Yes, I understand. No, I don't think your dear friend would have heard of that name... because the Anglicization removed it. If she undertook to research the Hebrew name... and its true English translation ("Joshua", not "Jesus")... OR, even better... simply ask the One she refers to as "Jesus"... I don't doubt that she WOULD get that name.
Well, that's speculation on your part that she would see or hear what you do. Jesus is just alright for her.
And if research is all it takes to recover the true name of jesus, why is it only you that seems to know it? Surely there have been and are many theologians over the millennia who've dedicated their life to unravelling the mystery, but only here and only by you is it known? Amazing really.
Again, a difference to you perhaps, and anyone who believes you and in invisible spirits who talk to us.
No, there are many who recognize that the Father and Son are two totally independent and different persons. They are in union, true, making them "one"... in mind and spirit... but the same could be said of those who claim to be "in union" with Christ - one... in mind and spirit. He the Head, they the Body - ONE "christ" (chosen) child. But still all very separate, different, individuals...
Ah, you totally missed the point. Again. My point is that to those who do not believe in spirits, much less hear their voices, it's irrelevant if it's Jesus, your name for Jesus, Jah, the holy spirit or Casper the Friendly Ghost. But I don't expect you to be objective regarding this point obviously.
Is Jesus not the son of god?
No, dear one... "he" is not. He is a "god" created by man... which man uses to get others to follow them...
So every christian who calls on jesus is following a false god?
Is not JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH the son of god?
Yes, but he is not "Jesus," sorry.
Don't be sorry, it matters not to me, but it might to those who believe in jesus.
Again, semantics for which a distinction is not a concern, they are the same for all intents and purposes, if love and peace are the ultimate goal.
Not semantics at all, dear one, but very important distinctions. And here is where the fork in the road lies: those who get this... who "call on the name of JAH"... by calling on the name of "the One who came in the NAME of JAH"... seem to progress spiritually... because they learn WHO it is they are to FOLLOW... and so FOLLOW him. And ONLY him. Those who don't...seem to stay where they are... following man, usually... and lamenting as to why THEY don't hear. They don't because (1) a lack of faith IN that One, and (2) they're not listening to "anyone." "Jesus" doesn't speak - "he" can't. "He" does not exist.
Essentially, you are saying that those who follow jesus by that name and not yours do not progress spiritually. By what authority do you judge the progress and therefore the quality of others' spirituality?
You can call it whatever you want if it gets you to the same place and many do, in my opinion. But look at the piety, nay, hubris on you,..
Whether you drive a Ford or Chevy, you're still driving an automobile.
Wrong analogy, dear one. Yes, if you're driving an auto. Similarly, both a SPIRIT BEINGS. However, driving, say, a Bentley is not the same as driving, say, a Silver Shadow. Both autos, both very expensive, both very classy... even same make. But not the same model.
A Ford is an automobile. A Chevy is an automobile. That they are not the same make or model is not the point. The analog is valid, it asserts what was stated above in that whatever name you call it, it's still an invisible spirit and even more so in that those who drive Fords are convinced it's better than a Chevy.
When told by those who are experts in that field how it works, you still choose your own belief over what's presented to you.
No, seriously, I don't. Heck, I don't know about these things. So, I have to rely on what is told me by One who does... One who explained to me why one WAS evolved and the other not.
You seem to choose to see things how you wish to and the evidence of that is all over this board.
Well... okay. I don't think I can argue with or dispute that because you are right: I do so choose, but I base it on evidence presented to ME.
Which is it? Do you choose your own beliefs or not over expert testimony of your human peers?
Of course you've rejected what those who know much about evolution and the various scientific fields regarding it have said regarding the evolution of man in favour of your personal revelations.
So god, who nevers speaks to people, didn't speak to you but you heard his voice? Say what?
I have to correct that. He spoke to Adham and Eve... and to spirit beings... and He attempted to speak to the people of Israel at Sinai. Otherwise, though... yes, He did not speak TO me. He spoke... and I heard it.
Hmmm. Look at that. The spin doctor is in and will see you now.
Am I to understand god "attempted" to speak to people on Mount Sinai, to Moses? Did he or did he not? Did he fail? Because if he didn't succeed, it means you can "hear" him but Moses (and perhaps other holy men) couldn't, yes?
I am an honest man and haven't misrepresented anything.
No, you did... but only because you misunderstand. You didn't understand. Yes, I have heard the Most Holy One of Israel (God) speak. HIS voice. No, He was not speaking to ME.
Ok, so we've determined that you hear god speak. Have you ever asked him for advice or direction? Have you ever received an answer?
If yes, then I haven't misunderstood or misrepresented anything.
However, I can't be blamed for relaying thoughts and beliefs that are in plain contrast, even contradiction, as noted above.
No contrast or contradiction. Again, you misunderstood. Hopefully, I've clarified. Others have heard His voice, too... even though He wasn't speaking to them...
Again, no I haven't but yes, you've clarified things perfectly.
Who are these others exactly? Is there someone else here who wants to testify?
What exactly does god say when he's not speaking to you?
It's not me who says so. Would you believe it if a doctor told you so?
Would depend on the doctor. If the doctor knew me... yes, I would. If he didn't, I might. I don't know. Would depend on his reason/purpose/basis for telling me this. I mean, c'mon, not every doctor is on the up and up, dear one. Heck, look how long it took me to be diagnosed as a diabetic (I had to tell THEM!)... and how long it took them to diagnose my shoulder shoulder condition. Doctors have been known to MISdiagnose, yes? So... it would depend, truly.
Hence the idea of getting a second opinion, which I trust you would do, but haven't as regards this particular issue.
Would you believe one who relayed it from a doctor?
The above notwithstanding, if I believed that the doctor stated it and such one WAS only "relating" it, yes, I would.
Do you think I'm not just "relating" it? How could you know and thus decide?
Ummmm... you totally missed that one, dear one. I stated that such tests indicated I'm not "normal." Which is something YOU brought up...
We both know you're not "normal" by any means, so no issue here.
My point is that even high functioning people can be subject to mental illness and that people can often be unaware that anything is wrong, by the very nature of such.
So, I know what you mean... but I don't think I'm like that, at all.
Probably not but as I said, you or anyone likely wouldn't think there's anything wrong if there was.
Well, I don't hear voices and don't identify myself as being directed by spirits that speak to me, er, whose voice I hear.
Okay, so... that's you. You say that to say... what?
This was in response to:
This doesn't mean I or anyone couldn't be subject to a condition of which we're unaware as such.
Yet, you assume you are not... don't you?
I know I don't hear voices other than my own which is what we're talking about. So I can't be unaware of a condition whose symptoms I don't have.
Perhaps it isn't a concern per se; if you're happy with it, have at 'er.
Are you SURE? Because you DO seem to have been a bit concerned... although it seems unable to explain why that is...
As I said before, I merely represent another side/possibility to what you're saying is (your version of) the truth.
Yes, I understand. And I don't fault you for offering such other side/possibility... unless/until you tell me it IS. I do take issue with that. Which you surely understand, yes?
Aren't you the one who's telling the world about what IS, in terms of nomenclature, i.e. what jesus' name really IS, what is true in the bible and what ISn't, what IS TRUTH?
I say there's another side to all of it and that it's possible, even likely, that there's another explanation based on accumulated knowledge of the subject by doctors and experts in the field.
So by this you're saying you have been tested by the medical profession for hearing voices that are not your own?
Not for that, no... but that did come up. And in light of all that they... ummm... examined... and my responses to the OTHER questions they asked... they didn't think it was anything to be "concerned" about... but just my... ummmm... "individual quirkiness." So...
So my assumption that you haven't been tested for this particular issue is in fact true. Which makes your display of chagrin all the more interesting, bordering on misdirection. An honest answer to a simple question would've been easier methinks.
I am not surprised, dear one. I simply don't CARE. See, crazy people CARE if no one believes them. They CARE if people think they're crazy. So, they go around trying to prove that they're NOT.
And you know this how? Are you a medical professional with a degree in psychology/psychiatry?
Actually, I know it because (1) that's what "they" told me when they told me I was, well, "quirky" (and told me not to worry about it), and (2) I have friends who have varying degrees in Psychology.
So you do in fact believe those who are expert in their field, doctors even?
Ah, not directly but you do say there will be a reckoning. So you don't say it overtly, but it's there.
Where in the WORLD have you seen/heard ME say there will be a "reckoning"??!!! WHO are you confusing me with, dear Twitch?? What "reckoning"??
Give me some time to find the references. Much to wade through.
One doesn't need to hear voices to be a believer, in christ, allah or whatever.
Again, you're confusing me with someone else. When have I ever said one had to hear voices to be a "believer"? God grants the gifts of the spirit... once of which is hearing (discerning) spirits... to whomever HE wishes to grant it. That does not mean that such one has no use for one who was given, say, the gift of wisdom... or healing... or tongues... or prophesying, etc.
No confusion on my part, I said it, not you. My assertion is that many, if not most people believe in jesus, allah or whatever without having or needing to hear voices, by virtue of faith. Is there faith any less deserving or sincere if they don't?
Now, I HAVE said that ANYONE can hear my Lord's voice... which is true. It is a GIFT of the Spirit... by means of holy spirit... and Gods does not withhold His holy spirit from anyone who ASKS... so long as such one asks... in FAITH.
One would think many here and all over the world have faith. One would think many are sincere in their faith and have asked the lord for direction and guidance. By your comment, you're saying that ANYONE can hear YOUR Lord's voice if they have faith. So the question is, why isn't this more common then? Why doesn't everyone who has sincere faith not hear it? Or is it that their faith is not sincere? Or that they aren't asking the "right" spirit?
But if I start to hear voices other than my own, I won't go to church, I'll go to the hospital.
But that's you... and to each his/her own, dear one, yes?
Yes, and I would hope that anyone who is in the same position would. If god is truly with them, they've nothing to fear or lose.
I don't care how you judge me or my motivations, so at least we have that in common.
I hope so. I haven't actually "felt" that... ummmm... "freedom" from you, though. Rather, I have "felt" that you want ME to care how you judge me or view my motivations... and may have been surprised to literally read me state that I don't. 'Cause that's not actually "politically correct"... here or in the world.
We are in the world, for one; I don't consider this board to be anywhere or anything else
And again, it's not about you, as I know anything I say won't change your mind or beliefs.
Because it's more likely that it's true than god, er, jesus speaks to you IMO.
But since you are not a professional, your opinion isn't weighty on this, dear one. I realize your "ego" may not be able to handle that... but it really is the truth. What you and others think of me... your opinion as to what I hear, if I even do... is irrelevant to me. I don't share what I do because I want or need you to believe me. I do it because (1) it's the truth, and (2) I love the One who speaks and won't deny the truth of his speaking, even to be accepted... by anyone.
No, mine is not the opinion of a doctor but that doesn't negate the possibility that it's true that someone who hears voices has a mental condition. My ego can handle what I've just said, can yours? I have nothing to lose by being wrong in this matter, do you?
LOL, yes of course, you have the absolute, eternal TRUTH. Of this, there is no doubt, lol.
Ask 100 people if they think somebody that hears invisible spirits talking to them might suffer from a mental illness. Sure, doesn't mean it's true but common perception would be that it is.
Sigh... you really don't get it, do you? It does not MATTER what a group of 1,000 people think... 1,000,000 people think. Doesn't mean they're right. If that were the case, then you should hightail your butt back to the WTBTS. Right?
Please, tell me how it is. I'm just a dumbass xjw who has no critical thinking, confidence, integrity, honesty or right to an reasonable opinion and alternate explanation of a subject that is continually engaged, even perpetuated by you, lmao. Do you care what the people at church or any other christians think of you? If you didn't care what people thought of your beliefs and thereby the TRUTH, why post about it at all?
And there's the WTS card again. Oooh, that hurts. I guess you're not above throwing low blows, eh righteous one? That's ok, I've been called worse by better people ;) Lets say for argument's sake I never was a JW, what would you deem a suitable insult for me then? Do you think those who've never been a JW might have a similar opinion on these matters?
To make my point clear to you, my comment was a response to:
So I have wonder where some of you NON-professionals get off trying to do it...
You're posting on a worldwide discussion board that you hear voices not your own. Do you think it's reasonable to expect you won't get opinions about it such as we've been discussing? If you truly didn't care what others think of you and your beliefs, why even bother engaging me or anyone on it?
'Cause, apparently, close to 7,000,000 people are gonna think YOU'RE "mentally diseased" pretty soon, if they don't already. Right? C'mon, Twitch... what a group of people "think" means... what? Seriously??.
Let 'em think as they will, I have no control over it so it's not a concern to me. Maybe I'll sue their collective crazy ass if it causes me grief, lol. I'll side with the billions who do not know or even care who they are or what they think. But if a JW (or anyone) would like to take tests and compare notes, I'd gladly be up for the challenge to see who's really mental and who isn't.
Never said you couldn't voice your opinion, only that it can be contested. That's ok isn't it?
Contested is one thing. Calling someone names... or stating (even insinuating) that they're mentally unstable... isn't contesting. It's speculating... without any real basis. And that's not okay. Unless, of course, you ARE "mentally diseased"... as some would say about YOU...
Oh, wah. Somebody's calling you names. I thought you said you didn't care what people said or thought?
So you've never posted on a thread that wasn't about theology or christian matters with an opinion that may be in disagreement with the OP?
Er, huh? Sure, I have. And in such an instance you'd have every right to call me on it and demand a reason for me having done so. But that's not what occurred here... nor what your comment... or my response... was referring to.
In my first post on this thread, I asserted that this is not about discussing the "TRUTH" of Einstein's theory or science per se as it is so much about your subtheme of what you consider TRUTH and how TRUTH is objective unless it has to do with your beliefs, which is absolute and eternal TRUTH. Subtle preaching is still preaching and if it's good enough for you, well, all's fair in the public arena, is it not?
I understand thread derailment but if you say this thread is about the objectivity of truth, well, haven't we been discussing that?
Not really, and I don't have a GREAT issue with that... except that some have tried to make it about something else... and you're stating that I am the one who did that. Which is not the case, at all. YOU all made it about "me"... and my spiritual beliefs... when I hadn't even gone there. Hadn't even intended to.
I submit for perusal the following statements:
Shelby You did choose the word TRUTH in the title here for a reason, no? Or is it just a coincidence? ;)
No, for a reason, dear Twitch (again, peace to you!): as shown in my question "What is 'truth'". I did not give my usual response anywhere (that "Christ is the Truth"). I didn't even go there... because that wasn't what this thread was about. Unfortunately, the "blinders" that so many now where (most probably due to their previous experience with religion)... didn't allow some to see that.
I am truly sorry that so many took the title of the thread so literally (peace to you all!). It really wasn't about Mr. Einstein... or his theory... or the speed of light. It was about what we believe to be "the truth"... at what point... what is it when it's "no longer" the "truth". What was it before? It was about whether truth was something that is constant... versus something that changes.
as well as this;
I mean, from my perspective Christ is the [only] Truth... but given the progression of the thread, I tried to stay away from that, for now.
So perhaps my assertion regarding the true purpose of this thread is not so wrong after all. It's so clear to me now why you throw around the labels misrepresentation, dishonest and hypocrite. My but you are a slippery one. Like teflon, even ;)
Just trying to understand how others think on the matter, was all... what others thought constituted truth... and when. Unfortunately, strongly rooted preconceived bias didn't allow some to see that, though. But that's truly not on me...
Oh, and you don't have strongly rooted preconceived bias? Lessee, both of us were "christians", both of us were in a cultish religious group, both of us revered the "anointed" ones, both of us believed in absolute TRUTH, both of us used special terms and language, both of us preached our beliefs, both of us rejected opposing viewpoints outright without consideration of reason. However, one of us broke away from those preconceived ideas completely. The other just found new names and a slightly difference version of the TRUTH. So really, which of us is more like the WTS? lmao
BTW, when can I talk to Shelby "on her own" instead of the "slave"?
You're "talking" to her, now, dear one... and can do so whenever you wish. Here or off the board, doesn't matter to me. I've nothing to hide... and indeed have posted quite a bit "on my own", as well as my Lord's servant, over the years. No difference, really... except I try to be a little more... ummmm... respectful... when I am referring to him (or the Father)... or addressing [members of] His Household. I mean, he deserves that and so do they.
If you say so.
Good game, your move ;)
I agree! Although, you just lost your queen... and you know what usually happens after that: game's usually close to being "over."
If you think so.
SA, noticing that although she lost a pawn... she now has, let's see, your queen, both of your knights, one of your rooks, one of your bishops... and all but two of your pawns... so, it isn't looking all that "good" for your side, right now...
You'll have to excuse me if I don't see (or hear) what you do.
And on that note, I bid you adieu for the evening.