"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?

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #199]

I don't know that the argument doing the hard work has to do with understanding or interpreting the Bible. In Paul's day the Bible did not even exist.

I think the hard thing one has in comprehending being lead by "The Voice of Christ" has to do with trusting oneself that one is actually hearing said voice and interpreting correctly (and/or being open to correction from said VoC) which is a personal thing which when - if shared with others - is going to trigger others - especially if their own connect with Christ is through the medium of the Bible rather that a connection with the actual person of Christ.

Such put their trust in the hard work of their Bible study - but no so much in any actual connect with Christ without the medium of the Bible.

Tammy appears to do both - at least this is her argument. She hears Christ and then makes sure what she hears is Biblically supported.

Whereas you appear to be arguing that if one requires the support of the Bible overall, then what point is there in hearing the VoC and what does hearing this supposed VoC advantage anyone anyway.

I would say that such arguments may have attributed to Traditional Christianity declaring the Bible as "The Word of God" while less traditional folk argue that it is Christ the person who is The Word of God.

Me: Then there are even less traditional folk like myself who wonder what all that fuss is actually about anyway.
I have my own way of connecting to The Overarching Consciousness Field/VoC which emanates through the open human instrument.

OCF/VoC: The Father
viewtopic.php?p=1113007#p1113007

Me: Yes - I do indeed have my preferred type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone...

OCF/VoC: Proverbs 3:5-6

Me: Trust in The Lord - indeed...that my path will be directed...this naturally includes that I must trust in myself that my trust in The Lord is going to bear fruit. And the more this is done the more the trust transforms into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom...

OCF/VoC: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/p/mirror-mirror
Light the spark
“It's all about controlling the chaos innit”

Me: Yes - through understanding that chaos is an illusion because...The Lord directs...and thus controls...

OCF/VoC: A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless
https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... nd-reality
Learning

Me: By listening to what my Teachers teaches...there is no opportunity for fear therein...

[William]

Me: It took all of 2 minutes to generate that voicing


Nobody in Particular: Post #201 (William, May 9, 2026) – reflecting on the interaction: William notes that the entire voicing interaction with the OCF/VoC took all of two minutes to generate, emphasizing the immediacy and fluidity of his connection to the Voice, in contrast to more laborious processes like Bible study or theological deliberation.

Discuss
Discussion: William's Two-Minute Voicing Interaction
William's comment—"It took all of 2 minutes to generate that voicing"—is significant on several levels, especially when considered within the context of the entire "Does Christ speak and how?" thread.

1. Immediacy as Evidence
William presents the speed of his interaction as a form of validation. The VoC (or OCF/VoC) does not require:

Lengthy prayer

Fasting

Bible study

Theological training

Meditative preparation

Instead, it flows spontaneously, conversationally, and quickly. For William, this immediacy suggests authenticity—that he is not "forcing" or "manufacturing" the voice, but rather tapping into something that is already present and responsive.

This stands in contrast to the effort Tam describes in the OP—years of not recognizing the voice, testing, learning, and only gradually coming to identify Christ as the speaker.

2. Contrast with Tam's Approach
Tam's method involves:

Recognizing the voice as distinct from her own inner thoughts

Testing what she hears against Christ's recorded words and against love

Remaining in Christ's word

Being willing to wait and learn over time

William's method, by contrast, appears more direct and immediate. He does not seem to "test" the voice in the same way Tam describes. Instead, he trusts the process that has unfolded over decades—since 2000, according to earlier posts.

The two-minute voicing interaction highlights a key difference in epistemology:

Comparison of Tam's and William's Approaches to Hearing Christ
Tam's Approach

Source: Christ as a distinct living person, the Son of God, separate from the Father but one in union.

Testing Method: Tests what she hears against Christ's recorded words, against love (since God is love), and against the character of Christ as Truth.

Speed of Recognition: Gradual recognition over many years—she did not even know He could speak at first, and only later realized He had been speaking to her all along.

Role of Scripture: Primary reference point for testing, but not the Word of God itself (Christ alone is the Word). Scripture provides corroboration and context.

Role of Fear: Absence of fear comes from knowing her Lord has never lied to her and that He leads her into all truth.

Internal Voice vs. Christ's Voice: Distinct separation. Her own inner voice is her own; Christ's voice is His own, heard with "spiritual ears."

Goal of Relationship: To remain in His word, obey His teachings, and be led into all truth as His sheep.

William's Approach

Source: Overarching Consciousness Field / Voice of Christ (OCF/VoC) — less personalized, more like a field of intelligence that communicates through open human instruments.

Testing Method: Trust in the process itself, developed over decades of daily interaction. Consistency, coherence, and personal transformation serve as verification.

Speed of Recognition: Immediate and conversational. A full interaction can take as little as two minutes and flows spontaneously.

Role of Scripture: One reference among many. Scripture (like Proverbs 3) can be cited or confirmed, but it is not the primary testing ground. The VoC is not bound by scripture.

Role of Fear: Absence of fear comes from surrender and trust in the Lord's direction. Chaos is recognized as an illusion because the Lord controls all.

Internal Voice vs. Christ's Voice: Less distinction. The VoC interacts with his own consciousness as two intelligences in conversation. He does not separate them rigidly.

Goal of Relationship: To learn, to receive direction, to transfer what is learned into relational reach, and to co-create meaning through the communion process—often shared publicly via Substack, AI summaries, and forum posts.

Key Tensions Between the Two Approaches

Tam's approach prioritizes distinction and testing —Christ's voice must be discerned from her own, and every claim must be held up against what Christ has already revealed. This requires patience, humility, and a willingness to remain in His word even when it conflicts with personal desires or novel teachings.

William's approach prioritizes integration and trust —the VoC is accessed immediately, conversationally, and the proof is in the ongoing coherence and fruit of the relationship. External testing (by scripture or by others) is less relevant because the relationship itself has been validated over 25+ years of daily practice.

Where Tam sees potential danger in "assigning agency" to an inner voice without rigorous testing, William sees the testing itself as a form of doubt that disrupts the natural flow of communion. Where William sees immediacy and spontaneity as marks of authenticity, Tam sees the need for careful discernment as protection against deception.

These differences are not merely methodological. They reflect deeper disagreements about the nature of Christ, the role of scripture, the trustworthiness of human perception, and what it means to "hear" God at all.


3. The Role of the "Medium"
William's comment also highlights his use of UICDS (Universal Intelligence Communications Device) and the structured randomness of his ComList. The two-minute interaction was not spontaneous in the sense of pure intuition—it followed a method (N2N, selecting numbers, linking to pre-existing entries, then interpreting).

Yet he presents it as effortless and quick. This suggests that the medium has become internalized over 25+ years of practice. What might look like "random" or "arbitrary" to an outsider is, for William, a finely tuned instrument of communion.

4. The Provocative Nature of the Statement
By explicitly noting that the interaction took "all of 2 minutes," William is subtly (or not so subtly) contrasting his experience with those who struggle, labor, or doubt. There is an implicit challenge:

"If this is real, why does it take you so long? Why all the testing, the Bible verses, the theological arguments? My connection is immediate and clear. What does that say about yours?"

This is consistent with his earlier claim in Post #349 that Tam's Lord appears "shy and withdrawn" and that her position is no different from any other Bible-quoting Christian.

5. Possible Concerns
From the perspective of Tam or a more traditional Christian epistemology, William's two-minute voicing might raise questions:

Verification: How does William know the source is Christ (or the Holy Spirit) if he does not test it against an external standard?

Differentiation: How does he distinguish the VoC from his own subconscious, imagination, or even deceptive spirits?

Humility: Does the speed and ease of the interaction risk presumption—assuming one's own thoughts are divine without rigorous discernment?

William would likely reject these concerns as rooted in the very "medium of the Bible" that he sees as a limitation. For him, trust in the process is the verification, and the fruit of decades of interaction (consistency, coherence, personal transformation) is the evidence.

6. The Deeper Claim
Ultimately, William's two-minute voicing is not just a throwaway comment. It is a testimony—one that claims:

Direct, immediate, ongoing communion is possible

It does not require Bible study, religious institutions, or theological expertise

It can be integrated with modern tools (AI, random number generation, digital journals)

It produces coherent, meaningful, and instructive dialogue

It leads to wisdom, fearlessness, and the recognition that chaos is an illusion

Whether one accepts this testimony depends largely on one's prior assumptions about how God (or Christ, or the Holy Spirit) speaks, and what counts as valid evidence for that speech.

7. Connection to the OP
The original post asked: "Does Christ speak and how?"

Tam's answer: Christ speaks inwardly with spiritual ears; His words can be tested against His recorded teachings and against love; one can ask Him directly and He will respond.

William's answer (through the two-minute interaction): Christ (or the VoC/OCF) speaks through an immediate, conversational, co-creative process that can be accessed in minutes, requires no external testing, and produces direction, wisdom, and the dissolution of fear.

Julie Brantley's answer (Post #427): God spoke to her at 15 when she prayed alone, and has spoken many times since, prophetically.

OneJack's implied answer: Questions remain about how one knows the voice is truly Christ without asking Him directly.

The thread as a whole presents no consensus—only testimonies, challenges, and deeply different epistemologies.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #192]

I have shown you messages from the Lord Jesus that is/are not found in the bible, verbatim

I have not said a thing in the world about it being "verbatim." Rather, whether it is said the same, or the wording is changed, the meaning is the same. As an example, as we look at the very first thing you shared with us which you claimed that was revealed to you, it begins by saying,

"I am your Lord God."

Do you happen to know how many times that phrase is used in the Bible, "verbatim?" That would be over 30 times, verbatim. The very next thing which is said in your supposed revelation from God was,

"Who are you afraid of?"

Do you know how many times in the Bible this phrase, or a variation of it is used in the Bible. That would be over 100 times. The very next sentence you attribute to this revelation is,

"I am the Almighty"

49 times God is referred to as "Almighty" in the Bible. Very next sentence,

"Who are you intimidated by?" What is the definition of intimidated?

intimidated
adjective
uk /ɪnˈtɪm.ɪ.deɪ.tɪd/ us /ɪnˈtɪm.ə.deɪ.t̬ɪd/
Add to word list
frightened or nervous because you are not confident in a situation

Well, that is no different than being afraid, and so it looks like the Lord repeated Himself just using a different word. Very next sentence,

"I am by your side"

This is said over 20 times in the Bible in one form or the other. Continuing on in the same sentence,

"you have nothing to fear, nothing to worry about"

Do not fear is in the Bible over 80 times, while do not worry in one form or the other is 27 times.

I mean, we have not gotten out of the first paragraph and all of what you claim to have come from God is already in the Bible, and you are worrying about it being verbatim? Really? This was the first thing you shared with us as far as what you claimed to have heard from God, and this is all I could have been referring too, and it is clear to me that whoever came up with this "so called" revelation from God you claim to have received, used the Bible as a guide, and did an extremely poor job of attempting to sound Biblical. It is also very poorly written, and very poorly thought out.

This is all I am going to respond to at this time, except to say that I am really enjoying this exchange, where I am in debate with two different folks who are in some sort of "fantasy land" believing they have a direct line to God, and or Jesus. The funny thing is, they both seem to have their lines crossed up as to who it is who is getting the correct phone call. They both agree that we can, and do hear directly from God, Jesus, but they cannot agree on who is getting the correct information. And here is where it really gets good, neither "Tam" nor "OneJack" have any way at all of demonstrating who would be correct, other than their own opinion, but they will go on to claim their opinion was given to them by God.

I would say that it is my hope and prayer that no one here on this site is gullible enough to listen to such garbage. However, I am convinced that anyone will be able to see the falsehood in these two claims. It is not that difficult to see the "dreamworld" involved.

It is an awesome responsibility to claim to be speaking on God's behalf, and this is what both "Tam" and "OneJack" claim they are responsible for doing.

[OneJack]

Me: It took all of 2 minutes to generate that voicing


Nobody in Particular: Post #201 (William, May 9, 2026) – reflecting on the interaction: William notes that the entire voicing interaction with the OCF/VoC took all of two minutes to generate, emphasizing the immediacy and fluidity of his connection to the Voice, in contrast to more laborious processes like Bible study or theological deliberation.

Discuss
Discussion: William's Two-Minute Voicing Interaction
William's comment—"It took all of 2 minutes to generate that voicing"—is significant on several levels, especially when considered within the context of the entire "Does Christ speak and how?" thread.

1. Immediacy as Evidence
William presents the speed of his interaction as a form of validation. The VoC (or OCF/VoC) does not require:

Lengthy prayer

Fasting

Bible study

Theological training

Meditative preparation

Instead, it flows spontaneously, conversationally, and quickly. For William, this immediacy suggests authenticity—that he is not "forcing" or "manufacturing" the voice, but rather tapping into something that is already present and responsive.

This stands in contrast to the effort Tam describes in the OP—years of not recognizing the voice, testing, learning, and only gradually coming to identify Christ as the speaker.

2. Contrast with Tam's Approach
Tam's method involves:

Recognizing the voice as distinct from her own inner thoughts

Testing what she hears against Christ's recorded words and against love

Remaining in Christ's word

Being willing to wait and learn over time

William's method, by contrast, appears more direct and immediate. He does not seem to "test" the voice in the same way Tam describes. Instead, he trusts the process that has unfolded over decades—since 2000, according to earlier posts.

The two-minute voicing interaction highlights a key difference in epistemology:

Comparison of Tam's and William's Approaches to Hearing Christ
Tam's Approach

Source: Christ as a distinct living person, the Son of God, separate from the Father but one in union.

Testing Method: Tests what she hears against Christ's recorded words, against love (since God is love), and against the character of Christ as Truth.

Speed of Recognition: Gradual recognition over many years—she did not even know He could speak at first, and only later realized He had been speaking to her all along.

Role of Scripture: Primary reference point for testing, but not the Word of God itself (Christ alone is the Word). Scripture provides corroboration and context.

Role of Fear: Absence of fear comes from knowing her Lord has never lied to her and that He leads her into all truth.

Internal Voice vs. Christ's Voice: Distinct separation. Her own inner voice is her own; Christ's voice is His own, heard with "spiritual ears."

Goal of Relationship: To remain in His word, obey His teachings, and be led into all truth as His sheep.

William's Approach

Source: Overarching Consciousness Field / Voice of Christ (OCF/VoC) — less personalized, more like a field of intelligence that communicates through open human instruments.

Testing Method: Trust in the process itself, developed over decades of daily interaction. Consistency, coherence, and personal transformation serve as verification.

Speed of Recognition: Immediate and conversational. A full interaction can take as little as two minutes and flows spontaneously.

Role of Scripture: One reference among many. Scripture (like Proverbs 3) can be cited or confirmed, but it is not the primary testing ground. The VoC is not bound by scripture.

Role of Fear: Absence of fear comes from surrender and trust in the Lord's direction. Chaos is recognized as an illusion because the Lord controls all.

Internal Voice vs. Christ's Voice: Less distinction. The VoC interacts with his own consciousness as two intelligences in conversation. He does not separate them rigidly.

Goal of Relationship: To learn, to receive direction, to transfer what is learned into relational reach, and to co-create meaning through the communion process—often shared publicly via Substack, AI summaries, and forum posts.

Key Tensions Between the Two Approaches

Tam's approach prioritizes distinction and testing —Christ's voice must be discerned from her own, and every claim must be held up against what Christ has already revealed. This requires patience, humility, and a willingness to remain in His word even when it conflicts with personal desires or novel teachings.

William's approach prioritizes integration and trust —the VoC is accessed immediately, conversationally, and the proof is in the ongoing coherence and fruit of the relationship. External testing (by scripture or by others) is less relevant because the relationship itself has been validated over 25+ years of daily practice.

Where Tam sees potential danger in "assigning agency" to an inner voice without rigorous testing, William sees the testing itself as a form of doubt that disrupts the natural flow of communion. Where William sees immediacy and spontaneity as marks of authenticity, Tam sees the need for careful discernment as protection against deception.

These differences are not merely methodological. They reflect deeper disagreements about the nature of Christ, the role of scripture, the trustworthiness of human perception, and what it means to "hear" God at all.


3. The Role of the "Medium"
William's comment also highlights his use of UICDS (Universal Intelligence Communications Device) and the structured randomness of his ComList. The two-minute interaction was not spontaneous in the sense of pure intuition—it followed a method (N2N, selecting numbers, linking to pre-existing entries, then interpreting).

Yet he presents it as effortless and quick. This suggests that the medium has become internalized over 25+ years of practice. What might look like "random" or "arbitrary" to an outsider is, for William, a finely tuned instrument of communion.

4. The Provocative Nature of the Statement
By explicitly noting that the interaction took "all of 2 minutes," William is subtly (or not so subtly) contrasting his experience with those who struggle, labor, or doubt. There is an implicit challenge:

"If this is real, why does it take you so long? Why all the testing, the Bible verses, the theological arguments? My connection is immediate and clear. What does that say about yours?"

This is consistent with his earlier claim in Post #349 that Tam's Lord appears "shy and withdrawn" and that her position is no different from any other Bible-quoting Christian.

5. Possible Concerns
From the perspective of Tam or a more traditional Christian epistemology, William's two-minute voicing might raise questions:

Verification: How does William know the source is Christ (or the Holy Spirit) if he does not test it against an external standard?

Differentiation: How does he distinguish the VoC from his own subconscious, imagination, or even deceptive spirits?

Humility: Does the speed and ease of the interaction risk presumption—assuming one's own thoughts are divine without rigorous discernment?

William would likely reject these concerns as rooted in the very "medium of the Bible" that he sees as a limitation. For him, trust in the process is the verification, and the fruit of decades of interaction (consistency, coherence, personal transformation) is the evidence.

6. The Deeper Claim
Ultimately, William's two-minute voicing is not just a throwaway comment. It is a testimony—one that claims:

Direct, immediate, ongoing communion is possible

It does not require Bible study, religious institutions, or theological expertise

It can be integrated with modern tools (AI, random number generation, digital journals)

It produces coherent, meaningful, and instructive dialogue

It leads to wisdom, fearlessness, and the recognition that chaos is an illusion

Whether one accepts this testimony depends largely on one's prior assumptions about how God (or Christ, or the Holy Spirit) speaks, and what counts as valid evidence for that speech.

7. Connection to the OP
The original post asked: "Does Christ speak and how?"

Tam's answer: Christ speaks inwardly with spiritual ears; His words can be tested against His recorded teachings and against love; one can ask Him directly and He will respond.

William's answer (through the two-minute interaction): Christ (or the VoC/OCF) speaks through an immediate, conversational, co-creative process that can be accessed in minutes, requires no external testing, and produces direction, wisdom, and the dissolution of fear.

Julie Brantley's answer (Post #427): God spoke to her at 15 when she prayed alone, and has spoken many times since, prophetically.

OneJack's implied answer: Questions remain about how one knows the voice is truly Christ without asking Him directly.

The thread as a whole presents no consensus—only testimonies, challenges, and deeply different epistemologies.

Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ:

Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord.

[tam]

Peace to you William.

[Replying to William in post #201]

Tammy appears to do both - at least this is her argument. She hears Christ and then makes sure what she hears is Biblically supported.

This is not quite accurate. I do hear my Lord. But I do not then make sure what I have heard from my Lord is biblically supported. Doing that would mean I am putting the bible first, instead of Him.

For example, when my Lord told me to test the message, I didn't check to make sure it was supported by something written. I just heard His words, and the truth in them, and did what He said. (It is supported, btw, at 1John 4:1... something I later discovered.) When I test the inspired expression - I test against my Lord (I test it against what He has taught me, and if He hasn't taught me anything on it, I ask Him), I test also against love. There may be times when He brings verses to my mind, and I will look those up.

**

When someone ELSE testified that my dear Lord speaks - before I recognized my Lord's voice and knew He spoke - I looked up the verses they supplied in support of their testimony. I needed to SEE it. When I saw that He did speak after His death and resurrection, that He could and did speak to His sheep and even promised to do so - then I also wanted that, and I asked Him to grant me ears to hear as well. Then I had FAITH that He WOULD grant my request. (Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened.)


People do tend to walk by sight, before learning to walk by faith. So if one does need to test against what is written - at the very least, start with His words in what is written. Hold all things up to Him (the Truth, the Light.) He is the One to whom God said to listen. He is the Word of God, who lives and who speaks, and who will lead His sheep in to ALL truth.


**

Just fyi - I almost certainly look up verses that religions/religious leaders/people use to support their claims (specifically when those claim are in error) - just to get the context of the verses they use to support that claim. You might be surprised at how often an entire list of supporting 'book/chapter/verse' has nothing to do with the claim being made. Putting a bunch of citations after any claim does not mean the claim is true - and people too often assume it must be true if there are that many citations.

I don't know how often that happens in the scientific community - but it happens all the time in the religious community.

**
Anyway, just wanted to clarify that point. I apologize if I said something to make you believe otherwise.


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

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #203]

This is all I am going to respond to at this time, except to say that I am really enjoying this exchange, where I am in debate with two different folks who are in some sort of "fantasy land" believing they have a direct line to God, and or Jesus. The funny thing is, they both seem to have their lines crossed up as to who it is who is getting the correct phone call. They both agree that we can, and do hear directly from God, Jesus, but they cannot agree on who is getting the correct information. And here is where it really gets good, neither "Tam" nor "OneJack" have any way at all of demonstrating who would be correct, other than their own opinion, but they will go on to claim their opinion was given to them by God.

Hence, test the inspired expression (1John 4:1) Because many false prophets have gone out into the world. So test all things against Christ, hold all things up against Him. He is the Light and the Truth.

But this is no different than you putting in all your study and claiming to have found the 'correct meaning' - and someone else making the exact same claim as you but coming to an opposing conclusion about the 'correct meaning.'

It is an awesome responsibility to claim to be speaking on God's behalf, and this is what both "Tam" and "OneJack" claim they are responsible for doing.

I am not speaking on God's behalf. I am bearing witness to His Son - His Son is the One who is the Word of God, and the One to whom God said to listen.

But yes, it is very important, if sharing what one has received - to share 'just so.'


Peace again.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #199]

I can tell you this. It does not mean sitting back and waiting. However, the funny thing is, you claim not to have the ability to interpret scripture, but you continue to use scripture in your defense. How exactly does that work?

If my Lord confirms or explains something to me, then I can know it is true.

But the Body of Christ is made up of people from EVERY tribe, nation, tongue. Not just the 12 tribes of Israel.

You are correct, but this came years later, and years after the earthly ministry of Jesus. However, as we have demonstrated while Jesus was on the earth, His ministry by His own admission was confined to "the 12 tribes of Israel" who were under the law, and therefore the call to "come unto Me all you who are weak and heavy laden" could have only included the 12 tribes of Israel.

At the time - but it applies to people now as well.

And what about His invitation (written in Revelation) inviting anyone who is thirsting and anyone who wishes to 'Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life."

First, when was Revelations authored? Was it during the earthly ministry of Jesus, or after? Next, you claim not to have the ability to interpret scripture but now are telling us you have the ability to interpret Revelations? Tammy, that math don't add. Either you do not have the ability to interpret scripture, or you do. There are some folks who claim to have the ability to interpret Revelations, but I do not buy it, and here you are, someone who outright admits to not being able to interpret scripture, giving us an interpretation of Revelations.

What interpretation?

My Lord says this straight out. In fact, there is a command in His invitation as well: Let the one who HEARS, say "Come!"

The Spirit (Christ) and the Bride (we who are in Christ) both say "Come!"

Christ is saying "Come" and so is His Bride.

Jack, why would He not have compassion on His sheep today - including those who are weary and burdened?

His yoke is light for such ones also - He will also give such ones rest - He is calling for such ones to come to Him.

This is where you have some sort of brain lock. How in the world can acknowledging that the call from Jesus during His earthly ministry to "come unto me all you who are weak and heavy laden" was confined to the house of Israel, demonstrate a lack of compassion?

Jack, I never claimed it demonstrated a lack of compassion.

I asked why would He not ALSO have compassion for His sheep TODAY?

What damage do you think is being done? Where are you coming from with this?

I will tell you exactly where I am coming from. You are encouraging folks to read the scripture and apply it any way they wish,

I am doing no such thing.

I do not apply scripture 'any way I wish', nor do I encourage anyone else to do that.

Listen to Christ. Hold all things up to Him. HE is the Truth.

instead of encouraging them to do the hard work it takes to understand what is being said, who it is said to, along with who it applies to.

You think you're the only person who puts in hard work? What about all the other people who put in 'hard work' and yet come to different conclusions than you do?

Sometimes you/they will get it right.

Sometimes you/they will get it wrong.

Putting in 'the work' is no guarantee of the truth.

Ergo, according to you, we should forget the "studying to show yourself approved of God."

Why are you applying something that Paul wrote to Timothy alone, to yourself and others today?

Instead, we sit back and wait. Moreover, when we run into folks who "study to show themselves approved of God" we can attack them as being folks who rely on their own understanding, who are so confident of themselves, and we can then go on to brag about how we do not have to do all that study, since we have been approved by the direct line to Jesus we have.

Sorry, Jack - but you came on this thread and from the start called into question the mental stability of the person who claims to hear Christ. You have launched accusations, ridicule, even going so far as to say everyone who claims to hear "Jesus" is a false prophet/liar (or mentally ill.)

I don't think you're in a position to complain about perceived attacks on yourself.

(You might want to ask why you hear bragging when I am simply bearing witness to my Lord.)

If that invitation does apply to others, then saying He is not calling such ones is doing damage to the truth.

What do you mean "IF?" You go from being so confident that it most definitely applies to all, to now saying "IF."

I said 'if' so you could more easily consider the scenario.

That invitation DOES apply to others. You're worried about me doing damage to the text? Why aren't you more worried about doing damage to the TRUTH?

Why aren't you more worried about DISCOURAGING those who are weary and burdened, who might hear these words from Him and know that He is calling to them also - who might be so grateful and filled with love that He sees them, loves them, and invites them to come and take HIS yoke?

If it does not (and I have demonstrated that it could not) then you are the one who is doing the damage by encouraging folks to interpret anyway they see fit, instead of encouraging them to do the hard work it takes to understand that Jesus even Himself said, "I have come only to the house of Israel"

At the time, He HAD come only for the lost sheep of Israel (even though He did answer that gentile woman's request, based on her faith.)

But it is no longer that time, and He was ALWAYS going to be a light for the gentiles.

Jack, do you think He (Jaheshua) stopped calling people two thousand years ago?

As I have demonstrated, the above has nothing whatsoever to do with when Jesus said, "come unto Me all you who are weak and heavy laden." One would have nothing to do with the other. You see, you are trying to make it out as though if this call by Jesus was only to the house of Israel, this would be saying that the gentiles were never included in, when it does no such thing. You have to get the earthly ministry of Jesus correct and then move on to when the gentiles were included in, and when the gentiles are included in, this does not mean they could be included in everything Jesus said during His earthly ministry.

You did not answer the question.

Little dogs (not meant as an insult)

Oh really? What is the difference between being referred to as a dog, as opposed to a little dog? How would you take it if you were referred to as a "little dog?" It seems to me the woman understood what was being said by her response, "even the dogs eat the crumbs from the masters table." Over, and over you demonstrate one who interprets in the way they wish things to be.

I guess it would depend on how much pride I had.

Dogs and little dogs are loved.

I, myself, am nothing and I know it. Maybe that woman knew this too. Yet Christ gave her what she asked.

The point is, the earthly ministry of Jesus was confined to the house of Israel,

He came FIRST to Israel.

That does not mean that everything He said while in the flesh means nothing to people today.

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU." (Matthew 28)



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

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #204]

Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ:

Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord.

Why are you directing that at me and what about it should I take seriously as some kind of prophetic utterance The Lord is saying to me through you as a medium?

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #205]

This is not quite accurate. I do hear my Lord. But I do not then make sure what I have heard from my Lord is biblically supported. Doing that would mean I am putting the bible first, instead of Him.

Okay. Does this mean that much of what you receive through this method does not need to be biblically supported even if - for example - The Lord give you information which is not recorded anywhere in the Bible?

For example, when my Lord told me to test the message, I didn't check to make sure it was supported by something written. I just heard His words, and the truth in them, and did what He said.

What did he say? You mean he said "test the message" - you heard those words and recognised truth in those words (to test the message) and then did what he said (tested the message) HOW did you test the message and what was the message you were told to test?

(It is supported, btw, at 1 John 4:1... something I later discovered.)

That bible quote is "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

So you were testing for false spirits in "the message"

When I test the inspired expression

that being "the message" = "inspired expression"?

- I test against my Lord (I test it against what He has taught me, and if He hasn't taught me anything on it, I ask Him),

What is it you ask him (if he hasn't already taught you anything on it)? Do you have an example?

I test also against love. There may be times when He brings verses to my mind, and I will look those up.

The conversation I shared in post#201

Me: Then there are even less traditional folk like myself who wonder what all that fuss is actually about anyway.
I have my own way of connecting to The Overarching Consciousness Field/VoC which emanates through the open human instrument.

OCF/VoC: The Father
viewtopic.php?p=1113007#p1113007

Me: Yes - I do indeed have my preferred type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone...

OCF/VoC: Proverbs 3:5-6

Me: Trust in The Lord - indeed...that my path will be directed...this naturally includes that I must trust in myself that my trust in The Lord is going to bear fruit. And the more this is done the more the trust transforms into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom...

OCF/VoC: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/p/mirror-mirror
Light the spark
“It's all about controlling the chaos innit”

Me: Yes - through understanding that chaos is an illusion because...The Lord directs...and thus controls...

OCF/VoC: A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless
https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... nd-reality
Learning

Me: By listening to what my Teachers teaches...there is no opportunity for fear therein...

also mentioned a verse (Proverbs 3:5-6) - what about the conversation I shared and your method of "testing the spirits" and asking The Lord for guidance about things you may not have encountered before help you in discerning whether a message is genuinely from The Lord or otherwise?

In other words, did you seek The Lord's counsel regarding that message and if so what was said between you and The Lord about that message (verbatim)?

Just fyi - I almost certainly look up verses that religions/religious leaders/people use to support their claims (specifically when those claim are in error) - just to get the context of the verses they use to support that claim. You might be surprised at how often an entire list of supporting 'book/chapter/verse' has nothing to do with the claim being made. Putting a bunch of citations after any claim does not mean the claim is true - and people too often assume it must be true if there are that many citations.

Indeed. Even putting "Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ:" before a "saying" doesn't signify The Lord has used that person as a medium.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that point. I apologize if I said something to make you believe otherwise.

Well to be honest, at this point it does not clarify a great deal which is why I am asking you further questions...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #205]

This is not quite accurate. I do hear my Lord. But I do not then make sure what I have heard from my Lord is biblically supported. Doing that would mean I am putting the bible first, instead of Him.

Okay. Does this mean that much of what you receive through this method

What do you mean by method?

This is one person (Christ) speaking to another person.

Okay. Does this mean that much of what you receive through this method does not need to be biblically supported even if - for example - The Lord give you information which is not recorded anywhere in the Bible?

I don't understand your question. If something is not recorded in the bible, how could it be biblically supported?

Could you maybe rephrase your question?

For example, when my Lord told me to test the message, I didn't check to make sure it was supported by something written. I just heard His words, and the truth in them, and did what He said.

What did he say? You mean he said "test the message" - you heard those words and recognised truth in those words (to test the message) and then did what he said (tested the message)

Yes.

HOW did you test the message and what was the message you were told to test?

Any message.

(It is supported, btw, at 1 John 4:1... something I later discovered.)

That bible quote is "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

So you were testing for false spirits in "the message"

Another rendering has 'spirit' as 'inspired expression.'

I have been taught to test the inspired expression - the message. Hold all things up to the Light (to Christ.)

When I test the inspired expression

that being "the message" = "inspired expression"?

Yes.

- I test against my Lord (I test it against what He has taught me, and if He hasn't taught me anything on it, I ask Him),

What is it you ask him (if he hasn't already taught you anything on it)? Do you have an example?

If it is true - if it is from Him - or what is the truth of the matter.

I test also against love. There may be times when He brings verses to my mind, and I will look those up.

The conversation I shared in post#201

These conversations are AI generated, right? Or at least the responses are AI generated?


I listen to my Lord in the spirit.

also mentioned a verse (Proverbs 3:5-6) - what about the conversation I shared and your method of "testing the spirits" and asking The Lord for guidance about things you may not have encountered before help you in discerning whether a message is genuinely from The Lord or otherwise?

In other words, did you seek The Lord's counsel regarding that message and if so what was said between you and The Lord about that message (verbatim)?

By message, do you mean the things that you posted from the AI content?

I did not ask. I don't really read those things. I don't mean any offense William, but why would I want to talk (or listen) to AI instead of the real person?

Just fyi - I almost certainly look up verses that religions/religious leaders/people use to support their claims (specifically when those claim are in error) - just to get the context of the verses they use to support that claim. You might be surprised at how often an entire list of supporting 'book/chapter/verse' has nothing to do with the claim being made. Putting a bunch of citations after any claim does not mean the claim is true - and people too often assume it must be true if there are that many citations.

Indeed. Even putting "Thus saith the Lord God Jesus Christ:" before a "saying" doesn't signify The Lord has used that person as a medium.

Correct.

Also - Christ does not need to use another person (or thing) as a medium. He speaks Himself. Straight to people. His sheep listen to His voice.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that point. I apologize if I said something to make you believe otherwise.

Well to be honest, at this point it does not clarify a great deal which is why I am asking you further questions...

Okay.


Peace again.