No one has seen God at any time, John?

[ScottA]

You’ve gone beyond what is written in the Bible. I hate to have to repeat myself over and over this way but I tested the spirit, just as John instructs us to do, and found it / you to be false. Jesus has not sent you to reveal and finish anything.

You failed. And what I have said is in the scriptures, just not yet revealed when the Bible was canonized. Meaning, like you, most of Christendom is also living in the past--with an arrogant and selective disregard for part of what was written as yet to come. For which it is written, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

[Riven]

The apostle Paul may have been called a mystic, for having expressed of his experience with God, saying "I don't know." But I have told you I do know--and therefore there is no mystery to suggest mysticism. You are mistaken...and you are not listening. Strike three.

@Matthias

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I was asked by a trinitarian member if I thought John was wrong. I replied that John was not wrong.

While you’re here, do you believe that @ScottA - a non-trinitarian Christian mystic who publicly admitted that he has gone beyond what is written in scripture - has been sent by Jesus to “reveal and finish the mystery of God”? (See post #165)

From what I read, He said he was caught up to heaven, but didn't reveal any mystery. Besides I think the mystery of God has not yet been revealed to anyone.
Here it is right here and hasn't happened yet:
but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then the mystery of God is finished, as He announced to His servants the prophets. Rev. 10:7.

And just what is this mystery this passage is referring to?
Our resurrection, what we will be like, our eternal bodies AND WHAT GOD LOOKS LIKE. WE WILL SEE HIM FACE TO FACE.
Now, some claim they have been to heaven and seen Jesus, angels, and we will have bodies like His, so for them, not as much of a mystery.
That said, there are many other unsolved mysteries, just think this ti be the major one everyone is curious about.

 

[Matthias]

The apostle Paul may have been called a mystic, for having expressed of his experience with God, saying "I don't know." But I have told you I do know--and therefore there is no mystery to suggest mysticism. You are mistaken...and you are not listening. Strike three.

I‘m listening to what you say and testing it. You didn’t pass the test.

 

[Matthias]

You failed. And what I have said is in the scriptures, just not yet revealed when the Bible was canonized. Meaning, like you, most of Christendom is also living in the past--with an arrogant and selective disregard for part of what was written as yet to come. For which it is written, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Most of “Christendom” doesn’t even know you exist. As you told me recently, ”I told you nothing.” I’ll go even further than you humbly did - you told me a whole bunch of nothing.

 

[Matthias]

I do--I admit that I have been beyond the cannon of what is written on parchment …

That’s what mystics do.

... caught up to the third heaven …

That’s what mystics say.

… and now speak what is not mine but His who sent me to reveal and finish the mystery of God as he declared to his servants the prophets.

The Jesus who is a Jewish monotheist didn’t send you to “reveal and finish the mystery of God as he declared to his servants the prophets.“ I’ve known that for a couple of years.

The prophets of God in the Bible? Jewish monotheists.

 

[marks]

You just didn't like the situation which you yourself had inserted yourself

I had intended to address a particular point to a particular person. We may have different ideas about what "deflection" entails. If you ask me a question, and I deflect onto something else, if you then persist in the original question, have you deflected from my deflection?

I saw a person whom when asked a question - what gives you the right or authority to speak for Jesus - I saw a steady stream of deflection. Perhaps you saw something different.

Regarding Scott and his assertions, for me that is a separate matter. As I said, I was addressing a particular point to a particular individual. I ignored quite a number of posts in the thread, actually. Hundreds, I'd say.

:-)

Much love!

 

[marks]

You say that you and the mystery of God prophet get along just fine.

Assuming you mean @ScottA , this is not to say we are in agreement on everything, as you know. But we are able to have open and honest discussions between us. This is how we should all act, in my opinion. With respect, with the desire to give a gift. Something to benefit.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias

I’ve been out with him for at least two years. He knows that.

 

[Matthias]

Matthias, you have hitched your cart to a good wagon …

This much of what he said is the truth @Riven. Test the spirit for yourself.

If you want to see something similar, not identical, in scripture, see Acts 16:16-24.

 

[ScottA]

That’s what mystics do.



That’s what mystics say.



The Jesus who is a Jewish monotheist didn’t send you to “reveal and finish the mystery of God as he declared to his servants the prophets.“ I’ve known that for a couple of years.

The prophets of God in the Bible? Jewish monotheists.

That's just your word against His.

 

[dak]

I had intended to address a particular point to a particular person. We may have different ideas about what "deflection" entails. If you ask me a question, and I deflect onto something else, if you then persist in the original question, have you deflected from my deflection?

I saw a person whom when asked a question - what gives you the right or authority to speak for Jesus - I saw a steady stream of deflection. Perhaps you saw something different.

Regarding Scott and his assertions, for me that is a separate matter. As I said, I was addressing a particular point to a particular individual. I ignored quite a number of posts in the thread, actually. Hundreds, I'd say.

:-)

Much love!

Assuming you mean @ScottA , this is not to say we are in agreement on everything, as you know. But we are able to have open and honest discussions between us. This is how we should all act, in my opinion. With respect, with the desire to give a gift. Something to benefit.

Much love!

Fair enough, I suppose, no reason for me to ramble on about it at this point anyway.

 

[Matthias]

That's just your word against His.

You listened to “another Jesus,“ a lying spirit.

 

[ScottA]

You listened to “another Jesus,“ a lying spirit.

Say what you want you're addressing Him now.

 

[Matthias]

Say what you want you're addressing Him now.

No. I’m addressing you.

I have spoken with the real Jesus - the one who is a Jewish monotheist - about you.

 

[ScottA]

No. I’m addressing you.

I have spoken with the real Jesus - the one who is a Jewish monotheist - about you.

Good, then you know how "what you did, you did unto Me" works.

 

[Matthias]

Good, then you know how "what you did, you did unto Me" works.

Of course I do. That‘s the Jewish law of agency found throughout scripture.

 

[dak]

I saw a person whom when asked a question - what gives you the right or authority to speak for Jesus - I saw a steady stream of deflection. Perhaps you saw something different.

Oh, wait, there was something else I almost forgot. The term creed has been bandied about several times by different posters here lately, so I'll add one of mine, a small and short one, and not my words except for my repeating of what the following bold plain emphatic statements from the Meshiah compel me to conclude.

John 5:22
22 for the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 8:15
15 You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

John 8:50
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is One who seeks out and judges.

John 12:47-50
47 And if anyone hears my words, (rhema), and believes not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save-deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my words, (rhema), has One that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that One shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: whatsoever therefore I speak, even as the Father has said unto me, so I speak.

The basic flow of the logic in the above emphatic statements of the Meshiah:

The Father judges no one.
The Father has committed all judgement unto the Son.
The Meshiah himself, (the Christos, or Anointed One), judges no one.
The Logos which the Meshiah has spoken: that One alone is the Judge.

Therefore:

The Father is not the Judge, (John 5:22).
The Son is the only Judge, (John 5:22).
The Meshiah himself says that he is not the Judge, (John 8:15, John 8:50, John 12:47)
The Logos spoken through the Meshiah which the Father gave to him is the only Judge, (John 12:48-50).
The Meshiah or Christos, (Anointed One), is not the eternal Logos Son who is the Word of the Father.

Am I also putting words in the mouth of the Meshiah? No, I simply believe his words and take them to their ultimate conclusions in forming my understanding so as to be true to his doctrine.

 

[marks]

Oh, wait, there was something else I almost forgot. The term creed has been bandied about several times by different posters here lately, so I'll add one of mine, a small and short one, and not my words except for my repeating of what the following bold plain emphatic statements from the Meshiah force me to conclude.

John 5:22
22 for the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 8:15
15 You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

John 8:50
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is One who seeks out and judges.

John 12:47-50
47 And if anyone hears my words, (rhema), and believes not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save-deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my words, (rhema), has One that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that One shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: whatsoever therefore I speak, even as the Father has said unto me, so I speak.

The basic flow of the logic in the above emphatic statements of the Meshiah:

The Father judges no one.
The Father has committed all judgement unto the Son.
The Meshiah himself, (the Christos, or Anointed One), judges no one.
The Logos which the Meshiah has spoken: that One alone is the Judge.

Therefore:

The Father is not the Judge, (John 5:22).
The Son is the only Judge, (John 5:22).
The Meshiah himself says that he is not the Judge, (John 8:15, John 8:50, John 12:47)
The Logos spoken through the Meshiah which the Father gave to him is the only Judge, (John 12:48-50).
The Meshiah or Christos, (Anointed One), is not the eternal Logos Son who is the Word of the Father.

Am I also putting words in the mouth of the Meshiah? No, I simply believe his words and take them to their ultimate conclusions in forming my understanding so as to be true to his doctrine.

You haven't mentioned the place, "the word became flesh", could you fit that into your understanding for me?

"has One that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that One shall judge him in the last day."

What translation are you quoting here? Is this your own translation? The reason I ask is I'm not seeing where you get "that One".



Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Oh, wait, there was something else I almost forgot. The term creed has been bandied about several times by different posters here lately, so I'll add one of mine, a small and short one, and not my words except for my repeating of what the following bold plain emphatic statements from the Meshiah compel me to conclude.

John 5:22
22 for the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 8:15
15 You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

John 8:50
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is One who seeks out and judges.

John 12:47-50
47 And if anyone hears my words, (rhema), and believes not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save-deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my words, (rhema), has One that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that One shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: whatsoever therefore I speak, even as the Father has said unto me, so I speak.

The basic flow of the logic in the above emphatic statements of the Meshiah:

The Father judges no one.
The Father has committed all judgement unto the Son.
The Meshiah himself, (the Christos, or Anointed One), judges no one.
The Logos which the Meshiah has spoken: that One alone is the Judge.

Therefore:

The Father is not the Judge, (John 5:22).
The Son is the only Judge, (John 5:22).
The Meshiah himself says that he is not the Judge, (John 8:15, John 8:50, John 12:47)
The Logos spoken through the Meshiah which the Father gave to him is the only Judge, (John 12:48-50).
The Meshiah or Christos, (Anointed One), is not the eternal Logos Son who is the Word of the Father.

Am I also putting words in the mouth of the Meshiah? No, I simply believe his words and take them to their ultimate conclusions in forming my understanding so as to be true to his doctrine.

You haven't mentioned the place, "the word became flesh", could you fit that into your understanding for me?

"has One that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that One shall judge him in the last day."

What translation are you quoting here? Is this your own translation? The reason I ask is I'm not seeing where you get "that One".

View attachment 71816

Much love!

Christ--rightly divided--is simply being true and faithful at different times to both in His roles of "God with us." Which needs be by definition, as man (including Christ) is merely created in the image of God.