xjwsforChrist

LOZ SAID

So for those looking for the true messiah, his modern identity, the Bible is quite specific in indicating he is an effeminate gay person who is a cross-dresser, not the more common gay person who sometimes abhors drag queens and overly effeminate males and who like to pass for being straight.

Not any Bible I've ever looked into, sorry. I appreciate you're sincere but you're presenting so many convoluted ifs and maybes to come up with some deductions which contravene Christ's own words about himself and his future, seemingly to make it fit your picture. The focus is also removed from the spiritual to a completely physical/sexual reasoning. You're free to believe what you like of course but this isn't the Christ I know and love.

Loz x

CHARIKLO SAID

Lars, do you think there is any chance that you are reading into the Bible what you want to read?

It really doesn't say what you think it says, you know. Sorry to contradict you.

YPPUPLLEH SAID

Here is a question that is begging to be asked considering the members we have in this forum and their views upon religion.

If you are Christ, and more specifically Jesus, who was crucified and is of God, who some refer to as Jaheshua, Jah of Armies, etc. Then how do you reconcile those who believe they hear him and receive understanding from Him?

Is this you that are talking to those who listen and hear from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit?

I'm not poking at you just trying to see if everything can mesh together
_________________
Love is a warm rubber puppy...

JUSTMOM SAID

Adding to this is the messianic parable of the "prodigal son" where we find upon his return from a life of sin, he is given a new robe, "the best one", indicating the robe of the heir and thus the Christ. He is given a banquet by the father. A private banquet for wedding feast is the context of the "kingdom of the heavens" where the bridegroom is the messiah. But more specifically noted in this parable is that he squandered his inheritance with "harlots." Now we find the prodigal son in the company of harlots. But was this someone who frequented whore houses, meaning he was an oversexed "stud", or in fact, were these harlots his companions, suggesting he had become a "harlot" himself? That's the choice. But when we apply the context of Lazarus being a male prostitute, we understand that these "harlots" were his companions, he being one of those harlots.



Hello Lars I find in this parable "The Prodical Son" that squandered his inheritance says that after "he came to his senses" so he realized what what he had done in wasting his inheritance and since this has a spiritual understanding also in understanding the "marriage feast in the kingdom" the harlots have reference to women "YES" but more importantly to the women/harlots he joined himself to/ slept with/ covenanted with as far as belonging to another as a wife when as Israel once again already had a father who was taking care of him (JAH) and had a future bride (CHRIST)...didn't need to play the field with harlots spiritually.


And Christ becoming a harlot? Do I read into this correctly? Not gonna happen.


So you have two parables that would have one of the elect who would be trying to identify the true messiah, understanding while he was in a spiritual dead state, before returning to God, he had become a male prostitute at one point. Plus, "harlots" are usually women, so you have the implication he is a passive male homosexual, likely a drag queen or someone transgendered in nature.

SPIRITUAL LEVEL: Now this might seem shocking and abhorrent from the general standpoint. But on a SPIRITUAL LEVEL, it makes sense. Christ, who is an angel is otherwise andro-gynous, meaning angels carry the full range of emotions that generally are divided between the two genders of male and female. Thus the generic nature of an angel is closer to someone androgynous, like someone transgendered. So someone transgendered is an easier fit or a more comfortable fit for an angel since someone transgendered have both male and female emotions, moreso than a "macho" guy would. That must have factored into the decision to use the prodigal son, someone likely transgendered, to embody the Christ at the second coming.

And Yes I understand that the angel or spirit beings are neither male nor female. They are "COMPLETE" in themselves. They don't need to "LOOK" physically in any way that proves this.



Of course, this reference will not make sense to anyone who thinks Jesus Christ while in heaven is not Michael the Archangel, but that is just a thought for the context of Lazarus being chosen as the physical manifestation of Christ at the second coming. The transgendered personality is an attractive generic choice for an angel who becomes human via another person's identity for over 1000 years.

And yes I do not believe Christ to be Michael as he is never an Arkangel but "THE SON" which is probably whay i may be having difficulty with some of this. Appreciate your input though.
Hope that was enough detail.[/quote]


Justathought
justmom

LARS SAID




And, of course, I don't blame your position, but you've entirely missed the point of the prodigal son. Perhaps that is due to my less than specific discussion. Now, just think of what is being said here in connection with the PRODIGAL SON.

The prodigal son, leaves his father's house and goes out and engages in a life of immorality with "harlots", which we find on closer examination of scriptures, he's one of those "harlots" or male prostitutes. But key here is that he gets fed up with that life and wants to return home as one of his father's hired men, not an heir or son like he was before. So he no longer engages in those sins. He is repentant.

So God does not go out and find this prostitute and makes him the Christ. When he is out there he is rejected and considered to be spiritually dead. It is only when he changes his life and repents and returns that he is welcomed back and made into the messiah. he is said to have come back to life from the dead at this point. Note Luke 15:

32: "BUT we just had to enjoy ourselves and rejoice, because this your brother was DEAD and came to life, and he was lost and was found."

So first off, when he returns, he has attained righteousness again. We all sin and don't want to be judged for our past bad choices. Well God is so gracious to allow us time to get past our weaknesses and those things that stumble us and if we wake up in time, he welcomes us back. For it is said, "there is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents" than over those who never fell.

Same with Lazarus. Lazarus is rejected, and rightfully so, when he allows his weakness to cause him to sin and live a life of immorality pursuing the company of straight men as a prostitute. But when he becomes the Christ, he has left that life.

The second point you missed is that there are TWO MESSIAHS! The messiah you know and love, Jesus Christ, is the same. He is sinless. He is the righteous and faithful Michael the archangel if you believe that like JWs do. If not, then certainly Jesus is this very righteous person whom you know and love. No problem. That does not change. That is the Christ we ALL know and love from the first coming. That doesn't change. That Christ from the 1st coming is combined with the formerly sinful person of the second coming, the REPENTANT ex-prostitute.

So in no way do you lose the righteous first-coming messiah. He is still the same. The person who was a former prostitute and sinner is just the physical body and identity God chose for Christ to inhabit at the 2nd coming. He cannot use his perfect body from the 1st coming because it was given in sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Further, he does not need to be perfect at the second coming because that sacrifice was "once for all time." He does need a physical body though, and he must use some element of someone human to become the "son of man" just as he needed Mary to be born human the first time. So the means by which God ordained for this to occur is that he uses the body of one of his followers, a volunteer.

So essentially, here comes the prodigal son, coming from his life of sin, hat in hand, asking for nothing but the lowest position under God's favor if he can only come back, if he can only be forgiven. He realizes during his journey that his spiritual happiness was far more important to him than any temporary physical pleasures. But when God sees him returning and putting his spirituality first, he is so overjoyed, he goes out and gives him a new robe and makes him the Christ This is a willing volunteer if any, only he didn't know he would be getting the job of being the Christ. he just wanted to come and be the janitor, cleaning toilets and washing windows. Anything just to get back in to God's favor. He is very humble now.

Now many will object, as you do! You can't handle such a sinful person being your savior now. The older brother too objected and was so upset by this decision he refuses to enter in the celebration over the return of the lost son. God comes out and comforts him and says, "what is mine is yours." but God's choice is God's choice. This is the classic sub-theme in the Bible where the younger son usurps the older son because of the religious focus. Able usurped Cain. Jacob usurped Esau. Now the younger prodigal son is usurping his righteous older brother, who is very upset and finds this hard to accept.

So while refining what is going on, it is perfectly understandable you object to associating Christ with the former male prostitute. You may not be able to emotionally accept this. That's okay. That's expected and prophesied about. But your Christ of the first coming is just using this body to become human again at the second coming. He did not commit any of these sins himself. He is totally righteous.

Further, the purpose of this discussion is to show where the WTS and the elect get the idea from scripture of who to look for at the second coming. That is, into which body would God place the Christ to return in the flesh. The WTS in 1998 at least understood him to be black, just because the "sign of the son of man" that appears to the anointed depicts the Christ as being black, creating the face of the infant whose eyes are closed with black clouds.

But God knows how objectionable this is for many persons who are truly righteous and offended by all of this. Not everyone deals with sexual issues well, particularly deviant sexual issues that others must deal with. They are the fortunate ones, or at least I must say, YOU are the fortunate one. You don't have to join in at this point over the new physical Christ. You'll get used to it later if you are chosen to survive Armageddon and live during the 1000-year reign. You would be in the "older brother" class, those elect who can't deal with the new Christ in the body of a former male prostitute. God allows this. He understands your objection. But God is very righteous, he is very forgiving. We thus at one point need to turn to how merciful we ourselves are in regards to the sins of others and judging others who are REPENTANT. We are not promoting gay sex here or open mindedness about homosexuality, but only FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING and JOY over someone who repents and finds their way back.

Yes, the sex is shocking, but the main point is FORGIVENESS. The immorality is not tolerated, remember, he was spiritually DEAD when he was being a prostitute.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

LARS SAID



Not at ALL! Look how many different Christian religions there are out there, each having their own take on many Bible points, starting with the trinity doctrine or whether Christ is Michael the archangel or not. So here, I am not promoting these ideas, but only showing you how the elect who believe I'm the Christ are reconciling all this from Scripture. Many have just openly said as far as they are concerned, the parable of the prodigal son is just a story with a moral message about forgiveness and they see nothing prophetic nor messianic about it. That's fine. That's their interpretation. But in the context of the WTS, who read a lot into what the Bible says (i.e. double fulfillments, etc.), we are just examining where these ideas come from or what in the Bible even remotely suggests Christ at the second coming is gay.

Revelation claims Jesus was impaled in "Sodom" for instance. Some say Sodom was just a bad city and this scripture just addresses a generally wayward and worldly place. They claim there is no connection with homosexuality. They just don't! In fact, the WTS takes that route and interpretation. Suddenly "Sodom" is just not a place known for homosexuality but just a general, nonspecific bad place. Well fine. But others clearly see that "Sodom", which is actually the root meaning for the term "sodomy" specifically suggests a context of homosexuality, just as Lazarus' wounds being licked by "dogs" who are straight men serving male prostitutes suggests that Lazarus is a cross-dressing male prostitute. Some don't want to make that connection. That's fine. But the point is, this is how some interpret this. This is how those who consider me to be the Christ interpret this. These are the scriptures they use to find whom they believe is the true messiah who must return in the flesh. You are certainly free to disagree and have your own interpretation, that's a given. I'm just sharing another view related to Christ arriving as a gay black man at the 2nd coming. I'm just showing you the scriptures that some are interpreting in this regard. There is absolutely no need to agree.

If you see nowhere in the Bible where Christ is a gay black male at the 2nd coming, then fine. It's possible God is blocking this idea for you because it is too powerful or too disappointing. Remember, Christ does not put "new wine" into "old wineskins." Why not? Because the new wine is far too powerful for the old wineskins. But the old wineskins are preacious and are to be preserved. They are not to be cast out just because they cannot adapt quickly enough to handle the "new wine." Christ arriving like this is shocking and some can't deal with it, so God doesn't require them to. They are the "old wineskins", the "older brother" in the parable of the prodigal son who refuses to join in with the private banquet over the prodigal son chosen as the Christ. He can't deal with it and stays away. That's okay. He is not forced to accept this. This new wine would kill him, choking him to death.

So the point is, where do these ideas come from in the Bible for those who are interpreting that Christ would come in this way? It's just a curiosity of interpretation. the "new wine" is not for everyone and will be disturbing. Now it happens to be real and true, as it goes, but I'm not insisting on it here as a discussion point. I'm just SHARING. I'm sharing my interpretation and the basis for my beliefs, as requested.
_________________

CHARIKLO SAID

Lars, a few more thoughts from me, if I may.

Lazarus the beggar is not Lazarus brother of Martha and Mary, friend of Jesus. The parable of the prodigal son is not about a Lazarus. And the story of the Ethiopian eunuch was because Philip met him and baptised him. Just that.

I see absolutely no connections with homosexuality here.

Christ is not an angel, he is the Son, we are told he is higher than the angels. He is the only-begotten Son of God, begotten, not made, through whom and for whom all things were created.

Sorry, but these things are not right. It has to be said.

LOZ SAID

Just to clarify. If I believed Christ was returning in a human form I'd have no issue with him being black, nor indeed in the body of a repentant sinner (of any sins). I don't believe that's how he'll return though, and I don't see any evidence for it. I do however respect very much the way you are answering with such dignity.

Loz x

LARS SAID




Actually, we are told there would be many false Christs and false prophets out there, some teaching the teachings of demons. So it's a matter of putting these things to the TEST. We are told to test every inspired expression.

So what I'm interpreting and believing as to be put to the test just as any others. When we do this and compare, it should be evident which has God's spirit and which does not.

For instance, one around whom I believe at one point claims divine inspiration, applied the four beasts of Daniel to SUCCESSIVE world powers. This is quite common and understandable. Even the WTS does the same. But in fact, when the Bible represents SUCCESSIVE world powers, it shows one best killing the other one and taking its place, as in the case of Greece replacing the Medo-Persian Empire. Greece, represented as a he-goat, attacks and kills the Ram and takes it place. thus with SUCCESSIVE world powers, you have one replacing the other and only one existing at any given time.

In the case of the four beasts we find just the opposite. Of the four beasts described, none attack the other. Further, the last one described, the fourth beast, "which is not like the others", meaning it is not even a political world power, is killed first, before the other three. Now if these were SUCCESSIVE, then when you kill the last remaining world power, then all of them also die, they being part of that beast. But in this case we find the first three beasts still alive and still ruling. In fact, they are said to only now, at the death of the fourth beast giving up their sovereignty. This means they were active, ruling world powers. Babylon and Egypt and ancient Rome are not ruling today! So what does this mean?

It simply means these four beasts are CONCURRENT world powers; major world powers ruling together at the same time! That's why when the non-political fourth beast is destroyed by fire, the others remain! So, for anyone interpreting these four beasts as SUCCESSIVE world powers rather than CONCURRENT world powers, I challenge them as not being inspired by holy spirit. I don't right away say, "Oh, look! You false prophet!" That's because God hides things from many so that he can glorify the Christ, who will have the refined and correct view.

Now, after I've carefully pointed out and explained why these four beasts are not SUCCESSIVE but exist at the same time, and then they decide they are going to argue the point, then I just let it go. They are in darkness and love the darkness and don't want to see the light. I've shared my point and the reality and if they don't get it, there is nothing I can do about it.

So that's how I handle others who claim to be inspired.

BUT.. per the Bible, particularly after the WTS is dismissed as the "true temple" after 1996, the Bible says God will pour holy spirit on all kinds of people, young and old, man and woman and they will shine like the stars. So I'm not one to think I'm the only inspired one. Granted, being the Christ I'm going to hold the lionshare of collective light and understanding. But clearly, God inspires others with their individual light. So I actually see God's inspiration in others. So it is a matter of testing. Further, I believe those others with light have been given kernels of light and unique understanding given to them by God, not the whole understanding of everything. So they may have inspired understanding for one thing, but have misunderstanding or still be in darkness about others. Remember, a star is a tiny light against a dark background. So Christ is more like the Sun, that brings light to the world and ends the darkness. A star is a tiny light in the sky but does not bring overall light. So you have many with little bits of inspiration, dotting the night sky. You test for what is inspired and reject that which is clearly still in darkness.

But why not give me a specific example and see what I think about them?

I will share one thing with you. I did, before becoming the Christ, see Christ himself, or at least he appeared and I saw the hem of his bright white garment. The experience was incredible. But, in fact, it was so close to someone who claimed to had seen Christ at one point, I no longer doubt that person experienced the presence of Christ. So it makes a big difference after you have experienced something how you accept others. If we experience something supernatural similar to someone else, then we tend to accept their experience, even if we still doubt. We can only confirm our own experience.

So, again, just because I'm the Christ, it doesn't mean I don't recognize Jehovah's inspiration in others, and, in fact, it was prophesied he would spread inspiration among many people at the very end. No single "sole channel of communication" near the very end. But just because God has given them a single inspired concept, does not mean everything they teach is inspired. They are not like the Sun, but like stars against a dark background.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

LARS SAID




Hello Chariko. Thanks for sharing your position. I accept that. We are going to agree to disagree on many points. I accept your position.

I will clarify, though, that when I do speak of Lazarus I in no way am confusing the Lazarus of the parable with Lazarus, the friend of Jesus and brother of Martha, etc. I'm not confused about that and apologize if it seemed confusing.

As far as not reading anything homosexual into any of this, I can understand that as well. When the prodigal son is spoken of as being in the company of "harlots", I suppose you interpret that as he being a heterosexual stud who hangs out at whore houses. That's fine. That's one OPTION. The other option, of course, is that these are his companions and he is one of the "harlots" himself. That's the other OPTION.

The WTS, when Revelation says Christ was "impaled in SODOM" see no connection to homosexuality either by this reference, but generalize this as just a reference to a worldly, sinful city that was destroyed. Fine. Others think because this city was in particular known for being a homosexual city that this reference implies homosexuality in relation to the 2nd coming messiah.

But everyone can't deal with the "new wine." Christ does not put the "new wine" into old wineskins. So clearly there would be those approved by God who would reject the new wine, or God spares them having to accept it, because it would burst them, by blinding their minds to that understanding. So that's okay, from my point of view, that you have these concepts.

As far as Christ being "better than the angels", I interpret that as his being "better than the OTHER angels." In fact, if Christ wasn't an angel he wouldn't be compared to other angels in the first place. That's obvious to me, but not obvious to others. Christ is said to have the voice of an archangel. We have voice-recognition software now that can recognize individual voices, meaning someone's voice, like their face, is unique to their identification. So per the bible, Christ is the archangel Michael, period. Per my interpretation. But I know others try to get around that scripture. Fine. Here we are here to SHARE are different views, knowing from the beginning we will definitely have different views. So I accept that.

But at least we agree that Christ is God's SON. We can agree on some things as well.

Thanks, again, for sharing your view and considering what I'm going through. I don't claim to know everything and sometimes I have to refine my view. That's the process and discussions sometimes help you see your own view from another direction, so I enjoy these discussions.

Cheers.
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

CHARIKLO SAID

Thank you, Lars, for explaining your point if view further, and for treating my position with respect.

I too respect you and your position, though you're right, we don't agree on this. But that Jesus is the Son, yes, we are on common ground.

GLADIATOR SAID

Larsinger58 The possibility exists that you are confusing sexuality with spirituality. Sexuality is of the flesh whereas spirituality is, unsurprisingly, of a spiritual nature. Personally I am not in to the Christ thing but even I can separate the two. Amused as I am by your writings, and impressed by the speed of your typing, your claims are utterly implausible. You will have to convince the Christians on the board that you are genuine or answer to Caesar!

CHARIKLO SAID

What intrigues me, Glad, is what Caesar's reply could possibly be?

TEC SAID

Well... Puppy asked what I was going to ask, lol. And Loz expressed what I wanted to express.

Lars, on another thread, you had asked about what might be untrue in the bible, and Shelby gave you a couple of examples. You stated that it was opinion, from her and also from you. If you are the Christ (or have the Christ possessing your body - which is how your explanation sounds to me)... then should you not know the answer as to whether those things happened or not?


You speak as you feel is true, I understand. But Christ is here now, as the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of Truth. He does speak. I hear Him. (and I don't mean that it started with you posting, lol) He speaks within, because the spirit is within.

I am sorry, Lars, but I think the only thing further to say on that is:

"So if anyone tells you, 'there he is out in the desert', do not go go out; or 'here he is in the inner rooms'; do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east and is visible in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

We don't need to discern him from this verse or that verse; or from the various interpretations that we might get (and get wrong). Everyone will see Him. It won't be a guessing game.

The above would be me putting your claims and inspired expressions to the test.

The Spirit can dwell within us, though, without meaning that we ARE the Spirit/Christ.

"If you love me, you will obey my teachings, and my Father will love you, and we will come and make our home with you."

I hope that the above does not come off as harsh, because i do not mean to be. But I needed to speak.

Peace to you,

tammy

LARS SAID



ROFL! You know what? Even per the Bible no one (except those chosen) will believe me based on scripture or interpretation. Even God provided the "sign of the son of man" for the elect to have something extranatural and extra-Biblical to confirm me as the Christ. In passing though, the JIOR is made up of several different secret societies. The "two witnesses" are the largest two and were directly in setting up the 2nd coming details. For instance, I have to be in a situation of self sacrifice where I could speak out or die. So they arranged for me to be dumped into the middle of a dump truck with a huge compression wall which would have compressed me if I didn't yell out. I didn't yell out. But, of course, like with Abraham killing Isaac, it stopped just in time. Even so, the onlookers could see I was willing to face death and would remain silent, like a lamb, before its killers. Well, that had to be set up! I had to be brought to the location and hiding in a dumpster when the trash man arrived to pick up the trash, who then ignored me and dumped me into the truck which then began compacting me.

Now I know this was set up by them because you can imagine the legal liability if they knew in advance I was in the dumpster and dumped me in there anyway and began to impact me. That's assault with a deadly weapon on another level.

Plus, the final dumpster I would be in, hidden from the UN agents, had to be arranged for too. They selected it and they pointed it out to me, no holy spirit. So it was interesting how some things were shown to me by others and some things told me by holy spirit, which assured me I wasn't losing my mind and that others were in on this. Just think, all those people knew I was the Christ even before I did!

Anyway, it is not until some miracle or some event relating to me happens that everybody will know I'm the Christ. It's like Noah's day. Once it started to rain and flood, then EVERYBODY was a believer. It didn't do them much good as far as saving them from drowning, but before they died they knew Noah was a true prophet.

So once I am revealed by something other than scripture interpretation as far as the masses go, it will be too late to be saved by me as the messiah as far as the kingdom goes. So I already know this and this is just setting up the stage for when something rare happens that convinces people I must be the Christ.

Even so, the black, gay, XJW, ex-male prostitute messiah is well covered in the Bible, so not to worry. Even the date 1992 is now absolute as far as I'm concerned, so I'm quite pleased.

You say I'm confused over sexuality vs. spirituality. I'm not sure I follow exactly.

You do realize, of course, that way back then angels could materialize physical bodies or any other kinds of bodies, I suppose, and thus they could have sex with each other if they wanted.

I must say, when I found out I wasn't going to be going to heaven right away, but would be on the earth for the 1000-year reign, I was a bit disappointed. But that's the JOB!
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!