by Christ Alone 494 Replies latest social current
EE, might i also share with you that Aguest never stated that MischaJah is part of Jaheshua's name (like a last name)... anymore than Christ would be part of Jesus' name (like a last name). Rather it is a title of WHO He is.
Christ - Messiah - Annointed
MischaJah - chosen of Jah
Peace,
tammy
dear Tammy...
wanting and listening for a voice or voices to speak to you is spiritism. listening to what real people say and weighing that against what Jesus, His apostles and the prophets have said in the scriptures is discernment of spirits...(as it is written, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets": 1 cor 14:32, matthew 5:17, matthew 23:34, luke 16:29, romans 1:1-2, romans 3:21, ephesians 4:11) so if someone actually hears from an disembodied spirit and then teaches what they hear to others but that teaching is not in harmony with what Jesus or the scriptures say then that is a teaching of a deceiving spirit. one who hears from the disembodied could be deceived with no intention of deceiving others but that is WHY one shouldn't even want to listen for a voice or voices...because there are many disembodied spirits all to willing to deceive...they are in league with satan who goes about like a roaring lion seeking those he can devour.
If you don't hear Jesus in my voice when I talk about hell, does that mean that you reject all the accounts of hell spoken by Jesus in the bible as the false pen of the scribes?
btw...have you read any of my posts about what and where hell is?...if you could, please explain what you think I've said...
love michelle
p.s. I said your theology lacks internal consistancy...I never said anything about the Lord or people being inconsistant...when the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets the natural result is an internally consistant theology.
wanting and listening for a voice or voices to speak to you is spiritism.
So Moses was into spiritism? Paul? Peter? John? Christ, Himself? How many times in his revelation did John state that he heard a voice? Paul states that He learned from Christ, and this after Christ had already died and risen. Peter also.
Are you sure you understand what it is you are telling people they cannot do... that it is in tune with what happened to those who exercised faith in Christ; and also with what Christ taught? Perhaps you should do some of what you direct me below:
listening to what real people say and weighing that against what Jesus, His apostles and the prophets have said in the scriptures is discernment of spirits...
Weighing what anyone states against Christ... sure. Because Christ is the TRUTH, the anchor if you will, to test all else.
(as it is written, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets": 1 cor 14:32, matthew 5:17, matthew 23:34, luke 16:29, romans 1:1-2, romans 3:21, ephesians 4:11) so if someone actually hears from an disembodied spirit and then teaches what they hear to others but that teaching is not in harmony with what Jesus or the scriptures say then that is a teaching of a deceiving spirit.
If it is against the Spirit of Truth (Christ) then yes, that is a deceiving spirit. And THAT is discernment of the spirits... testing what one hears; so as to know what is a true inspired expression and what is false: against Christ, the Spirit of Truth.
one who hears from the disembodied could be deceived with no intention of deceiving others but that is WHY one shouldn't even want to listen for a voice or voices...because there are many disembodied spirits all to willing to deceive...they are in league with satan who goes about like a roaring lion seeking those he can devour.
No, that is why one is to TEST the inspired expressions. Test anything you hear; test anything others tell you... and test them against Christ.
If you don't hear Jesus in my voice when I talk about hell, does that mean that you reject all the accounts of hell spoken by Jesus in the bible as the false pen of the scribes?
I reject the interpretation that has been applied, due perhaps to the false pen of the scribes who thought they had the right understanding. But who perhaps did not look to CHRIST for discernment.
btw...have you read any of my posts about what and where hell is?...if you could, please explain what you think I've said...
None that I can recall.
Peace,
tammy
p.s. I said your theology lacks internal consistancy...I never said anything about the Lord or people being inconsistant...
Making that statement does not mean anything without something specific as example.
when the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets the natural result is an internally consistant theology.
Just the opposite, I think. When the prophets are subject to the SPIRIT of TRUTH... rather than themselves... then we would have what you call an 'internally consistant theology.'
Peace,
tammy
Words.
So let's just net this out. You say Christ is love. Others think very different things about him and what his message is. Why are you more right than they are, Tammy?
It's not like the lord can go around saying his own name without a great deal of preparation...New Chapter
I guess thats why some people NEVER hear this name....especially elderly people that have spent their entire lives loving Jesus...they just haven't prepared enough.
And those nuns that give up their entire lives for Jesus....they just weren't trying hard enough....silly nuns.
Oh tec.... really dear? Really really? So you lied. You do subscribe now to the whole jeshua whatyamacallhim thing.. Wow. And its interesting that you took so long and so surreptitious a route to get there. You couldnt just 'woman up' and admit it. You spent days ducking and dodging a simple question from me about whether or not you were going with the whole thing or just the first part. You ducked and dodged in a way that would have made muhammad ali proud but finally admitted that yes you were going with the jeshua thing. Then when i press you about the second part you ducka and weave again, accuse me of talking to aguest through you, blah blah blah. But when its all said and done you finally, slyly, sneak in there 'oh yea and the meshua too'. NIce.
Its easy to see why you are reluctant to admit it. I take you back to something i said previously in this post that you tried to attack and explain away:
No one, in the history of mankind, over the last 2000 years has EVER idenified the lord jesus in this way.
In 2000 years you and your prophetess are the only two people living, ever, to hear this from him. And yet we arnt supposed to think that you got this from her? That this isnt a clear and obviouse case of you being drawn into a cult of personality? seriously? you really think that you are so special or so good at hearing that you somehow heard something no one else in 2000 years has ever heard, except aguest, and more incredibly, expect that otherwise intelligent people arnt going to assume that you got the name from the only other person in history to use it?
There is no amount of copy of paste and respond to my words that is going to explain away the reality. You have been sucked into a cult once again. No matter if its a cult of one or a cult of 7 million, you are following a person. You have been convinced that her words are now yours. its both sad and scarry.
Oh tec.... really dear? Really really? So you lied. You do subscribe now to the whole jeshua whatyamacallhim thing.. Wow.
Why? Because I corrected your mistaking a name for a title? One does not have to 'subscribe' to something, to understand what was explained about it. So in your words: Really dear? Really really?
No lie, but interesting that you look so quickly for there to be one.
And its interesting that you took so long and so surreptitious a route to get there. You couldnt just 'woman up' and admit it.
Admit what? You were wrong about my 'lie' from the get-go.
You spent days ducking and dodging a simple question from me about whether or not you were going with the whole thing or just the first part. You ducked and dodged in a way that would have made muhammad ali proud but finally admitted that yes you were going with the jeshua thing. Then when i press you about the second part you ducka and weave again, accuse me of talking to aguest through you, blah blah blah. But when its all said and done you finally, slyly, sneak in there 'oh yea and the meshua too'. NIce.
See, this is one of the reasons why I 'ducked and dodged' as you call it. So you would go back and actually read MY words, instead of adding your spin... as you have done once again.
Allow me to copy my words for you again, bolding the part you seem to have skipped over:
EE, might i also share with you that Aguest never stated that MischaJah is part of Jaheshua's name (like a last name)... anymore than Christ would be part of Jesus' name (like a last name). Rather it is a title of WHO He is.
You were misrepresenting something that she shared; all I did was correct that.
So I will leave off the rest of your post, since... as I said... you were mistaken from the get-go, and so nothing you built upon that mistake applies.
Peace,
tammy
I remember when I was a JW, I followed the GB. But if you asked me, I would have insisted that I follow God not man. No Way! But I did follow men, and everyone knew it but me. That's what cognitive dissonace will do to a person. The facts are there for all to see, but they can be ignored and dismissed. Maybe that's true for OTHER people, but not me, no way, I'M not following men! The Catholics do. The Mormons do. Not me.
Ah well.
