False Prophets

[FollowingHim]

@Asforme&myhouse, if you insist on being pedantic, Libertas is the Latin name for this goddess, the Greek name was Eleutheria, the French name was Marianne. The language of the name doesn't change my point, Libertas is just the closest to the English "Liberty" so I used that one to show the connection most clearly.

Libertas / Marianne / Eleutheria is a symbol of the French Revolution, adopted from ancient paganism - during the time when Notre Dame was turned into a pagan temple to "reason", the virgin Mary was replaced with statues of Libertas. She appeared all over the place in French revolutionary symbolism. And this is the great seal of the French Second Republic, adopted in 1848, decades before the Statue of Liberty was made. Notice any similarities?

So Liberty is NOT just a statue of somebody's mother. It's a statue of an ancient pagan goddess that was adopted as the symbol of the secular French revolution.

Back to the point - this means that @FollowingHim2's dream was symbolic, not literal (and I think we both agree on that, I'm not sure why we're arguing about this tiny detail). The modern pagans are not going to topple a pagan statue. But they will try to destroy liberty itself. I am just interpreting a dream - I don't really care about the statue itself.

I'm not sure why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this statue. What is the point you are trying to prove here?

 

[FollowingHim]

I just noticed that in that seal, Libertas is holding a fasces (bundle of sticks around a weapon, in this case a spear or arrow) - the ancient symbol of state power that is where "fascism" gets its name from.

I don't know why I'm pointing that out, it's quite irrelevant to anything we're discussing. I just find it interesting.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Back to the point - this means that @FollowingHim2's dream was symbolic, not literal (and I think we both agree on that,

Symbolic of what? Liberty or paganism? Why would God use a pagan Greek/Roman/French goddess as a symbol of liberty in a dream and not just use the word liberty? Does God think that the statue represents liberty?

Personally I have never cared much for the French or the statue. Personally the only thing I would accept from the French is a beachhead... you know, if I needed to invade somewhere.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Something to the affect that once the Israeli has a contract/agreement under the prime minister and the forming of a government, the messiah will come on the following sabbath.

Well we're all still here. No rapture and no Messiah.
The legitimate Pope did die on the Sabbath though, so that's interesting.

 

[FollowingHim]

Symbolic of what? Liberty or paganism? Why would God use a pagan Greek/Roman/French goddess as a symbol of liberty in a dream and not just use the word liberty? Does God think that the statue represents liberty?

Personally I have never cared much for the French or the statue. Personally the only thing I would accept from the French is a beachhead... you know, if I needed to invade somewhere.

So you're just finding some detail to argue about because you personally disagree with the idea that God would speak through a dream at all. This conversation is pointless.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

So you're just finding some detail to argue about because you personally disagree with the idea that God would speak through a dream at all. This conversation is pointless.

Pointless? You want to talk about pointless? We have folks on here telling us that we are lawless ones if we don’t keep Torah. I’m told I’m am committing an abomination if i eat pork, cause Torah. They tell me I ought to observe the physical Shabbat... on Saturday, cause Torah. There are even folks here wearing tassels on their clothes, who say I ought to wear them too if I really love God. But, then we get here and I’m told that the commands of Torah regarding prophecy don’t really apply anymore. I say bs. Wearing tassels on your clothes is pointless and doesn’t mean squat compared to Torah’s rigid guidelines on prophecy. It’s not only a command of Torah to not speak presumptuously, we are given countless examples of prophecy and in not one of them does the one prophesying ever use the “i think God might be saying” cop-out. I’m tired of hearing vague and idle words passed off as the possible voice of God. I’m also trying to figure out why someone who prophesies would get personally offended if I don’t buy what they’re telling me... if what you’re saying is truly from God wouldn’t that mean whether I believe it or not is between me and God? Unless, of course, it really isn’t coming from God, it’s just the mystical feelings of one’s own mind and one feels personally insulted because it’s actually their own words. To anyone reading this who has ever spoken presumptuously for God please accept this strongly worded letter in lieu of stones.

 

[Communication]

So 100% from God, and the only implication/interpretation we can be sure of is:
1. Liberty will fall or not.
-OR-
2. Paganism will take a great hit... or not.
???

Unimpressive and to my mind unworthy of attributing (at least publicly) as marked by the Most High to any special/meaningful extent.
Related: the instruction on speaking in tongues without anything edifying.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You and I have butted heads and also agreed strongly on a number of issues over the years @Asforme&myhouse .

I hate it that the Torah/non-Torah divide is still raw. I feel like that given the ministry’s focus that we could keep that issue in perspective. I was talking to Keith last night though and he is of the opinion that this issue could end up fracturing Biblical Families.

It goes without saying that I think that would be a very bad outcome. As far as I can tell this is the center of the organized movement to restore the Biblical definitions and institutions surrounding marriage. And as marriage and family are the foundation of the church and culture, Biblical Families could be the single most important organization in American Christendom. I’m a man given to exaggeration and hyperbole but I don’t think that statement is either of those things.

It seems then that bridging this divide is a vital task for the future of our movement. Torah keeping seems to be growing and strengthening. As Keith pointed out to me, and he’s not a Torah keeper, people are drawn to strong moral absolutes and confident, uncompromising beliefs.

Torah keepers are also more open to the arguments surrounding Biblical marriage. Among some of our communities the idea is now passé.

That being said, it would be very easy for the idea to be dismissed as some bizarre heresy of a heretical cult if it were only advocated by one group. Non-Torah keepers bring an amazing reach and credibility to the concept. And, it should be mentioned, pioneered it in mainstream Christianity.

It seems to me the common ground we share theologically should be more than big enough for all of us to stand on. Acts 15 is a very big tent and I believe sets forth a common standard that all believers should have to meet to be in good standing in the broader church.

I think we can enlist an number of the more respected Torah keepers to affirm that statement and to commit to policing our own if they stray too far towards evangelizing the non-Torah types.

Would a scheme like that help? We can

 

[FollowingHim]

I hate it that the Torah/non-Torah divide is still raw. I feel like that given the ministry’s focus that we could keep that issue in perspective. I was talking to Keith last night though and he is of the opinion that this issue could end up fracturing Biblical Families.

And he is partially correct as this particular disagreement could fracture the ministry - but so could other disagreements. That one is just so common that it obscures the real fundamental problem. The problem I see is not a particular theological opinion, but rather the attitude that someone's pet issue is so important it must be brought up everywhere.

To illustrate the problem with a real-world example first, imagine a group of Independent Baptists sitting down to discuss whether to take communion from individual cups or a single chalice, carefully debating disease risk vs accurate replication of Christ's command - but as soon as the discussion begins, the local Catholic priest runs down and starts pounding on the windows and shouting about how if the communion isn't blessed by a priest in the Mass it's not valid. The original discussion can no longer occur because of the loud interruption - and any further discussion is no longer about the detail, but becomes a Baptist / Catholic argument.

That doesn't actually happen in the real world because people have these discussions in different places. But you can easily imagine exactly that happening on an online forum - because there everyone is talking in the same place, everyone's discussions are visible to everyone else. It happens all the time.

In all cases we start with a detailed, nuanced discussion between some individuals on an issue of interest to them, and it gets turned into a broad adversarial argument that no longer addresses the detail, but is essentially an argument between denominations. When this happens too many times (or just once in a way someone found particularly offensive), people just give up and leave, because they cannot use the forum for the discussions they would like to have.

The issues differ. Torah is just the most common interdenominational difference here at present, so it is the source of most of the "pounding on the window and changing the discussion", and ends up appearing to be the problem. But it is not the problem. The problem is structural, and the solution lies in our attitudes.

For instance, people discuss Christmas - then someone else insists on making it an argument about which feasts to celebrate, turning it into a Torah argument. That is common. But here the same fundamental problem is occurring: we have people discussing the nuances of prophecy - and then someone pounds on the window with the broader opinion that no modern prophecy is valid at all. True or not, that then dominates the argument and prevents the original discussion from occurring.

Do we have to forcibly compartmentalise discussion, putting up artificial walls around rooms in which only particular discussions are allowed? Or can people be polite enough to let people they disagree with discuss topics they disagree with without feeling they must shove their oar in?

 

[FollowingHim2]

So 100% from God, and the only implication/interpretation we can be sure of is:
1. Liberty will fall or not.
-OR-
2. Paganism will take a great hit... or not.
???

Unimpressive and to my mind unworthy of attributing (at least publicly) as marked by the Most High to any special/meaningful extent.

I briefly mentioned a very small part of one of my dreams as an illustration of example I was making. There is much more to that dream that makes much more sense. The dream was not just the statue of liberty falls down, and now we're all sitting here trying to decide if that's a literal thing or not. I did not put it in here for interpretation or for discussion as to whether it was from God or not.

And now this has become a thread about torah vs non-torah, which is another distraction.

 

[Communication]

And he is partially correct as this particular disagreement could fracture the ministry - but so could other disagreements. That one is just so common that it obscures the real fundamental problem. The problem I see is not a particular theological opinion, but rather the attitude that someone's pet issue is so important it must be brought up everywhere.

To illustrate the problem with a real-world example first, imagine a group of Independent Baptists sitting down to discuss whether to take communion from individual cups or a single chalice, carefully debating disease risk vs accurate replication of Christ's command - but as soon as the discussion begins, the local Catholic priest runs down and starts pounding on the windows and shouting about how if the communion isn't blessed by a priest in the Mass it's not valid. The original discussion can no longer occur because of the loud interruption - and any further discussion is no longer about the detail, but becomes a Baptist / Catholic argument.

That doesn't actually happen in the real world because people have these discussions in different places. But you can easily imagine exactly that happening on an online forum - because there everyone is talking in the same place, everyone's discussions are visible to everyone else. It happens all the time.

In all cases we start with a detailed, nuanced discussion between some individuals on an issue of interest to them, and it gets turned into a broad adversarial argument that no longer addresses the detail, but is essentially an argument between denominations. When this happens too many times (or just once in a way someone found particularly offensive), people just give up and leave, because they cannot use the forum for the discussions they would like to have.

The issues differ. Torah is just the most common interdenominational difference here at present, so it is the source of most of the "pounding on the window and changing the discussion", and ends up appearing to be the problem. But it is not the problem. The problem is structural, and the solution lies in our attitudes.

For instance, people discuss Christmas - then someone else insists on making it an argument about which feasts to celebrate, turning it into a Torah argument. That is common. But here the same fundamental problem is occurring: we have people discussing the nuances of prophecy - and then someone pounds on the window with the broader opinion that no modern prophecy is valid at all. True or not, that then dominates the argument and prevents the original discussion from occurring.

Do we have to forcibly compartmentalise discussion, putting up artificial walls around rooms in which only particular discussions are allowed? Or can people be polite enough to let people they disagree with discuss topics they disagree with without feeling they must shove their oar in?

So let's not make it about that aspect of AsForMe's comment. Separate from the Torah "keeper" vs Non divide, he seems to me to be asking:
Whether a dream with no provided interpretation should be described in a conversation about true vs false prophesy AS 100 PERCENT FROM GOD?
I could be wrong, but it seems that it is becoming much more common for people to proclaim prophesies from God, dreams from God, vague feelings from God. Even interpretations and translations "from God." Maybe some of these are okay and some aren't. I think, AsForMe has an important point here (other than Torah etc.) that is appropriate to address. Dreams people claim are 100% from God.

Also, I didn't see AsForMe's impoliteness. Of course it's kind of a threshold thing, and since you know the forum better than I, your call on the threshold is probably better informed than mine. I'll lurk on some of the other threads to get a better hold on the community threshold for polite discourse!

 

[Communication]

I briefly mentioned a very small part of one of my dreams as an illustration of example I was making. There is much more to that dream that makes much more sense. The dream was not just the statue of liberty falls down, and now we're all sitting here trying to decide if that's a literal thing or not. I did not put it in here for interpretation or for discussion as to whether it was from God or not.

And now this has become a thread about torah vs non-torah, which is another distraction.

What DID you say about it? Why did you say that? I ask because I want to evaluate your claim, a claim which I have heard more frequently echoed in contemporary Christian circles.

 

[NickF]

What DID you say about it?

Why not read for yourself before interjecting your uninformed opinion? That would be better for communication sake I'd think.

 

[Communication]

Why not read for yourself before interjecting your uninformed opinion? That would be better for communication sake I'd think.

Your response is completely in character with the other interactions I have had on this forum with you.
It is clear what I am referring to. I have already referred to it many times and tried to be gentle, because I think it merits another believer asking for more information when someone claims, as she did:

I have had dreams that I am 100% sure are from God.

BTW: what is uninformed about my opinion in this thread or any other?
If you look back at your other interactions with me, are you happy with how you represented yourself?
I liked your "communication" joke. It was very discerning.

 

[steve]

What DID you say about it? Why did you say that? I ask because I want to evaluate your claim, a claim which I have heard more frequently echoed in contemporary Christian circles.

Which claim are you judging her on ?

 

[Michael Moon]

Pointless? You want to talk about pointless? We have folks on here telling us that we are lawless ones if we don’t keep Torah. I’m told I’m am committing an abomination if i eat pork, cause Torah. They tell me I ought to observe the physical Shabbat... on Saturday, cause Torah. There are even folks here wearing tassels on their clothes, who say I ought to wear them too if I really love God. But, then we get here and I’m told that the commands of Torah regarding prophecy don’t really apply anymore. I say bs. Wearing tassels on your clothes is pointless and doesn’t mean squat compared to Torah’s rigid guidelines on prophecy. It’s not only a command of Torah to not speak presumptuously, we are given countless examples of prophecy and in not one of them does the one prophesying ever use the “i think God might be saying” cop-out. I’m tired of hearing vague and idle words passed off as the possible voice of God. I’m also trying to figure out why someone who prophesies would get personally offended if I don’t buy what they’re telling me... if what you’re saying is truly from God wouldn’t that mean whether I believe it or not is between me and God? Unless, of course, it really isn’t coming from God, it’s just the mystical feelings of one’s own mind and one feels personally insulted because it’s actually their own words. To anyone reading this who has ever spoken presumptuously for God please accept this strongly worded letter in lieu of stones.

I agree with you 100% on the "I think God might be saying" cop out. My denomination has even taught ministers in the past to use terms like "I feel" or "I believe" in case they are wrong, and it angers me that they would want to throw around prophecies the way they do.

But have you really had Torah Keepers on here attacking you?

I'll freely admit to being biased, I'm a former pentecostal who became Torah observant. But from what I've seen on this forum, most of these Torah arguments have been started by non Torah Observant people being mad that people keep Torah or being mad that people made a comment about th keeping Torah.

The Torah Observant people on here seem to pretty much state their case, even stick to their own segregated area of the forum at times, and overall be unabrasive (other than @Mark C sometimes, I'll admit his tone isn't always helpful, but the content behind said tone is usually interesting).

You try to pass the no pork, or the wearing of tassels, or keeping shabbat off as examples of "pointless" things, but clearly they aren't to you. You are the one bringing them up in an unrelated thread. We are the ones sticking to those rules, yet you are the one troubled by them.

Do you just genuinely despise the keeping of Torah? Or are you feeling convicted? Because if you're just annoyed at it being brought up, don't bring it up. I find the whole Russia vs. Ukraine conversation dumb and pointless. So I don't interact with that thread. I don't think there needs to be some effort to to do anything to this forum structure wise then all of us need to get alot better at staying on topic and not dredging up personal conflicts because we had a bad day (and no, that is not specifically pointed at you, I think it happens alot on this forum).

 

[NickF]

Your response is completely in character with the other interactions I have had on this forum with you.

I try to be consistent

It is clear what I am referring to. I have already referred to it many times and tried to be gentle, because I think it merits another believer asking for more information when someone claims, as she did:

It is clear what you are referring to.

BTW: what is uninformed about my opinion in this thread or any other?

You literally said you were uninformed and gave your opinion anyways.

Here's where you demonstrate that you have not read what she posted. In other words quite literally the definition of uninformed.

What DID you say about it? .... I ask because I want to evaluate your claim

My point was to say it isn't wise, knowledgeable, or polite to expect someone to do your work for you and go back and copy and paste what she said. You gave your opinion on the whole overblown side issue without actually reading the original statement.

If you look back at your other interactions with me, are you happy with how you represented yourself?
I liked your "communication" joke. It was very discerning.

In our previous interactions you have started out being exceedingly prideful and snarky for no good reason I could see. Maybe your communication style is simply brash and pointed but it comes across as prideful and snarky. I don't tend to think well of people who start out with and consistently demonstrate snide attitudes.

Simply read for yourself before giving your opinion and asking someone to do the reading for you. I don't see why that should make me unhappy with how I've represented myself.
I think it's interesting that pointing out something like this gets such a vociferous response. Should be a common courtesy thing. I simply thought it was ironic that someone who values communication enough to choose that as a screen name wasn't willing to scroll back a couple pages to read what the person actually wrote.

Why not read for yourself before interjecting your uninformed opinion?

Why is that such a big deal? Talk about being overly sensitive...

 

[Communication]

I try to be consistent

It is clear what you are referring to.

You literally said you were uninformed and gave your opinion anyways.

Here's where you demonstrate that you have not read what she posted. In other words quite literally the definition of uninformed.

My point was to say it isn't wise, knowledgeable, or polite to expect someone to do your work for you and go back and copy and paste what she said. You gave your opinion on the whole overblown side issue without actually reading the original statement.

In our previous interactions you have started out being exceedingly prideful and snarky for no good reason I could see. Maybe your communication style is simply brash and pointed but it comes across as prideful and snarky. I don't tend to think well of people who start out with and consistently demonstrate snide attitudes.

Simply read for yourself before giving your opinion and asking someone to do the reading for you. I don't see why that should make me unhappy with how I've represented myself.
I think it's interesting that pointing out something like this gets such a vociferous response. Should be a common courtesy thing. I simply thought it was ironic that someone who values communication enough to choose that as a screen name wasn't willing to scroll back a couple pages to read what the person actually wrote.

Why is that such a big deal? Talk about being overly sensitive...

Maybe you are right. Maybe my opinion is uninformed. TBH, you, yourself haven't really convinced me of that. Of course, it's always difficult to be open to another person's argument when that person is also calling you uninformed, snide, snarky, and then they modify your quote by inserting ellipses in a way convenient to the point they are attempting to make. I said "Why did you say that?" Of course I knew what she said (ie "I was informed"), but you modified the quote to support your accusation that

You literally said you were uninformed and gave your opinion anyways.

I only visit this forum because there are not too many whose online spouting are such a waste of time. So, I'll pass on you, my (possibly) discerning colleague, and I think I will wait and see if anyone else weighs in. The some-dreams-100%-from-God did not even originate from you, so maybe someone else (besides AsForMe... who cautioned against) will opine.

postscript: do you know what "literally" literally means? You look up that definition and I'll lookup the definition of "snide."

 

[NickF]

When you ask someone what they said, that is “literally” not being informed about what they said.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

@FollowingHim
@The Revolting Man
@StudentofHim

My comments concerning the observing of commands in the Law of Moses where about comparing/contrasting what it says about prophecy vs other commands. I was asking for consistency. If you’re going to wear tassels, can you please also not speak presumptuously for God? Everyone knows where I stand on Christ followers being under the Law but, that isn’t what my post was about.

Here is a portion of my post that I think was misinterpreted: “But, then we get here and I’m told that the commands of Torah regarding prophecy don’t really apply anymore. I say bs. Wearing tassels on your clothes is pointless and doesn’t mean squat compared to Torah’s rigid guidelines on prophecy.”

In other words, God’s commands concerning those who claim to speak in his name are weightier than the commands concerning the wearing of tassels or eating pork or Shabbat. You can keep all those things and it’s just a big show if you are at the same time speaking presumptuously for God. Consistency... that’s all I ask for on this topic