• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does God use a channel ?

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi,

Some religion claim that God uses their leaders as a channel by which information is passed on from Him to these men/women (for instance JW's).

My question is, is that a scriptural teaching ?
I am aware that in the past God (Jehovah) used prophets to instruct people of his will and convey his thoughts, but does he still do that today, or on the other hand is (for Christians) Jesus Christ our only teacher ?

Your comments are appriciated.
It is impossible to be a spokesperson for God with too many words. With too many words you are bound to lie. The father of the lie is not God.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yeshua sent out "fishers of men" (Jeremiah 16:16), and quoted verses from the "old testament". John the Baptist preached the "kingdom of heaven", in which you must repent and produce fruit in line with the repentance or be thrown into "the fire" (Matthew 3). Yeshua preached the same gospel. Your false gospel of grace comes from the false prophet Paul, who taught lawlessness, a practice Yeshua taught was a path the destruction (Matthew 7:13 & Matthew 13:41-42).
Nah..... The Baptist was cleansing a redeeming folks for nothing, and they then didn't need to go to the Temple, being ripped off in every way possible. Why do you think people flocked to him for cleansing?
Thus the Temple takings reduced.

Jesus was baptising as well, for a time, until the arrest of John.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Nah..... The Baptist was cleansing a redeeming folks for nothing, and they then didn't need to go to the Temple, being ripped off in every way possible. Why do you think people flocked to him for cleansing?
Thus the Temple takings reduced.

Jesus was baptising as well, for a time, until the arrest of John.

The "brood of vampires", the Pharisees, the temple scribes, were fleeing the "wrath to come", and being baptized by John. The "wrath to come" is still coming. (Matthew 7:13 & 13:41-42) According to John the Baptist, Yeshua baptized by the Holy Spirit and fire, not by water (Matthew 3:11). The baptism by water is for repentance. You will need the baptism by the Holy Spirit in order to produce good fruit. Without good fruit, one is destined to be "cut down, and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 3:10).
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The "brood of vampires", the Pharisees, the temple scribes, were fleeing the "wrath to come",
.................excellent! That's what the campaign was about.

and being baptized by John.
I think John was talking about them, not to them.
John and Jesus were supervising the baptism of thousands and thus these folks didn't have to go to the Temple....the people around Jerusalem ripped them off for bed and board, and the Temple coin changers ripped them off, and Priests ripped them off.......poor people.

It was all about the working classes....being ripped off.


The "wrath to come" is still coming. (Matthew 7:13 & 13:41-42) According to John the Baptist, Yeshua baptized by the Holy Spirit and fire, not by water (Matthew 3:11). The baptism by water is for repentance. You will need the baptism by the Holy Spirit in order to produce good fruit. Without good fruit, one is destined to be "cut down, and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 3:10).
Now your descending in to Christian waffle, I'm afraid.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First comment I made:
"It's correct that the scripture didn't create themselves, they (claim) to be inspired by God."
Perhaps the claim of Paul at 1 Tim 3:16 might convey my premise on this subject.
As someone already posted, that citation is not in reference to the N.T.

Second comment:
"My premise is that "because" of the chuch the message became seriously twisted."
I can point to the many divisions, sects, opposing doctrines, policies, wars and dissunity amongst all teachings of men to support my comment.
To give a more specific answer would require a specific question on this enormous subject.
But these were the byproducts of interpretations and applications that also divides Protestant from Protestant, so is that "twisted" by them as well?
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
.................excellent! That's what the campaign was about.


I think John was talking about them, not to them.
John and Jesus were supervising the baptism of thousands and thus these folks didn't have to go to the Temple....the people around Jerusalem ripped them off for bed and board, and the Temple coin changers ripped them off, and Priests ripped them off.......poor people.

It was all about the working classes....being ripped off.



Now your descending in to Christian waffle, I'm afraid.

"Christian"/Protestant "waffle", such as following the Pharisee, the false prophet Paul, says they are already "saved", and have not to worry about being thrown into the fire. Matthew 3:7, is referring directly to the Pharisees (Matthew 7:3). Repentance is not a Marxist rant about the clash of groups, for all need to repent, including the poor and the Pharisees. The being thrown into the fire is about not producing fruit in line with the repentance.

New King James Version Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
"Christian"/Protestant "waffle", such as following the Pharisee, the false prophet Paul, says they are already "saved", and have not to worry about being thrown into the fire. Matthew 3:7, is referring directly to the Pharisees (Matthew 7:3). Repentance is not a Marxist rant about the clash of groups, for all need to repent, including the poor and the Pharisees. The being thrown into the fire is about not producing fruit in line with the repentance.
Meh.....

New King James Version Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Temple corruption...... That disgusting coin which every man had to hold, the rip offs....... That was what drove the Baptist and Jesus both.
Those crowds that came for free cleansing, they could go home feeling good and still have their savings. What motivated people then is just the same as what motivates folks now.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Meh.....


Temple corruption...... That disgusting coin which every man had to hold, the rip offs....... That was what drove the Baptist and Jesus both.
Those crowds that came for free cleansing, they could go home feeling good and still have their savings. What motivated people then is just the same as what motivates folks now.

If one wanted to be baptized, they could go into the wilderness, the home of John the Baptist, to the site of Qumran, the site of the Essenes, without cost. The temple was for sacrifice, not for baptism for repentance. The big rip off was with the Roman church, in which widows had to pay their last penny to get their dead husband's sins forgiven. As for the money changers, they were chased out, not the Pharisees, whose sin was the leaven of hypocrisy. Yeshua taught the people to do what the Pharisees said, not what they do. If someone has taken your money, there may be blamed to share. Some of that may be your own.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
As someone already posted, that citation is not in reference to the N.T.

But these were the byproducts of interpretations and applications that also divides Protestant from Protestant, so is that "twisted" by them as well?

Hi,
Although the reference to inspiration applies predominantly to the Hebrew scripture, there is very good reason that the Greek scriptures were included in the canon and are viewed as being inspired as well.

Did Protestants twist the scriptures as well?
Although Protestantism made a major step towards adopting Christ teaching without Catholik dogmatism, it has not succeded in following completely in the footsteps of Christ.

The simple fact that Protestantism itself contains many different denominations, is a factor in questioning it's claim to follow Christ teachings without missaplying some of it.
Can Christ be divided ?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
If one wanted to be baptized, they could go into the wilderness, the home of John the Baptist, to the site of Qumran, the site of the Essenes, without cost.
Wrong......... The Baptist was meeting folks who were walking along the East Bank of the Jordan, on their way to the Temple, no doubt. It was the route for Northerners because everywhere beyond the West Bank was dangerous.

The temple was for sacrifice, not for baptism for repentance.
Wrong.......... The Temple sacrifice WAS for cleansing, repentance, fresh start. But the Baptist could do all that for nothing.

The big rip off was with the Roman church, in which widows had to pay their last penny to get their dead husband's sins forgiven.
Wrong....... The Roman Church did not yet exist, not at this time.

As for the money changers, they were chased out, not the Pharisees, whose sin was the leaven of hypocrisy.
The money changers were MANY! A huge Bazaar called 'Anna's Bazaar' because the last Head Priest had directed operations there, hence 'Anna's Bazaar'....... and they swindled the people out of hard earned money.

Yeshua taught the people to do what the Pharisees said, not what they do.
Only some Pharisees were Temple Priests. Jesus was against Temple Corruption.

If someone has taken your money, there may be blamed to share. Some of that may be your own.
So what? The working people were poor and since the Temple had 6000 Levite guards and 2000 Priests at major feasts the working people could not do much.

YOu really should research the Temple coin, the shekel, half a shekel weight of fine silver minted under Roman supervision since 39BC. The head on the obverse was of a Pagan God! The Reverse had the Graven Image of a huge raptos sitting upon the prow of a ship and Caesar's name in Greek abbreviation. Touching that coin was like touching excesence to any Jew who knew about the strikings. Jesus knew....it wasn't a denarius that a priest held up but a shekel...... 'Whose image and initials'? ..... if that priest had answered honestly the crowd would have torn him to pieces I reckon. The silver denarius is the same diameter as the Temple shekel so whoever reported this incident got that wrong.[/QUOTE]
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Although the reference to inspiration applies predominantly to the Hebrew scripture, there is very good reason that the Greek scriptures were included in the canon and are viewed as being inspired as well.
Yes, but the point is that the scriptural reference you used did not at that time refer to the NT.

Did Protestants twist the scriptures as well?
Again, I don't like the word "twist", but the fact that there are so many Protestant denominations shows that they generally have different interpretations and/or applications with Catholics, Orthodox, and each other, thus not "twists" per se. "Twist" hints at some sort of devious culpability, but unless you're a mind-reader I would suggest not jumping to that conclusion.

Although Protestantism made a major step towards adopting Christ teaching without Catholik dogmatism, it has not succeded in following completely in the footsteps of Christ.
Jesus taught, when asked "Which is the greatest Commandment of all?", that it was love of God and humankind. Thus, his words, which I do fully accept. IMO, all the rest are sidebars.

The simple fact that Protestantism itself contains many different denominations, is a factor in questioning it's claim to follow Christ teachings without missaplying some of it.
Can Christ be divided ?
I believe Paul and the Twelve were correct in referring to the Church as being "one body", and the proof in the pudding is in Acts whereas the Apostles continue to appoint others as part of that "one body" in order to expand the Church and also to eventually replace them. IOW, they didn't state at any point that they would just let everyone just do their own thing without guidance, especially with the giving of the Paraclete on Pentecost to the Church.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Wrong......... The Baptist was meeting folks who were walking along the East Bank of the Jordan, on their way to the Temple, no doubt. It was the route for Northerners because everywhere beyond the West Bank was dangerous.


Wrong.......... The Temple sacrifice WAS for cleansing, repentance, fresh start. But the Baptist could do all that for nothing.


Wrong....... The Roman Church did not yet exist, not at this time.


The money changers were MANY! A huge Bazaar called 'Anna's Bazaar' because the last Head Priest had directed operations there, hence 'Anna's Bazaar'....... and they swindled the people out of hard earned money.


Only some Pharisees were Temple Priests. Jesus was against Temple Corruption.


So what? The working people were poor and since the Temple had 6000 Levite guards and 2000 Priests at major feasts the working people could not do much.

YOu really should research the Temple coin, the shekel, half a shekel weight of fine silver minted under Roman supervision since 39BC. The head on the obverse was of a Pagan God! The Reverse had the Graven Image of a huge raptos sitting upon the prow of a ship and Caesar's name in Greek abbreviation. Touching that coin was like touching excesence to any Jew who knew about the strikings. Jesus knew....it wasn't a denarius that a priest held up but a shekel...... 'Whose image and initials'? ..... if that priest had answered honestly the crowd would have torn him to pieces I reckon. The silver denarius is the same diameter as the Temple shekel so whoever reported this incident got that wrong.
[/QUOTE]

The Jewish law does not include immersion. The law requires cleansing before coming to the Temple mount, and Jerusalem had around 100 baths near the Temple mount. That is not the baptism of repentance. The washing of Israel, in "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean", comes after Israel/Ephraim is gathered out of the nations, at which time Israel will also receive a "new heart" and a "new spirit" (Ezekiel 36:24-28) and settled on the land given to Jacob. That hasn't happened. The "Pharisees" represented the "scribes" of Jeremiah 8:8, who made the law into a lie, who apparently Yeshua thought were "hypocrites", and referred to them as leaven, in that they affect the whole loaf. Yeshua spent 60 seconds throwing out the money changers from my father's house. The money changers had nothing to do with buying the baptism of repentance. The baptism of John the Baptist for repentance, was for naught if those baptized did not produce good fruit (Matthew 3). They could be baptized and then thrown into the fire.
The Passover sacrifice was required for the Jews, but because of the high price of a lamb, birds were substituted as a sacrifice to lower the price for the poor, but the money changers just raised the price for the birds. Today, the "Christians" still sacrifice a lamb, in the form of unleavened bread and wine. Apparently, the church gets a discount because of the volume purchase of wine for the priests.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
The mikvah involves immersion.

The Mishnah/Talmud, the oral law, would come under the scribes making a lie out of the law. (Jeremiah 8:8). If "immersion" is listed in the Torah, I would be glad to hear your direct reference, and not an interpretational reference from the Jewish scribes. Yeshua scoffed at Tevilah (ritual immersion) of the outside of pots. (Mt 23:26)


Mikvah is a bath in which certain Jewish ritual purifications are performed. It is for such things as cleansing the uncleanliness of a woman's menstruations, which unlike baptism, does not require immersion, nor is it only done once. It is not done for repentance, but for cleansing.

New American Standard Bible Mt 23:26)
You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may also become clean.
 
Last edited:

Neuropteron

Active Member
"Twist" hints at some sort of devious culpability, but unless you're a mind-reader I would suggest not jumping to that conclusion.

they didn't state at any point that they would just let everyone just do their own thing without guidance,...

Hi,

I don't mean to be inflexible, but does using another word change the issue ?
Instead of "twist" is superimposing, promoting ones own opinion or own understanding (imposed on others) more acceptable ?

When un-scriptural doctrines, opinions and policies are expressed by religious leaders of different denominations thus creating divisions, no mind reading is required to see that somewhere, someone is promoting teachings of men.

"they (the Apostles) didn't state at any point that they would just let everyone just do their own thing without guidance."

Of course not, but should the guidance not comes exclusively from Christ.
Is Christ's guidance insufficient or lacking in some way ?
Why would a Christian need more ?
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The Jewish law does not include immersion. The law requires cleansing before coming to the Temple mount, and Jerusalem had around 100 baths near the Temple mount. That is not the baptism of repentance. The washing of Israel, in "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean", comes after Israel/Ephraim is gathered out of the nations, at which time Israel will also receive a "new heart" and a "new spirit" (Ezekiel 36:24-28) and settled on the land given to Jacob. That hasn't happened.
The Baptist and Jesus were offering a brilliant 'feel good' immersion for nothing, deliberately to snarl up the Temple's intake of funds.
You just don't get it.

And the 'strikings' on that temple shekel was the ultimate disgrace.

The "Pharisees" represented the "scribes" of Jeremiah 8:8, who made the law into a lie, who apparently Yeshua thought were "hypocrites", and referred to them as leaven, in that they affect the whole loaf. Yeshua spent 60 seconds throwing out the money changers from my father's house.
Read your gospels! Jesus and his band went there causing mayhem two days running!
The coin exchange was a huge operation! The average great feast probably had an attendance towards half a million visitors.... not many years after Jesus, Agrippa ordered a sacrifice kidney count to discover such numbers attending.
It wasn't the Pharisees, but the whole corrupt Temple crowd that Jesus and Baptist were 'short-circuiting funds to'.
You just don't get it.


The money changers had nothing to do with buying the baptism of repentance. The baptism of John the Baptist for repentance, was for naught if those baptized did not produce good fruit (Matthew 3). They could be baptized and then thrown into the fire.
You just don't get it!
The Northern Jews got ripped off when they to feasts, every surrounding township was full with temple visitors, not enough room for all and so charges and fees for bed and board were outrageous. A rip off.
Anna's Bazaar was a total rip off! The people's local coinage was no good at the Temple so they had to acquire shekels!
The Priests could condemn any lamb brought to the Temple as imperfect, thus requiring poor folks to have to purchase a Temple one.
And more..........

Do you really read your gospels closely? I bet you don't know what they did on their first day in Jerusalem and Temple that last week.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course not, but should the guidance not comes exclusively from Christ.
Is Christ's guidance insufficient or lacking in some way ?
Why would a Christian need more?
Where differences mainly lie deal with interpretations and/or applications which were sometimes unclear, thus the Church under the Apostles and their appointees tried to fill in the gaps as we even see being done in Acts. But the main teaching of Jesus that is fundamental was how he answered the question "Which is the greatest Commandment of all?", and we well know how he answered it.

Also, the Church logically cannot be static because times and conditions change, thus the Church must deal with them. Whether they responded correctly or not is always going to be conjectural.

IMO, the dominant guide should be to love God and thy neighbor, and if we all did that 24/7 the world be a vastly better place.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
The Baptist and Jesus were offering a brilliant 'feel good' immersion for nothing, deliberately to snarl up the Temple's intake of funds.
You just don't get it.

And the 'strikings' on that temple shekel was the ultimate disgrace.

You don't seem to get it. There was no "feel good" about the baptism. You had to first confess your sins to your neighbors (Matthew 3:6), turn away from sinning again (repent), and if you didn't "bear" good fruits in step with your "repentance", you were to be "cut down and thrown into a fire" (Matthew 3:10). The water baptism was but a physical representation of a Spiritual baptism that must take place and bear fruit. No one went to the Temple to pay money changers to cleanse themselves from their uncleanliness when they touched a woman during their menstrual cycle. The sacrifice for Passover, a spotless lamb, was not the same as baptism. Your average Catholic gets baptized once by sprinkling, yet supposedly eats the lamb of God, at least once a year, on the pagan feast of Astarte (Easter), the fake date for Passover, and pays 10% of their income for the privilege (tithes). Baptism represents coming out of the world (turning from sin) and touching nothing unclean (Isaiah 52:11), whereafter, no "unclean" and "uncircumcised" will come among Zion and Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1) which is the "good news" (Isaiah 52:7) of the "kingdom" to come (restoration of Zion) (Isaiah 52:8). Those born again, baptized in the spirit, will not be able to sin (1 John 3:9). Those born of the "devil" will continue to sin (1 John 3:8). And whose image is on your British coin, which the members of the Church of England pay their fake priests to eat their weekly unblemished lamb? Or is your religion a more hidden sect? Come on now, fess up, repent of your sins, and have some Catholic baptize you with water comprised ketchup. Hopefully, that will give you a "feel good" feeling.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Where differences mainly lie deal with interpretations and/or applications which were sometimes unclear, thus the Church under the Apostles and their appointees tried to fill in the gaps as we even see being done in Acts. But the main teaching of Jesus that is fundamental was how he answered the question "Which is the greatest Commandment of all?", and we well know how he answered it.

Also, the Church logically cannot be static because times and conditions change, thus the Church must deal with them. Whether they responded correctly or not is always going to be conjectural.

IMO, the dominant guide should be to love God and thy neighbor, and if we all did that 24/7 the world be a vastly better place.

For the general population, not murdering, robbing, bearing false witness, nor coveting your neighbor's wife and goods would be among the things how the general population would want to be treated (Matthew 19:18). On the other hand, the psychopath might feel differently, and need more guidance. Your "Christian" guidance, on the other hand, might have contributed to the chaos, and resulted in approximately 38,000 different "Christian" sects.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
For the general population, not murdering, robbing, bearing false witness, nor coveting your neighbor's wife and goods would be among the things how the general population would want to be treated (Matthew 19:18). On the other hand, the psychopath might feel differently, and need more guidance. Your "Christian" guidance, on the other hand, might have contributed to the chaos, and resulted in approximately 38,000 different "Christian" sects.
All I did was to restate what Jesus said in response to the question, so did he answer that wrong, iyo? Also, I am not Protestant nor agree with the various other sects that emerged.

I believe in Jesus' "law of love" thus I cannot take responsibility for those who don't believe in that and/or don't abide by that as well all have free will.
 
Top