English – Spanish
Understanding the Scriptures requires spiritual revelation. A case in point: It is written that no man can see God’s face and live, but how does that look? It requires spiritual enlightenment, rather than a literal interpretation, to know what God means.
The ignorant and wicked who profess to love and serve Jesus Christ carnally interpret the Scriptures to condemn those who have seen Him, calling them deceived, deceivers, heretics, or demon-inspired, not knowing these accusers condemn themselves and the One they have never seen, but only heard of.
“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye has seen You. Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6 MKJV).
(I, Victor, have seen God’s face and didn’t survive as I was, thanks be to God.)
Read Seeing God and Living.
Consider the alternative to this doctrine of ignorance: You’ll not fear seeing or having seen God, knowing He promised it and intends it for good.
To be sure, all believers need fellowship, one way or another, at one time or another. But it is true fellowship they need, with true saints. Yet God has set some aside even from true fellowship for a time, in order to prepare them for the service to which He calls them. For now, however, we’re not talking about true spiritual fellowship, but about the fellowship that kills.
Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. (1 Timothy 4:1-2)
From: Janet To: The Path of Truth Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:59 AM Subject: Confused I just got through watching an episode of "It's Supernatural" with Sid Roth. Obviously, you don't like him very much. I decided to read your article which claimed to "expose" him, but nowhere in this article could I find anything specific that explained how he turned to the occult, and could not be believed/trusted. I'm not objecting to your claims; I'm just saying that you don't seem to provide any proof for them. So my question is simply, what things has Mr. Roth done/not done that you find objectionable? Bear in mind that I'm really not familiar with the guy at all and I'm not trying to defend him because I've only watched one of his shows, and it was the first time I had even heard of him. I'm just wondering why you find him to be a false prophet, or whatever. I feel that such accusations should not be made lightly, because they may be read and believed by many people without any substantiation. Again, I would be interested in reading your explanation for your objection to Mr. Roth. For all I know, I may agree with you. Thanks. I do not use this Gmail address for mail; if you do care to write, I can be reached at . From: Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk To: Janet Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:35 AM Subject: Re: Confused You most certainly are confused, Jan, but it’s not because we haven’t stated things plainly. For example, Mr. Roth himself explains abou...