Thomas... My Lord and my God

[civic]

You're referring to trinitarian scholars imposing trinitarian thinking onto the Bible. These are people trained in theology and apologetics and have had time to think of ways to argue their way around the plain and intuitive reading of Jesus' denial of being God. The fact that it must be studied and manipulated by scholars is a tell tale sign that they are simply trying to deny what it very inconveniently says for trinitarianism.

You're always referring to unitarian thinking imposing unitarian thinking onto the Bible. These are people trained in theology and apologetics and have had time to think of ways to argue their way around the plain and intuitive reading of Jesus' affirming He is God. The fact that it must be studied and manipulated by unitarians is a tell tale sign that they are simply trying to deny what it very inconveniently says for unitarianism.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Runningman]

What I said had nothing to do with me being a Trinitarian. Just FYI. Even Trinitarians disagree on some details of the teaching. I don't throw around "Orthodoxy" as if there isn't but one way to defend the position. I tried to teach the basics of our perspective and you just started this "you made that up" nonsense.....

I asked what the man needed that Jesus replied to?

If you read all the extant records of what Jesus said and did, you will notice that Jesus often ignored what people said and indirectly gave them a response that was meaningful to their condition.

For example, one such example I "came to mind" just now is the "women at the well". She completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying to her.

In this case, there is a reason for this man "walking away".

Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Now read what Jesus said to his disciples about this conversation.....

Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
Luk 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Notice the end of Luke 18:27

Now watch what Jesus told the women at the well....

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

The man that Jesus spoke to need to know what the women at the well needed to know.

I have hope that you will know Him in the full assurance of His value one day. Stop looking for yourself in all of this. Look for Him.

You haven't undermined how Mark 10:18 reads in plain English. Mark 10:18 is a fantastic teaching tool for showing people how Jesus isn't God. Actually, I don't even need to make a sermon or argument for it. 99% of people understand it as Jesus not being God. A live debate would be entirely circular and I guarantee I can talk a lot more than you and louder if necessary.

The part you lose the argument on is the premise of the argument itself. You can't change what Jesus said, but you can just use whataboutisms and smokescreens. Circling back to Jesus' words, they are still there reading like a denial. A debate on this specific topic would be ridiculously short.

 

[civic]

You're referring to trinitarian scholars imposing trinitarian thinking onto the Bible. These are people trained in theology and apologetics and have had time to think of ways to argue their way around the plain and intuitive reading of Jesus' denial of being God. The fact that it must be studied and manipulated by scholars is a tell tale sign that they are simply trying to deny what it very inconveniently says for trinitarianism.

I'm reminded of the late Dr Martin who dealt with false teachings his entire life. This is very insightful below.

Yes its a different dictionary, different vocabulary, different meaning, different Jesus, different God, different gospel, different salvation etc.....

From the late Dr Walter Martin


VOCABULARY AND SEMANTICS OF CULTS by Dr Walter Martin

“We believe in salvation through Jesus Christ”
Who is Jesus Christ?

“We worship God, too!”
Who is God?

“We believe in salvation by grace through faith”
But what is their exact criteria for my salvation?

“We believe in the trinity…”
Define “Trinity”

Define “evil”, “sin”, “atonement”

“Well, that’s what we believe, too! We agree!” and they will use the Bible
Define your terms!


Examples: Gnostics, Mormons, JW’s, Christian Scientists, Scientologists


“Well, that’s YOUR interpretation!”
No, it is what the text says here, in its context!


BREAKING THE LANGUAGE BARRIER

The cults capitalize on the almost total inability of the average Christian to understand the subtle art of redefinition in the realm of biblical theology.

The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical clichés and terms wherever possible or advantageous. Up to now this has been a highly successful attempt to represent their respective systems of thought as "Christian."

On encountering a cultist, then, always remember that you are dealing with a person who is familiar with Christian terminology, and who has carefully redefined it to fit the system of thought he or she now embraces.


Whenever a Christian encounters a cultist, certain primary thoughts must be paramount in his mind:
(1) He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;
(2) the Christian must then compare these "definitions" with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;
(3) he must define the words "interpretation," "historic orthodoxy," and standard doctrinal phrases such as "the new birth," "the Atonement," "context," "exegesis," "eternal judgment," etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;
(4) the Christian must attempt to lead the cultist to a review of the importance of properly defining terms for all important doctrines involved, particularly the doctrine of personal redemption from sin, which most cult systems define in a markedly unbiblical manner;
(5) it is the responsibility of the Christian to present a clear testimony of his own regenerative experience with Jesus Christ in terminology which has been carefully clarified regarding the necessity of such regeneration on the part of the cultist in the light of the certain reality of God's inevitable justice. It may be necessary also, in the course of discussing terminology and its dishonest recasting by cult systems, to resort to occasional polemic utterances. In such cases, the Christian should be certain that they are tempered with patience and love, so that the cultist appreciates that such tactics are motivated by one's personal concern for his eternal welfare and not simply to "win the argument."

Summary

Looking back over the picture of cult semantics, the following facts emerge.

1. The average cultist knows his own terminology very thoroughly. He also has a historic knowledge of Christian usage and is therefore prepared to discuss many areas of Christian theology intelligently.
2. The well-trained cultist will carefully avoid definition of terms concerning cardinal doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the process of salvation by grace and justification by faith. If pressed in these areas, he will redefine the terms to fit the semantic framework of orthodoxy unless he is forced to define his terms explicitly.
3. The informed Christian must seek for a point of departure, preferably the authority of the Scriptures, which can become a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the Christian, if properly exercised.
4. The concerned Christian worker must familiarize himself to some extent with the terminology of the major cult systems if he is to enjoy any measure of success in understanding the cultist's mind when bearing a witness for Christ.



Chapter 3 - The Psychological Structure of Cultism

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist's mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization.
(from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.)

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

continued :

Jesus , the Real One always separates the different religions, faiths of this world. Its why so many times the New Testaments talks about false Christs, false teachers, deceivers etc......

Some do this intentionally while others I believe are deceived into thinking they have the real Jesus. But there are many "tests" in the N.T. where we can discern the real from the fake much like trained bankers can spot a counterfeit $100 from the genuine $100.

I will quote the late Dr. Walter Martin. What we deal with most of the time is a language barrier. We read the same words in the Bible and have a different definition and vocabulary than those with a different Jesus, a different gospel. Its the semantic game being played out on a regular basis with online forums and when you answer the person knowing at your door to talk about the Bible.

Here is Dr Martin below in his summary of this issues we encounter :

"The historic doctrine of the Trinity is seldom, if ever, considered without careful redefinition. If the reader consults the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, published by the Unity School of Christianity, he will see the masterpiece of redefinition for himself. For in this particular volume, Unity has redefined exhaustively many of the cardinal terms of biblical theology, much as Mary Baker Eddy did in her Glossary of Terms in the book Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures. The reader will be positively amazed to find what has happened to biblical history, the person of Adam, the concept of human sin, spiritual depravity, and eternal judgment. One thing, however, will emerge very clearly from this study: Unity may use the terminology of the Bible, but by no stretch of the imagination can the redefinition be equated with the thing itself. Another confusing aspect of non-Christian cultists’ approach to semantics is the manner in which they will surprise the Christian with voluminous quotations from no less authority than the Bible, and give the appearance of agreeing with nearly every statement the Christian makes in attempting to evangelize the cultist. Such stock phrases as “We believe that way too; we agree on this point” or the more familiar, “[Mrs. Eddy, Mr. or Mrs. Fillmore, Mr. Evans, Dr. Buchman, Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young] says exactly the same thing; we are completely in agreement.” All such tactics based upon the juggling of terms usually have the effect of frustrating the average Christian, for he is unable to put his finger on what he knows is error, and is repeatedly tantalized by seeming agreement which, as he knows, does not exist. He is therefore often forced into silence because he is unaware of what the cultist is actually doing. Often, even though he may be aware of this in a limited sense, he hesitates to plunge into a discussion for fear of ridicule because of an inadequate background or a lack of biblical information.


The solution to this perplexing problem is far from simple. The Christian must realize that for every biblical or doctrinal term he mentions, a redefinition light flashes on in the mind of the cultist, and a lightning-fast redefinition is accomplished. Realizing that the cultist will apparently agree with the doctrine under discussion while firmly disagreeing in reality with the historical and biblical concept, the Christian is on his way to dealing effectively with cult terminology. This amazing operation of terminological redefinition works very much like a word association test in psychology.


It is simple for a cultist to spiritualize and redefine the clear meaning of biblical texts and teachings so as to be in apparent harmony with the historic Christian faith. However, such a harmony is at best a surface agreement, based upon double meanings of words that cannot stand the test of biblical context, grammar, or sound exegesis. Language is, to be sure, a complex subject; all are agreed on this. But one thing is beyond dispute, and that is that in context words mean just what they say. Either we admit this or we must be prepared to surrender all the accomplishments of grammar and scholastic progress and return to writing on cave walls with charcoal sticks in the tradition of our alleged stone-age ancestors. To illustrate this point more sharply, the experience of everyday life points out the absurdity of terminological redefinitions in every way of life.



A quick survey of how cults redefine Christian terminology illustrates this important observation.

Cult​	Term​	Cult Definition​	Christian Definition​
Mormonism​	God​	Many gods​	One God​
Jehovah’s Witnesses​	Jesus Christ​	Not god, created by Jehovah​	God the Son, Creator of all​
Christian Science​	Sin​	Illusion, error, not real​	Disobedience to God​
New Age​	Salvation​	Becoming One with the Universe/God​	Reconciliation with God by means of Christ’s atonement​

Is it any wonder, then, that orthodox Christians feel called upon to openly denounce such perversions of clearly defined and historically accepted biblical terminology, and claim that the cults have no rights—scholastically, biblically, or linguistically—to redefine biblical terms as they do? "

hope this helps !!!

 

[Runningman]

@civic thanks, but did you notice Dr. Martin became the monster he sought to destroy? He rails against the ways he believes "cultists" interpret words, phrases, and terminology of the Bible to mean something that is not in line with "biblical theology." Yet he became the monster he sought to destroy by using non-Biblical terminology such as "Trinity," "the deity of Christ," "God the Son," etc.

What you have provided is essentially propaganda since it has a very obvious double-standard for Trinitarians and those he calls "cultists" which is loaded language. Also, he appealed to "historic orthodoxy" which is not an appeal to a recognized authority. He's just poisoning the well.

However, I did find it useful.

 

[civic]

@civic thanks, but did you notice Dr. Martin became the monster he sought to destroy? He rails against the ways he believes "cultists" interpret words, phrases, and terminology of the Bible to mean something that is not in line with "biblical theology." Yet he became the monster he sought to destroy by using non-Biblical terminology such as "Trinity," "the deity of Christ," "God the Son," etc.

What you have provided is essentially propaganda since it has a very obvious double-standard for Trinitarians and those he calls "cultists" which is loaded language. Also, he appealed to "historic orthodoxy" which is not an appeal to a recognized authority. He's just poisoning the well.

However, I did find it useful.

I'm not sure what you mean about became a monster ? I never heard that before. Can you elaborate ? Thanks

 

[praise_yeshua]

You haven't undermined how Mark 10:18 reads in plain English. Mark 10:18 is a fantastic teaching tool for showing people how Jesus isn't God. Actually, I don't even need to make a sermon or argument for it. 99% of people understand it as Jesus not being God. A live debate would be entirely circular and I guarantee I can talk a lot more than you and louder if necessary.

The part you lose the argument on is the premise of the argument itself. You can't change what Jesus said, but you can just use whataboutisms and smokescreens. Circling back to Jesus' words, they are still there reading like a denial. A debate on this specific topic would be ridiculously short.

Like always, you partially quote a conversation and pretend you're presenting all the facts of the conversation.

My children once did this me when they were very young. They don't do this to me anymore. I'll offer again to have a public video debate on this. I'll leave it unedited and you can have copy to do with as you wish. It might help you.

You're like a little child that has eaten all the candy in the pantry while insisting that I said you could have candy. You believe you're right but all the candy is gone and you're mad about it.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not sure what you mean about became a monster ? I never heard that before. Can you elaborate ? Thanks

He is talking about people, but rather portrayed them as cultists who are bent on intentionally deceiving people. He is making them out to be a kind of monster or boogie man and he is basically warning no one to listen to them before anyone even heard what the "cultists" had to say. It's called poisoning the well. I was being nice by just saying he has a double standard.

 

[civic]

He is talking about people, but rather portrayed them as cultists who are bent on intentionally deceiving people. He is making them out to be a kind of monster or boogie man and he is basically warning no one to listen to them before anyone even heard what the "cultists" had to say. It's called poisoning the well. I was being nice by just saying he has a double standard.

ok thanks for clarifying. but he did say some are deceived and mean no harm. i think you would say many trinitarians are deceived and mean no harm right ?

 

[Runningman]

ok thanks for clarifying. but he did say some are deceived and mean no harm. i think you would say many trinitarians are deceived and mean no harm right ?

Yes, I am sure many do not intentionally mean any harm, but Dr. Martin spoke about redefining "biblical theology" as well. There is a lot to unpack, but theology and Scripture aren't the same thing. God, Jesus, or the apostles didn't tell anyone which passages to look at to develop Trinitarian theology. So how do you know for sure that Trinitarian theology is actually the message Scripture is trying to convey to people without a higher authority validating it?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, I am sure many do not intentionally mean any harm, but Dr. Martin spoke about redefining "biblical theology" as well. There is a lot to unpack, but theology and Scripture aren't the same thing. God, Jesus, or the apostles didn't tell anyone which passages to look at to develop Trinitarian theology. So how do you know for sure that Trinitarian theology is actually the message Scripture is trying to convey to people without a higher authority validating it?

Geesh. Do you not realize this argument can be used against everything you believe?

God, Jesus or apostles didn't tell anyone which passages to look at to develop Unitarianism.

I've read the word "Unitarian" in the Bible. Have you? The word Unitarian doesn't even appear in English until after the Reformation.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's some data on "I AM"...​

"I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am."

Chris Alen Paulus wrote it this way...
I AM isn’t a name.

Ytany Vallecillo wrote it this way...
"I AM" is a common phrase.
It isn't the name of anyone.

 

[civic]

Here's some data on "I AM"...​

"I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am."

Chris Alen Paulus wrote it this way...
I AM isn’t a name.

Ytany Vallecillo wrote it this way...
"I AM" is a common phrase.
It isn't the name of anyone.

Context

Before Abraham existed I AM.

A declaration of eternality , the eternal claim of God.

 

[mikesw]

You're referring to trinitarian scholars imposing trinitarian thinking onto the Bible. These are people trained in theology and apologetics and have had time to think of ways to argue their way around the plain and intuitive reading of Jesus' denial of being God. The fact that it must be studied and manipulated by scholars is a tell tale sign that they are simply trying to deny what it very inconveniently says for trinitarianism.

You deny basic logic. That is plain and simple in your responses. Again, a question cannot automatically be converted into an assertion. Jesus's question "Why do you call me good" does not mean "you cannot call me good." However, it is useful to point out that scholars can make the same mistake as you. This is not singling you out for such an error. I can repeat this again for you if you forget it by your next post.

 

[synergy]

You haven't undermined how Mark 10:18 reads in plain English. Mark 10:18 is a fantastic teaching tool for showing people how Jesus isn't God. Actually, I don't even need to make a sermon or argument for it. 99% of people understand it as Jesus not being God. A live debate would be entirely circular and I guarantee I can talk a lot more than you and louder if necessary.

The part you lose the argument on is the premise of the argument itself. You can't change what Jesus said, but you can just use whataboutisms and smokescreens. Circling back to Jesus' words, they are still there reading like a denial. A debate on this specific topic would be ridiculously short.

You need to prove that the sentence "Why do you call Me good?" was spoken as a rebuke in harsh incredulity and not as a genuine inquisitive question. Do your heretical homework - hop to it.

 

[dwight92070]

Did we ever get an answer from Peterlag or Runningham as to whether Jesus is:

God?

or part of God's creation? (along with the angels and the universe)

Or were they afraid to admit what they really believe?

 

[Runningman]

Geesh. Do you not realize this argument can be used against everything you believe?

God, Jesus or apostles didn't tell anyone which passages to look at to develop Unitarianism.

I've read the word "Unitarian" in the Bible. Have you? The word Unitarian doesn't even appear in English until after the Reformation.

Dr. Martin's argument was turned on him immediately and it lost any credibility as applying to everyone except trinitarians. Trinitarians are the worst when it comes using non-Biblical terminology. You couldn't even discuss the trinity without using the word trinity because the Bible doesn't use any sort of explanations for the trinity. You lose every debate.

 

[Runningman]

You deny basic logic. That is plain and simple in your responses. Again, a question cannot automatically be converted into an assertion. Jesus's question "Why do you call me good" does not mean "you cannot call me good." However, it is useful to point out that scholars can make the same mistake as you. This is not singling you out for such an error. I can repeat this again for you if you forget it by your next post.

So when Jesus denied being God in Mark 10:18, you reject that. You have also rejected when Jesus even more explicitly denied being God in John 17:3. The way you come off is you don't agree with anything the Bible says. It seems your only tool is a hammer and everything is a nail. Why do you never agree with what Jesus plainly says? You always reinterpret it until the conclusion you provide doesn't even match what Jesus said in the first place.

 

[Runningman]

You need to prove that the sentence "Why do you call Me good?" was spoken as a rebuke in harsh incredulity and not as a genuine inquisitive question. Do your heretical homework - hop to it.

Strawman argument. Jesus said "Why do you call me good?" after being called "good teacher" because Jesus was the one who was taught by God his teachings. The teachings Jesus had weren't his to begin with.

Jesus was taught by God:

John 8​

28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me​

Jesus challenged the man who called him "good teacher"

Mark 10​

17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”​

18“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.​

Jesus wasn't his own teacher because the Father was Jesus' teacher. Therefore when Jesus was called good teacher Jesus was correct to challenge that. Jesus contrasted himself with God as a result. Therefore Jesus isn't God.

 

[mikesw]

Strawman argument. Jesus said "Why do you call me good?" after being called "good teacher" because Jesus was the one who was taught by God his teachings. The teachings Jesus had weren't his to begin with.

Jesus was taught by God:

John 8​

28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me​

Jesus challenged the man who called him "good teacher"

Mark 10​

17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”​

18“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.​

Jesus wasn't his own teacher because the Father was Jesus' teacher. Therefore when Jesus was called good teacher Jesus was correct to challenge that. Jesus contrasted himself with God as a result. Therefore Jesus isn't God.

ok. that means you can neglect the various meanings of Mark 10:17-18.

Next you can determine that the meaning of the Father teaching him means that Jesus's cannot be God incarnate. I presume you know the metaphysical restrictions that limit God from working within this model. You can share your source of that metaphysical inability of God.
Essentially, you are making a metaphysical argument against passages that identify Jesus as God.