off individual things (sin, death, fear, 'egypt - religion', etc.)... I received in the spirit "Slavery."

Free from slavery.

Okay, this is what I have been waiting for and that is a message from the Spirit you claim to have received. With all this in mind, could you please explain to us what Jesus meant when He said, "come unto Me all you who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest for your souls?" It does not have to be an interpretation from the Spirit; it could be your own interpretation. Surely, you know the passage I am referring to, and surely you have an idea of what you believe it to mean, and I would appreciate you sharing your interpretation. Thanks!

But here is the thing. The Spirit you claim to have received this grand revelation from, is saying nothing at all that we cannot find in scripture. Because you see, we know from scripture that the law is no longer in effect, and we also know from scripture that anyone who was not Jewish was outside of the Old Covenant and was never under the law. We also know from scripture that we who were not under the law have been grafted into the New Covenant which is apart from the law. In other words, we as Christians, whether Jew or gentile are no longer obligated to the law, which is the Good News of the Gospel, but have rather been set free from the obligation to the law, in order to serve, not out of obligation to the law, but rather out of love, and great gratitude for what God has done for us. With all this being the case, our service is not to God, because God is not in need of our service. Rather, it is us who are in desperate need of the service of God. When we receive this service from God, we are better equipped to go out in service to our neighbor who does need our service.

I could, and would love to go on, and on here, but the main point is, you claim the Spirit revealed to you these things, and it is nothing whatsoever, which is not clearly, and plainly revealed in the scripture. SERIOUSLY! What is it you are claiming the Spirit revealed to you just the other day, which was not already revealed to all of us through the scripture?

I hate to inform you, but the above is what is called a parody. The scary thing is it happens to rhyme with blasphemy. There is not one thing you have revealed to us from what you claim the Spirit revealed to you, which we cannot read in scripture.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #103]

There is not one thing you have revealed to us from what you claim the Spirit revealed to you, which we cannot read in scripture.

Is this to say that there is no use in "spirit" when "scripture" will suffice? Something else?

[tam]

Peace again,

Gonna skip the repetitive stuff that has already been answered...

[Replying to tam in post #55]

One of the main passages you have used in defense of this fantasy, is when Jesus says, "My sheep will hear My voice."

Just pointing out His words - as opposed to yours or mine.

You want us to believe you take this passage literally, but the fact is, you do not in any way whatsoever. Because you see, Jesus refers to His followers in this passage as sheep. However, you do not believe the followers of Jesus to be literal sheep and correctly understand this to be a metaphor. With the followers of Jesus being referred to as sheep, this would mean that Jesus is a Shepherd of sheep, but you do not believe that Jesus is a literal shepherd of literal sheep, but again correctly understand this to be a metaphor as well. We then arrive to "hearing My voice" and this is the part you would like us to believe you take as literal.

We are not literal sheep, but we do follow Christ, our Shepherd. We do listen to His voice.

Here are a few other examples of how objects are compared to something else, but the action is literal:

“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Is Christ a physical lamb? No. Does He take away the sin of the world? Yes.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Is He referring to physical - 'baa baa' - sheep? No. (though sheep are still included as living creatures)

Does He literally lay down His life for these sheep? Yes!

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."

Are we physical branches? No - although Christ is the Tree of Life (as my Lord taught me - shared also here: viewtopic.php?p=1026273#p1026273 ), and so if we are in Him, we are branches in Him.

Must we literally remain in Him to bear much fruit? Yes.

However, this is not the case in the least, because you do not even take this as being literal, because you do not claim to actually hear the literal voice of Jesus, but rather claim it is in some other form in which you receive this communication. The point is you want to insist you hear the voice of Jesus just like it says in the passage, and then on the other hand insist that you really do not hear His voice.

This is not correct. See response at the top of this post:

viewtopic.php?p=1183206#p1183206

We have already addressed the household of Cornelius by understanding this household was the first Gentiles to receive the gospel. The sign of tongues and prophecy were given to them as a sign, not for the household of Cornelius, but rather as a sign to Peter and the other apostles that the Gentiles had been allowed in. This does not in any way mean that the household retained these gifts. But the thing is, you are attempting to use this passage in such a way as to defend your direct communication with Jesus.

I pointed it out because it directly refutes your claim that only the apostles received these kinds of gifts (or some later with the laying on of hands.)

I mean; do you actually believe that when Theophilus read this passage that he came away from this reading believing he should have the same sort of experience as this household?

There is no mention one way or the other of what Theophilus believed after reading these things.

Luke recorded this event to demonstrate that the Gentiles were added in, and there is nothing in the passage which would cause us to believe that this is something we all should experience.

A - Does Luke say that is the reason he recorded this event? Or are you just interpreting that as the reason?

B - I never claimed that this passage should cause us to believe that the gift of tongues is something we should all experience.

NO! "A gift is not a gift." There were different gifts, for different purposes, and not everyone had all the gifts.

A gift is indeed a gift. Yes, there are different kinds of gifts, and people receive different gifts for different purposes, but they are still gifts.

I certainly never claimed that everyone (or even anyone) had all the gifts.

You say,

"I would also just correct one thing: it is Christ who speaks on behalf of His Father (God). He is the mediator between man and God."

Exactly who were the apostles speaking on behalf of?

They were bearing witness to Christ. Christ is Himself the True and Faithful Witness to His Father.

I brought up the gifts in order to demonstrate that all of the gifts are not with us today. We know this to be a fact because we know the gift of apostle is no longer with us, and one of the things which we no longer have the need for, is to hear the voice of Jesus directly.

I need to hear His voice (Jaheshua).

You say,

"Let the one with ears HEAR what the Spirit SAYS to the churches" and "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door..."

Correct, but were these folks actually hearing what the Spirit said to the Churches?

If they had ears to hear, yes.

Or were they reading what the Spirit said to the Churches?

Reading something does not mean that you cannot also hear it (before, during, or after.)

What about people who never had access to this book or the written word?

Your own private understanding of a verse will tell us if you have the ability to interpret what is being said correctly. If you do not demonstrate such an ability, then we cannot be sure if you are interpreting the passages you use in order to defend the idea that you have direct communication with Jesus correctly. However, you go on to claim not to have the ability to interpret scripture, because you know what I am saying is correct. In other words, you realize that if you are mistaken, then this would demonstrate that you could be mistaken concerning the passages you use in order to defend this fantasy you have. Otherwise, there would be no reason whatsoever to shy away from giving us an interpretation

Or it could simply be that I am speaking plainly and truthfully when I tell you I cannot 'interpret' scripture on my own. Just as you admit that you cannot interpret revelation. Why can't you interpret revelation? Do you not speak the English language or understand the words that are written?

So far at least some your interpretations on other passages have been incorrect. So it seems pretty hit and miss if someone attempts to interpret on their own. It would be the same for me.

All you have to do is to go and read 2 Corn. Chapter 10 and you will clearly see that Paul is referring to himself, and those traveling with him as "taking every thought captive" and it is a clear warning to the Corinthians that if they do not straighten up their act, they will discover this to be the case. I mean, just read what Paul has to say to the Corinthians in verses 10 and 11.

"For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present."

What Paul is saying is, there are some in the Corinthian Church who are questioning Paul's authority over them and saying that Paul is not all that impressive in person, but when he is away, he writes us these weighty letters. Paul is clearly warning these folks that when he returns, what he is in his letters, he will be in his presents. It is as plain as the nose on your face. You go on to ask, "how does that work?" You want to know how it works as to how Paul had such an ability to "take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ?" I have no idea how it works, because I do not possess the ability, and Paul does not explain how it works.

Perhaps Paul doesn't 'explain how it works' because there is no such 'miraculous' 'thought-captive' ability going on. Perhaps because you have READ way MORE into what is written than what Paul actually said.

Is there a single verse or testimony in the entire NT where the 'thought-captive gift' is demonstrated or spoken about?

As I was pondering your question and listing off individual things (sin, death, fear, 'egypt - religion', etc.)... I received in the spirit "Slavery."

Free from slavery.

Okay, this is what I have been waiting for and that is a message from the Spirit you claim to have received. With all this in mind, could you please explain to us what Jesus meant when He said, "come unto Me all you who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest for your souls?" It does not have to be an interpretation from the Spirit; it could be your own interpretation. Surely, you know the passage I am referring to, and surely you have an idea of what you believe it to mean, and I would appreciate you sharing your interpretation. Thanks!

But here is the thing. The Spirit you claim to have received this grand revelation from, is saying nothing at all that we cannot find in scripture.

So?

Just because something heard is also backed up in what is written doesn't mean that Christ does not speak, that His sheep do not listen to His voice.

Christ speaking and His sheep listening to His voice is also backed up in what is written - yet you don't accept that to be true.

There are things that were written in the OT that Christ said again in the NT, as well. Does that invalidate Him speaking? Should He not have spoken since it had already been written?

Of course not.

**

Do you remember this from back at the start of the thread:

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam in post #14]

While I go through your post, perhaps you might ponder the following questions:

1 - How did Peter know to go to Cornelius?
2 - How did Phillip know to go to the Ethiopian Eunuch?
3 - How did Ananias know to go to Saul/Paul?

How in the world could you possibly translate any of the above to mean that you hear directly from Jesus? Could it be possible that "God spoke in the past in different ways, but in these last days He has spoken?" My friend, there is nothing left for God to say to us, since he has spoken to us through the prophets, and finally through the death and resurrection of Jesus. What else to we need to hear?

Are you aware that you did not answer the questions?

If you did answer them, you might also know the answer to your question "what else do we need to hear?"

Peace again!

When the Spirit told Philip to go to the Ehtiopian, was this specific instruction something that had already been revealed in scripture? Or was it real-time instruction to do something, to help someone who was seeking truth? Would Philip have known to go to the Ethiopian that moment and day just from reading scripture?

Of course not.

Yet you want to insist that there is no need for Christ to speak. Whoever taught you this, Jack, taught you in error.


It can also be about more than just someone seeking to understand something written. It could be direction to help someone who needs to be fed (physical food), or someone who needs to be heard or comforted. It could also be to help the person, themselves, to understand something Christ has said, or something that was written.

Why do kids bother going to school (beyond learning to read) if all they need is a textbook and no one to teach/tutor/instruct them?

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

You call Me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so, because I am. 14So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.

“Yes, Lord,” she answered, “I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.” 28After Martha had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside to tell her, “The Teacher is here and is asking for you.”

Christ is the Teacher.


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

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #103]

There is not one thing you have revealed to us from what you claim the Spirit revealed to you, which we cannot read in scripture.

Is this to say that there is no use in "spirit" when "scripture" will suffice? Something else?

Yes, William, I believe that is exactly what he is saying, though he can certainly correct me if that is not what he is saying.

Peace again.

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #103]

There is not one thing you have revealed to us from what you claim the Spirit revealed to you, which we cannot read in scripture.

Is this to say that there is no use in "spirit" when "scripture" will suffice? Something else?

Yes, William, I believe that is exactly what he is saying, though he can certainly correct me if that is not what he is saying.

Peace again.

It just appears to be that way, I agree tam.
Hard to say with all that extra wordy-judgy stuff in the mix...

[OneJack]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #103]

There is not one thing you have revealed to us from what you claim the Spirit revealed to you, which we cannot read in scripture.

Is this to say that there is no use in "spirit" when "scripture" will suffice? Something else?

Yes, William, I believe that is exactly what he is saying, though he can certainly correct me if that is not what he is saying.

Peace again.

In my perception, Jack is simply saying Tam has not said anything new [from the spirit] that we cannot see in the scriptures, not that there is no use in spirit when scripture will suffice, as William opined.

[OneJack]

Peace to you all,


No, see, I have responded to OneJack. On multiple occasions. We have had many - many - conversations on the board. Me not responding to him on this thread means nothing more than that I have no desire to go around and around and around... and around... and around.

I also stopped responding to Onejack because of accusations he lobbed against my Lord, and I do not want to continue a conversation that may end up with him doing worse (or more of the same.)


But if the reader is interested in what OneJack is asking me about:

viewtopic.php?p=1177986#p1177986

viewtopic.php?p=1178207#p1178207

viewtopic.php?p=1178910#p1178910

viewtopic.php?p=1181083#p1181083



Peace again.

It's good that you posted those links; readers can now see the vacuum and emptiness of ‘direct utterances’ from the ‘small still voice’ spirit whom you continuously presume to be Christ.

Perhaps the problem you see with tam and her claim is that she resorts to the scripture - both old and new - giving her opinion on those while "the still small voice of Christ" stays silent through her witness?

Exactly, Tam is testifying more for the bible instead of the 'small still voice spirit' that until now has not given her the details of who he really is in his own living and existence.

Worse, that spirit denies the name Jesus as the name of Christ, who is the Almighty God.

Why? By referring to the name "Jaheshua" instead?[/quote]
The 'small still voice' spirit denies that Jesus is the Almighty God but claims to be the Son of God in the spirit nature.

Why not Yeshua?

Have no issue with this name.

What is in a name and why does it matter?

It's not the name, per se, that matters, but the attachment that the name carries.

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #109]

It's not the name, per se, that matters, but the attachment that the name carries.

What attachment does the name Jaheshua carry?

The 'small still voice' spirit denies that Jesus is the Almighty God but claims to be the Son of God in the spirit nature.

So what? Jesus wasn't someone who called himself God Almighty anyway. That is just a popularized theological concept. Biblical Jesus was more into telling people that they should have a relationship with The Father and claimed that following him/what he said, was the way to enable that.

Tam is testifying more for the bible instead of the 'small still voice spirit' that until now has not given her the details of who he really is in his own living and existence.

Therefore you want the details - the verbatim. Something like a narration of what goes on in tams head, as it transpires, rather than simply the claim with biblical referrences?