May 5, 2012 -- 5:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Newtonian wrote:

Knowsnothing - You should be skeptical of personal revelations - I mean, if true Christians had to test the spirits (1 John 4:1 & context and cross references), obviously all would do well to test such experiences rather than assuming they were from God.

And yet I have no way to test the testimonies of those 1st century Christians.

BTW, as Ann pointed out to me, the context only goes so far as to say that the way to test the spirits was to see if they confessed Christ as come in the flesh.

 

May 5, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Newtonian wrote:

It's similar to the various miraculous gifts evident in some religions today - different religions including spiritistic ones - such as speaking in tongues, for example.

Love for the truth is a key factor in avoiding being misled by the various miracles Satan's angels of light provide - here are two of the Scriptural warnings involved:

(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents ¹⁰ and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. ¹¹ So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, ¹² in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Well, for arguments sake, let's take Theo's case.  He himself said that such personal revelation only really helped him confirm God's existence.  All he preaches, from what I can see, is Christ.

Is there personal interpretation of the Bible?  Sure, but JWs are just as guilty.  Evidence of this is changing stance/understanding on scripture.

The point is, he points to Christ, and doesn't wish to draw others toward himself, but to Christ, and certainly that is admirable.  Now, if he were using that "portent" or "personal revelation" to give himself glory, or to preach something else, then I suppose you could apply such a text.

May 5, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Newtonian wrote:

(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) . . .For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. ¹⁴ And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. ¹⁵ It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works..

Note the importance of examining their works as well as showing a love for truth.   Both require good, honest research, btw.

And, remember, many of these are themselves deceived and may have good motive!

Context, Newtonian, context.  

³ But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. ⁴ For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

  ¹² And I will keep on doing what I am doing (context reveals the sacrifice and hardships Paul went through) in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.

So, unless Theo is preaching "another Jesus, another gospel", or unless he considers to usurp the position the apostles held (hmm.... who does that remind me of), then I believe these texts wouldn't apply.

Knowsnothing - the context of 1 John 4:1 is NOT just that point - though it is true that most religions teach Jesus was a sort of God-man and having an immortal soul/spirit whereas neither are true - Jesus was flesh while on earth.

This is a very important point in the context which you are missing:

(1 John 4:7, 8) . . .oved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. 8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.

Love is lacking in many religions, especially Christendom which has the most violent history of any religious grouping on the planet!

Also, Jesus' teaching for us to be no part of this world is involved as the context shows:

(1 John 4:4-6) . . .YOU originate with God, little children, and YOU have conquered those [persons], because he that is in union with YOU is greater than he that is in union with the world. 5 They originate with the world; that is why they speak [what proceeds] from the world and the world listens to them. 6 We originate with God. He that gains the knowledge of God listens to us; he that does not originate with God does not listen to us. This is how we take note of the inspired expression of truth and the inspired expression of error.

So, no, it is not just confessing Jesus as coming in the flesh - I did not mean for you to stop with just a few verses!   Love for the truth should impel you to research more completely and carefully - and love for truth will protect you from all deceptions!

Now what religion actually practices the love Jesus taught (cp. Matthew 5:44) and is no part of this world?

Knowsnothing - As an obvious example of a personal revelation that contradicts Jesus teachings on love, consider Constantine's vision of a cross by which sign he conquered in warfare - championing war among apostate Christians of the time:

"Some writers point to the claim by the sun-god worshipper Constantine that in 312 C.E., while on one of his military campaigns, he had a vision of a cross superimposed on the sun along with the motto in Latin “in hoc vince” (by this conquer). Some time later, a “Christian” sign was emblazoned on the standards, shields, and armor of his army. (Pictured at left.) Constantine purportedly converted to Christianity, though he was not baptized until 25 years later on his deathbed. His motive was questioned by some. “He acted rather as if he were converting Christianity into what he thought most likely to be accepted by his subjects as a catholic [universal] religion, than as if he had been converted to the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene,” says the book The Non-Christian Cross." - quoted in "The Watchtower," 3/1/11, p. 20

May 5, 2012 -- 5:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Newtonian wrote:

Knowsnothing - You should be skeptical of personal revelations - I mean, if true Christians had to test the spirits (1 John 4:1 & context and cross references), obviously all would do well to test such experiences rather than assuming they were from God.

And yet I have no way to test the testimonies of those 1st century Christians.

BTW, as Ann pointed out to me, the context only goes so far as to say that the way to test the spirits was to see if they confessed Christ as come in the flesh.

Newtonian, you've misunderstood me. 

1.) Christians claim to have had personal revelations in those times (1st century)

2.)  You go on to state I should be skeptical of personal revelations, and you ref. 1 John

3.)  That claim includes what is put forth in the Bible.

Aside from the secular accounts you've given me about bellical abstinence, I'm stumped on how I would go about verifying the personal revelations purported by those in the Bible itself.

May 5, 2012 -- 6:19PM, Newtonian wrote:

Knowsnothing - As an obvious example of a personal revelation that contradicts Jesus teachings on love, consider Constantine's vision of a cross by which sign he conquered in warfare - championing war among apostate Christians of the time:

"Some writers point to the claim by the sun-god worshipper Constantine that in 312 C.E., while on one of his military campaigns, he had a vision of a cross superimposed on the sun along with the motto in Latin “in hoc vince” (by this conquer).

In point of fact, the message was, In hoc signo vinces, "By this sign you will conquer".

(Revelation 12:15, 16) 15 And the serpent disgorged water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon disgorged from its mouth.

And people wonder why I reject Rev.  Who has time to waste wading through the "interpretations" of this made by every Tom, Dick, and Harry wannabe theologian?