Ask Jesus anything you want

[dianaiad]

Axually, the New Testament speaks of the spiritual gift of prophecy in at least 3 places (just off the top of my head); 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 14:4, and Ephesians 4:11. If you'll notice there under my name, I am a member of that fraternity myself. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is the gift of understanding and interpreting the divine will, not speaking for Jesus or God as if the words were coming from His mouth directly. So your objection is materially correct, but foundationally flawed.

Actually, Axe Elf, in my belief system we teach that all of us can have 'personal revelation' for our own lives. However, a "prophet" is a bit more than that; a prophet receives revelation for the rest of us. What he writes down becomes, by definition, scripture. At least, that's the Biblical idea, more or less. While you may well be receiving divine guidance for yourself, that doesn't make you a prophet....because 'speaking for Jesus or God as if the words were coming from His mouth directly" is exactly what makes a prophet...a prophet.

At least, again, Biblically.

Amos 3: 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

It's not that God reveals things ONLY to prophets...it's that if God reveals something to someone that is to be written down for the edification of others, that MAKES him a prophet. It's sorta like being a Scot: one isn't born in Scotland because one is Scottish. One is Scottish because one is born in Scotland.

One isn't given revelation because one is a prophet. One is a prophet because one has been given revelation..

I think that this is a disagreement in definition rather than anything that foundational, to be honest. I believe that a prophet is given revelation for everybody. Evidently you believe that one's personal revelations, that one does not disseminate to others, is enough to qualify. I disagree with that idea.

 

[Axe Elf]

Actually, Axe Elf, in my belief system we teach that all of us can have 'personal revelation' for our own lives. However, a "prophet" is a bit more than that; a prophet receives revelation for the rest of us. What he writes down becomes, by definition, scripture. At least, that's the Biblical idea, more or less. While you may well be receiving divine guidance for yourself, that doesn't make you a prophet....because 'speaking for Jesus or God as if the words were coming from His mouth directly" is exactly what makes a prophet...a prophet.

At least, again, Biblically.

That's not how the spiritual gift of prophecy is described in the New Testament, but God forbid that anyone should take a prophet's word for it.

It's not that God reveals things ONLY to prophets...it's that if God reveals something to someone that is to be written down for the edification of others, that MAKES him a prophet. It's sorta like being a Scot: one isn't born in Scotland because one is Scottish. One is Scottish because one is born in Scotland.

And I'm a prophet because I have received the spiritual gift of prophecy.

Evidently you believe that one's personal revelations, that one does not disseminate to others, is enough to qualify. I disagree with that idea.

I would like to see your evidence for this "evident" statement (especially the part about what I believe), although it's not altogether incorrect. There are an awful lot of people who aren't ready to hear prophecy (see the part about anyone taking a prophet's word for it above), so a lot of prophecy doesn't really get disseminated due to falling on deaf ears--but that doesn't make it any less prophetic.

I can't tell you the number of times I've explained the Trinity on here, or the Problem of Evil, or various other insights into the nature of reality, only to have people reject, argue, and otherwise deny the wisdom. That doesn't make me any less of a prophet, it just makes people less able to take advantage of my gift.

 

[74x12]

Cute. Irrelevant to my question, of course. And your version? Is really creepy.

It also paints your god to be even more creepy: All that torture-porn, and what-not.

Jesus had to be tortured because your creepy god couldn't figure out a less evil way, then?

Jesus is God. The point of Jesus' death on the cross is to show His love for the bride. That's God's love. He died for it.

John 15:13

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Jesus is God. The point of Jesus' death on the cross is to show His love for the bride. That's God's love. He died for it.

John 15:13

Still irrelevant to my question: Why did not Jesus marry and have children? He was supposedly the Perfect Example.

If we go by what he did in the Myth? NOBODY WOULD EVER MARRY, OR HAVE KIDS.

Ooops!

 

[74x12]

Still irrelevant to my question: Why did not Jesus marry and have children? He was supposedly the Perfect Example.

If we go by what he did in the Myth? NOBODY WOULD EVER MARRY, OR HAVE KIDS.

Ooops!

Well do you think Jesus wants everyone to follow His example that closely? I mean we would need to go around in sandals. When Jesus speaks of people following Him it's spiritual. That is they should take after Him in their heart. They should do good from the heart like He did. Paul used the analogy (and it's more than just an analogy) of a body. Not every organ of the body has the same function. An eye sees, but a heart pumps blood etc. Everyone in the body of Christ is different and given different functions and gifts. Some of the disciples of Jesus actually did not get married so they could serve others better. Especially in ancient times it was not easy to travel and adding a family would have made it very difficult on everyone. So Paul for example did not ever get married. But that doesn't mean no one should get married. Some people need to marry; which is the best thing for them.

Paul and others fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 62:5

For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

The new Jerusalem(the church of God, the people of God) is the bride of God; but in effect Paul was acting for God's interest to the church and so the prophecy says "so shall thy sons marry thee".

We can see Paul acting in this capacity in 2 Corinthians 11:2.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Of course all this is spiritually discerned and not meant to be understood in any carnal way. This has nothing to do with a marriage of the flesh but is a spiritual union of the people of God with a Spiritual God.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well do you think Jesus wants everyone to follow His example that closely? I mean we would need to go around in sandals. .

I know of quite a number of folk who do exactly that, now that you mention it.

What makes ***you*** superior to **them**? Who said you are the Ultimate Authority?

When Jesus speaks of people following Him it's spiritual. That is they should take after Him in their heart. They should do good from the heart like He did. .

So ***you*** say. Who gave YOU the Ultimate Authority on the subject?

Paul used the analogy (and it's more than just an analogy) of a body. Not every organ of the body has the same function. An eye sees, but a heart pumps blood etc. Everyone in the body of Christ is different and given different functions and gifts. Some of the disciples of Jesus actually did not get married so they could serve others better. Especially in ancient times it was not easy to travel and adding a family would have made it very difficult on everyone. So Paul for example did not ever get married. But that doesn't mean no one should get married. Some people need to marry; which is the best thing for them..

Paul? Who never even met Jesus? Who casually tossed out 1000's of years of Tradition? Paul, who made a Fine Living on killing of these new-fangled 'Christian Heretics'? That Paul?

The Heretic? I have little respect for the man-- who obviously hated women with a severe passion, but had an equal passion for ... younger men. Interesting.

Paul and others fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 62:5

For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

The new Jerusalem(the church of God, the people of God) is the bride of God; but in effect Paul was acting for God's interest to the church and so the prophecy says "so shall thy sons marry thee".

We can see Paul acting in this capacity in 2 Corinthians 11:2.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Of course all this is spiritually discerned and not meant to be understood in any carnal way. This has nothing to do with a marriage of the flesh but is a spiritual union of the people of God with a Spiritual God.

I have little or no respect for the HERESY of Paul.

 

[74x12]

So ***you*** say. Who gave YOU the Ultimate Authority on the subject?

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on the subject. But what does Jesus say Himself?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

So, according to Jesus Himself; He talks about spiritual things that are not necessarily literal. At least not literal to our carnal understanding. This is why so many of His disciples left him because they thought He was speaking of His literal flesh when He told them they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Paul? Who never even met Jesus? Who casually tossed out 1000's of years of Tradition? Paul, who made a Fine Living on killing of these new-fangled 'Christian Heretics'? That Paul?

The Heretic? I have little respect for the man-- who obviously hated women with a severe passion, but had an equal passion for ... younger men. Interesting.

Paul did meet Jesus on the road. He didn't toss out 1000s of years of tradition. It was Jesus who went against tradition and make His disciples wash their hands before eating. Paul did persecute Christians but repented when He saw Jesus. I think that's the whole point of the gospel to save the worst sinners. As for hating women; it's a baseless allegation as is your claim he liked younger men.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on the subject. .

Yet... you persist in acting as if you are ...

But what does Jesus say Himself?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63).

Again-- someone's interpretation of some ancient language that isn't used today.

What makes your take on this, superior in every way to anyone else's?

So, according to Jesus Himself; He talks about spiritual things that are not necessarily literal. At least not literal to our carnal understanding. This is why so many of His disciples left him because they thought He was speaking of His literal flesh when He told them they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood..

So you claim -- I've seen many different takes on this issue, yours is only one of many. Moreover? There are different interpretations that don't involve 'spirit' as you project here.

Paul did meet Jesus on the road. .

Prove it. We only have the words of one (1) man, who is a known Con Man, a Persecutor/murderer of anyone he considered to be a Heretic. My assessment of the Heretic Paul, remains, sans proof to the contrary.

He didn't toss out 1000s of years of tradition. .

Nope. Paul most certainly did-- the dietary laws, circumcision requirement, etc, etc, etc.

All on his own-- which caused a Schism with Peter...

It was Jesus who went against tradition and make His disciples wash their hands before eating. .

Really. So sure you are, there are no hygiene laws in Jewish Tradition? Check again...

Paul did persecute Christians but repented when He saw Jesus. .

Or? He saw a new Lucrative New Con he could play... 'there's money in them there hills'

I think that's the whole point of the gospel to save the worst sinners. As for hating women; it's a baseless allegation as is your claim he liked younger men.

Oh, there is zero doubt that Paul hated women, and preferred younger men.

Both are literally in his writings, and his behavior too-- when his first young beau grew too old? Paulie sends him away, asking for a New Buff Stud to be his ... ahem... "companion".

Go read those parts a second time, without your blinders on this time.

 

[74x12]

Prove it. We only have the words of one (1) man, who is a known Con Man, a Persecutor/murderer of anyone he considered to be a Heretic. My assessment of the Heretic Paul, remains, sans proof to the contrary.

Turn about is fair play so ... What makes your view any more valid than other people's view of Paul?

Nope. Paul most certainly did-- the dietary laws, circumcision requirement, etc, etc, etc.

All on his own-- which caused a Schism with Peter...

All on his own? We can prove the new Covenant without resorting to Paul. But Paul himself never just claims that the old Law is no longer to be obeyed without giving a reason. Paul provides reasonable arguments with scriptures to prove his point.

As for a schism with Peter; you may be thinking of James. Peter doesn't seem to ever disagree with Paul and indeed neither does James. But some of James' congregation may have disagreed with Paul.

Really. So sure you are, there are no hygiene laws in Jewish Tradition? Check again...

I misspoke. I meant He did not make His disciples wash their hands.

Or? He saw a new Lucrative New Con he could play... 'there's money in them there hills'

... Yeah which explains why Paul continued to support himself with the money from his tent making trade; unlike other ministers of his time who lived solely off of donations.

Oh, there is zero doubt that Paul hated women, and preferred younger men.

Both are literally in his writings, and his behavior too-- when his first young beau grew too old? Paulie sends him away, asking for a New Buff Stud to be his ... ahem... "companion".

Go read those parts a second time, without your blinders on this time.

Oh, very funny.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Turn about is fair play so ... What makes your view any more valid than other people's view of Paul?.

Until you can prove that this Paul dude, did in fact, see the Jesus character? Apart from his own words? You have no case.

All on his own? We can prove the new Covenant without resorting to Paul. .

Citation needed: not from the words of Paul, or anyone directly associated with Paul...

But Paul himself never just claims that the old Law is no longer to be obeyed without giving a reason. Paul provides reasonable arguments with scriptures to prove his point..

So, Paul wasn't a Jew, then? Okay... that fits his tossing out the entirety of OT Laws.

As for a schism with Peter; you may be thinking of James. Peter doesn't seem to ever disagree with Paul and indeed neither does James. But some of James' congregation may have disagreed with Paul..

So you say. I've read otherwise. However: it's likely all moot anyway, as the odds of any of those ancient characters being OTHER than 100% Myth? Are quite low...

I misspoke. I meant He did not make His disciples wash their hands..

According to? You? Or was it simply assumed that Jesus, being a Good Jew, would have automatically followed Jewish Custom? As would his equally Jewish followers?

You are reading into the story things that are not there...

... Yeah which explains why Paul continued to support himself with the money from his tent making trade; unlike other ministers of his time who lived solely off of donations..

A con is a con is a con. Paul remains one of the Greatest of them all, his legacy is still going, and the Con continues to fool people even today...

 

[james blunt]

Ask anything you want and I will answer to the best of my ability from the perspective of Jesus Christ himself

Is God a set of informative rules that humanity devised to make peace but people had their own versions of gods rules ?

 

[JChnsc19]

What’s my PIN #?