How do we distinguish false Christ & false Prophets according to Our Lord?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The issue is not whether or not God chose to utter it, but rather the context in which it is uttered. The meaning for the English word "weird" has changed over the past 1000 years to the point where very few people of this day would recognize its meaning from 1000 years ago. The phrase "king of kings" was uttered in a specific context with specific implications. If one does not know what the phrase meant to its initial hearers, then one will miss the message delivered. Sometimes taking of available knowledge is a means of humbling one's-self, yet there remain those who are too proud to do so and instead insist that their act of humbling be that of their own choice, not God's.
When it comes to the words of God, According to God the Father nothing is change.

As God the Father said:
ECCLESIASTES 1:9
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Then as the Lord Jesus said.
MATTHEW 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The words King of Kings when it was written is still King of Kings today.
It is God who will reveal the truth (the meaning) and not man.

This method is from a man only:
The issue is not whether or not God chose to utter it, but rather the context in which it is uttered. The meaning for the English word "weird" has changed over the past 1000 years to the point where very few people of this day would recognize its meaning from 1000 years ago. The phrase "king of kings" was uttered in a specific context with specific implications. If one does not know what the phrase meant to its initial hearers, then one will miss the message delivered. Sometimes taking of available knowledge is a means of humbling one's-self, yet there remain those who are too proud to do so and instead insist that their act of humbling be that of their own choice, not God's.
 
Most of the kings of Israel and Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord. The same would be true of today's political leaders. I think you'd agree.

King of kings can be a little confusing because there's more than one way to look at it.
I think if you read it as Jesus reigning over subservient kings, that might be a problem looking at the Old Testament and history since that period.

I do believe that He will establish His kingdom with leadership under Him, but over regions, after He judges the world. However there's another way to look at Him as King of kings. He is certainly King, and far above any other. There is no king like Jesus the great and Almighty King of all kings.
It is confusing when using own intellect to understand it.
But to humble oneself and ask Mercy for God to reveal the truth about King of Kings, it is not confusing.
MATTHEW 19:26
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
 
It is confusing when using own intellect to understand it.
But to humble oneself and ask Mercy for God to reveal the truth about King of Kings, it is not confusing.
MATTHEW 19:26
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
I agree.

The natural man knoweth not the things of the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.

Does my explanation make sense in regards to your question?
 
Spiritual integrity is the kind most lacking in you. You have slandered me repeatedly and you continue doing so obliquely. You have not provided any evidence to support your slander.
First I'm not slandering you or attacking you.
It so happened when I share what is the truth you think I'm slandering and attacking you.
As I said I don't attack anybody.

Why don't you read again the entire Matthew Chapter 23. To Scribes, Pharisees, Teachers and doctors of the law thought that Jesus was slandering & attacking them and so they put Lord Jesus into death.

But the truth is: Jesus by sharing what is the truth was rebuking them in their wrong belief. So he loved them.
PROVERBS 25:5
5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.

Jesus has the evidence why he was rebuking them. Because they don't know who God the Father is. That is the evidence of Jesus.
JOHN 8:54-55
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.


Genuine integrity would have you justify your accusations by quoting me where I have said things you claim I believe or reject, or offer a contrite apology when you realize there is no such evidence and you have invented a narrative with no objective foundation…
I'm not inventing narrative as my foundation.
I'm just quoting and sharing what God the Father and what the Lord Jesus said in.
Hebrews 13:6
John 10:20
Jeremiah 4:22


However, because you don’t actually have integrity, you will dodge accountability, claim your comments are not personal, or make up some ridiculous moralizing hogwash about some righteous warrant for your despicable behaviour. Then you will continue in your slander, while still claiming it is “truth”…
Again I will say it once more, I'm not slandering you.

When it comes to spiritual things. If you are looking for the integrity, then you will not believe Lord Jesus and instead you believe the Scribes & Pharisees.
Because for them, Jesus has no integrity.
MTHHEW 9:10-11
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Dodge. With regard to your response, my foresight is accurate.
 
When it comes to the words of God, According to God the Father nothing is change.

As God the Father said:
ECCLESIASTES 1:9
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Then as the Lord Jesus said.
MATTHEW 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The words King of Kings when it was written is still King of Kings today.
It is God who will reveal the truth (the meaning) and not man.

This method is from a man only:

God does not change humans, and especially human words, do change.

And by the way, I challenge you to find the exact phrase "king of kings" in the original Greek, not a phrase that can be translated into "king of kings", but rather the exact English phrase. And note, if you cannot, then you are relying on the words of flawed, sinful men. And before you claim that the translators were inspired by God, make certain you can back up that claim with the original language in scripture and not by using a term where the proper translation is unknown.
 
God does not change humans, and especially human words, do change.

And by the way, I challenge you to find the exact phrase "king of kings" in the original Greek, not a phrase that can be translated into "king of kings", but rather the exact English phrase. And note, if you cannot, then you are relying on the words of flawed, sinful men. And before you claim that the translators were inspired by God, make certain you can back up that claim with the original language in scripture and not by using a term where the proper translation is unknown.


to find the exact phrase for King of Kings requires man understanding.
This is the warning of God the Father:
PROVERBS 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Trusting the Lord by humbling oneself, wherever you are and whatvere you do, the truth in the phrase King of Kings will be revealed by God.
 
You think that of me… but you have absolutely no evidence supporting that view.

You are the one who knows yourself best.
You can ask your self if you can identify who God the Father is. Your honest answer is the evidence.
 
to find the exact phrase for King of Kings requires man understanding.
This is the warning of God the Father:
PROVERBS 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Trusting the Lord by humbling oneself, wherever you are and whatvere you do, the truth in the phrase King of Kings will be revealed by God.

If the phrase originated with God that might be helpful but remember that the passage was written by a scribe, quite plausibly a slave, and whomever recorded it knew its human origins. It was in use for a good hundred to a hundred fifty years at least before it was used in what we call scripture.
 
Dodge. With regard to your response, my foresight is accurate.

The Truth is: When it comes to spritual, no one could rely to himslef.
PROVERBS 14:12
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
 
I agree.

The natural man knoweth not the things of the Spirit of God. They are foolishness to him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.

Does my explanation make sense in regards to your question?

Yes, the natural man are those relying on their own understanding in the words of God instead of ask mercy to God so God will reveal the truth in his words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HealthAndHappiness
If the phrase originated with God that might be helpful but remember that the passage was written by a scribe, quite plausibly a slave, and whomever recorded it knew its human origins. It was in use for a good hundred to a hundred fifty years at least before it was used in what we call scripture.

Whatever written in the Holy Bible is from God.
And God represents by his words.
JOHN 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then it is only God who can reveal the truth.
God revealed the truth to Lararus the beggar who is not capable in searching as you mentioned.
LUKE 16:19-21
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

When Paul was Saul of Tarsus. That is his way to find the truth. By searching as your request.

But when he became chosen of God and became Paul he just ask for God's mercy.
ROMANS 11:24
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Then Jesus showed Mercy to Paul and he revealed the truth to Paul
GALATIANS 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is why almost the books in the New Testament wrote by Paul.

Remember Jesus and Paul never met face to face.
 
Whatever written in the Holy Bible is from God.
And God represents by his words.
JOHN 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then it is only God who can reveal the truth.
God revealed the truth to Lararus the beggar who is not capable in searching as you mentioned.
LUKE 16:19-21
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

When Paul was Saul of Tarsus. That is his way to find the truth. By searching as your request.

But when he became chosen of God and became Paul he just ask for God's mercy.
ROMANS 11:24
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Then Jesus showed Mercy to Paul and he revealed the truth to Paul
GALATIANS 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is why almost the books in the New Testament wrote by Paul.

Remember Jesus and Paul never met face to face.

The "Word" referenced in John 1 is Jesus a person, not a written record. Thus, this point of yours is meaningless.

Where in Luke 16:19-21 Is God revealing anything to Lazarus?

Romans 11:24, this references what happened after the Law came into existence, Paul was born under the Law and thus cannot be speaking of his own experience.

Paul never states that he did not meet Jesus face to face, merely that he never followed Jesus before his conversion. It is hard to believe that he had rabbinic training, as he claims, and did not at least see Jesus on occasion. I have seen many political and/or religious leaders that I never followed.

As for Paul writing, he admits to writing his own name 5 times, and makes note that his readers can know because it was him because the letters were so large. Remember, paper was expensive, ink was expensive, having someone deliver and read the letters so that others who could not read would get the message was expensive. Are you suggesting that Paul had so much money to waste that he wrote the letters when his writing was unusually large as opposed to using a scribe who was trained to get the most words on a page of paper, adjusting what was dictated, when necessary, just as a good secretary does for their boss?
 
When YOU make an assertion, YOU are responsible to provide the evidence.
My assertion is the truth.

I have given the evidence but you still asking for it.

The evidence is always because you can't identify who God the Father is.
 
My assertion is the truth.

I have given the evidence but you still asking for it.

The evidence is always because you can't identify who God the Father is.
That is not evidence; it is mere opinion.

You have not provided EVIDENCE for your opinion.

Anything other than quotations of my own words are not evidence for what I can or cannot do. You made the assertions; you provide the evidence.

Failure to do so demonstrates that you lack integrity.
 
Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us a great warning about False Christ & Prophets

MATTHEW 24:23-24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
How do we distinguish false Christ & false Prophets according to Our Lord? (Sorry if the OP's question has been answered already, as I didn't take the time to read all 30 pages of comments.)

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Mt 7:15–20)​

In reality, we can distinguish false prophets by the words (fruits) that come out of their mouths. We simply compare them with what the Spirit of God is teaching us (1 John 2:24-27):

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. (1 Jn 2:24–27)​

When what they say proves to be wrong, then we know it is not from the Lord. By their fruits we know them.
 
That is not evidence; it is mere opinion.

You have not provided EVIDENCE for your opinion.

Anything other than quotations of my own words are not evidence for what I can or cannot do. You made the assertions; you provide the evidence.

Failure to do so demonstrates that you lack integrity.

I'm not looking for you to believe.
As I said, you are the one who knows for yourself.
The truth is you can't identify who God the Father is.
And this is what God the Father said for those believeing and reading the words of God but they don't know who God the Father is.
This is what God the Father said to them:
JEREMIAH 4:22
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
 
The "Word" referenced in John 1 is Jesus a person, not a written record. Thus, this point of yours is meaningless.

Where in Luke 16:19-21 Is God revealing anything to Lazarus?

Romans 11:24, this references what happened after the Law came into existence, Paul was born under the Law and thus cannot be speaking of his own experience.

Paul never states that he did not meet Jesus face to face, merely that he never followed Jesus before his conversion. It is hard to believe that he had rabbinic training, as he claims, and did not at least see Jesus on occasion. I have seen many political and/or religious leaders that I never followed.

As for Paul writing, he admits to writing his own name 5 times, and makes note that his readers can know because it was him because the letters were so large. Remember, paper was expensive, ink was expensive, having someone deliver and read the letters so that others who could not read would get the message was expensive. Are you suggesting that Paul had so much money to waste that he wrote the letters when his writing was unusually large as opposed to using a scribe who was trained to get the most words on a page of paper, adjusting what was dictated, when necessary, just as a good secretary does for their boss?


The "Word" referenced in John 1 is Jesus a person, not a written record. Thus, this point of yours is meaningless.
Jesus being the word in John 1:1 is not just a person:
Read the description who is Jesus.
ISAIAH 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
 
The "Word" referenced in John 1 is Jesus a person, not a written record. Thus, this point of yours is meaningless.

Where in Luke 16:19-21 Is God revealing anything to Lazarus?

Romans 11:24, this references what happened after the Law came into existence, Paul was born under the Law and thus cannot be speaking of his own experience.

Paul never states that he did not meet Jesus face to face, merely that he never followed Jesus before his conversion. It is hard to believe that he had rabbinic training, as he claims, and did not at least see Jesus on occasion. I have seen many political and/or religious leaders that I never followed.

As for Paul writing, he admits to writing his own name 5 times, and makes note that his readers can know because it was him because the letters were so large. Remember, paper was expensive, ink was expensive, having someone deliver and read the letters so that others who could not read would get the message was expensive. Are you suggesting that Paul had so much money to waste that he wrote the letters when his writing was unusually large as opposed to using a scribe who was trained to get the most words on a page of paper, adjusting what was dictated, when necessary, just as a good secretary does for their boss?

Where in Luke 16:19-21 Is God revealing anything to Lazarus?
As I can see you are looking for an exact words in the bible that God is revealing the truth to Lazarus.
It means you are using your own intellect to understand the words of God.

The truth is, every chosen of God, he revealed the truth to them. And Lazarus the beggar is a chosen of God
MARK 4:11
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

MARK 4:34
34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

If you wanna read when God revealed the truth to Lazarus the beggar.
This is what God will tell you.
Can you say the word Amen?
JOHN 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.