Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God

[Deleted User] · July 2019

@Wolfgang, Bill and you both should welcome some insight that I am trying to help you with.

I welcome helpful insights ... however, thus far you have not provided any. You refuse to engage exploring scriptures together, refuse to comment in detail to what I (or Bill) have detailed out from scripture, pointing out word meanings, context, reasonable and logical considerations of what the text says, etc .... and instead you vent off repeating the same CLAIMS (not insights!) over and over again.

You are the one who should provide insights first ... and when your arguments are shown to be not helpful and reasons are given for that, you should consider the points raised ..... but instead you dismissthem as " long irrelevant things others have to say".

Have a look in the mirror .... and don't make demands of others that pertain first and foremost to you

YourTruthGod · July 2019

You take what you get Bill. I don't even know what you are talking about.

Bill_Coley · July 2019

@YourTruthGod posted:

You take what you get Bill. I don't even know what you are talking about.

I do take what I get. In fact, I take it for what it is: Non-responsive, often dismissive, and rarely constructive evasion of the important issues of faith raised by the texts I cite and interpret.

As for what I'm talking about, assuming that you're referring to my previous post, my response was to the "insight" you claimed in THIS POST to be offering as "help" to Wolfgang and me. In my view, as a rule with very few exceptions, your posts offer no "help" and no "insight." As an example of my observation, I offered your then-recent single sentence response to my exegesis of Jesus' "I am the resurrection and the life" assertion in John 11: "It is hard for me to read long irrelevant things others have to say about God and the Bible." That wasn't helpful. That wasn't insightful. That certainly wasn't exegetical. And it wasn't even on-topic. Many/Most of your responses to me are of that core form and consequence, in my view.

So when I say I take what I get from you for what it is, now you know what I think it is.

YourTruthGod · July 2019

@Bill_Coley, I tune out your posts to me when I sense the spirit of your posts. I hear your tone and see no scriptures and no word about God, so I am not interested.

Bill_Coley · July 2019

@YourTruthGod posted:

@Bill_Coley, I tune out your posts to me when I sense the spirit of your posts. I hear your tone and see no scriptures and no word about God, so I am not interested.

What better way to defeat the "spirit" of my posts than to prove me wrong, to show from the text the errors of my ways. But you don't. You refuse to engage ANY of the texts I cite and analyze.

And about those texts and your claim that you "see no scriptures and no word about God" in my posts: Here are links to eleven of my posts in this very thread, posts in which, in hurried fashion, I counted 107 Scripture references that I introduced - which is to say that count does NOT include the texts cited by other posters and to which my posts responded.

Is it your contention that a collection of 11 posts which introduce 107 Scripture passages have "no scriptures" in them? If so, how many passages would 11 posts have to engage before you would say they included at least "some" Scriptures?

As for words about God, the topic of this thread and those 11 posts is whether Jesus is God, so ALL them offered words about God.

[Deleted User] · July 2019

Is it your contention that a collection of 11 posts which introduce 107 Scripture passages have "no scriptures" in them? If so, how many passages would 11 posts have to engage before you would say they included at least "some" Scriptures?

@YourTruthGod simply is unable to have the type of exchange we have and we would like him to have with us. I have come to this realization with reading his recent posts on other threads I initiated today.

I saw myself today sort of on his side in a conversation an old acquaintance of mine started with me on some biology / medicine topic ... He thought I was actually following what he was saying and getting what he explained ... until I stopped him and told him, that I just could not follow and his explanations were simply above my head and thus I could not make sense of what he was explaining.

Next topic in our talk I mentioned what I thought I understood and he let it rest at that instead of trying to teach me further what I at this time just was not able to learn.

Pages · August 2019

@Bill_Coley

My reply to you has been delayed due to some medical issues and concerns, and then life in general.

I want to revisit some of your responses from your last post on page 2 of this discussion before moving on to your last response to me on page 3. I believe this will help to clarify my position better regarding our discussion; as I consider that I have not done justice to some of the background that informs my view.

From page 2:

Prompted by your post, I did a Logos search for the word "raised" when used to describe Jesus' resurrection. I'll offer the text list at the end of this post, but for the moment, here's a summary of what I found:

Thank you for posting the “raised” text list by the way.

I would suggest also the additional searches for rose, arose, rise, risen, etc., in all translations to fill out your research on this. Also, the comparison of your previous NLT search results for “raised” against all other translations found in your Logos software.

You should notice from these comparisons the various translation differences in the versions for these verbs.

As for those 24 unidentified agents of resurrection:

We know from their use of the passive voice that the writers/speakers of those instances do NOT contend that Jesus did the raising.

Yes and no, here the greek text comes in handy to test the validity of this statement.

I don't see the textual support for your view. In my view, the 25 instances of the passive voice by grammatical definition rule out Jesus as the agent of, or even a partner in, his own raising, as do the many verses in which Jesus is the object of God's action.

We are certainly not in dispute over those passages where Jesus is the object of God’s action.

While the above mentioned grammatical rules hold truth in english grammar – the issue of the passive voice in greek takes on other elements that are pertinent to a number of the (passive) verses in your search results.

I will elaborate on this more in the following responses below to some of your other more recent questions from page 3 of this discussion.

From page 3:

I ask you the same question I asked of @YourTruthGod : All 49 of the verses I cite look back on the resurrection of Jesus as an event that has already happened.

Just in passing, to be accurate regarding the above statement and the criteria you have set for yourself, viz. “look back on“ – only three, out of the gospel passage list total you have cited, occur post resurrection – I believe I mentioned this in our first engagement of this discussion.

The verses from John that you cite, if they are about the resurrection (and I'm not convinced of that, but for the moment assume it to be true) address the resurrection as a future event, an outcome yet to be accomplished.

1. Having addressed this earlier, as well, I will once again reply – scripture often foretells future events, aka. predictive future – and in this case Jesus – is there somewhere in the NT that Jesus speaks of, or about, himself that is not true?

2. In your view – what then, I would have to ask, if not Jesus’ death and resurrection will these passages I have cited, John 2:19, 10:17-18, exegetically be in reference to?

Where are the NT verses that look back on the resurrection as an event that has already happened, and say, in effect, "Jesus raised (past tense) himself."

“He has risen” ἠγέρθη – Matt. 27:64, 28:6-7, Mk. 16:6, Lk. 24:6, 24:34 (ESV). “This passive verb is also translated actively with the Lord as the subject: ‘has risen’” (Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12–24, Exegetical Summary Series; Accordance electronic ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2007), 562.)

I would also suggest these post resurrection texts Lk. 24:7, 46; Acts 10:41, 17:3 as having the implication of Jesus being the agent of his own raising – ἀναστῆναι (rise, rose) active voice (all texts all versions except NIV at Lk. 24:7 read rise, rose).

I have shown that no verse says specifically "Jesus raised himself."

If by this you mean, in these exact same words “Jesus raised himself“ – you are correct. Should, this exact same english wording, “Jesus raised himself“, not be the requirement to express Jesus’ agency – then, see the listed verses from above.

Additionally, I also suggest three verses in John previously spoken of; and, Mk. 8:31 with an aorist active ἀναστῆναι (rise).

Moreover, we have three texts Mk. 9:31, 10:34; Lk. 18:33 where the verb ἀναστήσεται (rise) is a middle voice which has an active sense.

Speaking of the middle voice:

“The grammatical voice that signifies that the subject of the verb is being affected by its own action or is acting upon itself.” (Michael S. Heiser and Vincent M. Setterholm, (Lexham Press, 2013; 2013)).

Doesn't the use of the passive voice to report Jesus' resurrection, by the rules of grammar, mean Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his raising?

This is what, as English speakers, we are used to understanding, and this is most certainly the case with the explicit i.e., God raised, raised by God clauses you refer to – and I agree with.

I stated in my answer to the last question of yours from page 2 above that I would provide elaboration regarding the passive voice in greek. I will do so now, briefly.

In english we have only two voices, active or passive; greek adds a middle voice, and this can affect the meaning of an otherwise passive verb. See above (Heiser/Setterholm) quote regarding middle voice – we might, using english grammar terminology, then say to express this idea simply as: the subject is both the subject and object at the same time.

Furthermore, whether the verb is transitive or intransitive will have a bearing on interpretation; for example, a passive, or middle verb that is intransitive will be considered active in its meaning.

Why this is important: the following quote is concerned with the aorist passive ἠγέρθη (to raise) in Lk. 24:6 – “This passive verb is used in the active sense“ (Richard C. Blight, An Exegetical Summary of Luke 12–24, Exegetical Summary Series; Accordance electronic ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2007), 538.)

The above is pertinent to our discussion as many of the verses you reference, apart from those stating God, or the Holy Spirit, raised Jesus, are in a middle voice (ἐγήγερται – to raise, rise, get up). Of the remaining passive verses, several use an aorist passive with the θη marker (ἠγέρθη – to raise, rise, get up) which can stand in as if it were middle voice (older linguistic studies), or is middle voice (newer linguistic studies – See Rachel Aubrey, “Motivated Categories, Middle Voice, and Passive Morphology,” in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016)).

Since, in the greek text, a number of the verbs on your (passive) verse list fall into the above categories – they may be read as having an active sense.

Taking this into account along with the active verb usage of Jesus raising himself; I can only reconcile this as scripture conveying that both God and Jesus are each an acting agent in the resurrection event.

I contend that it is neither logically nor grammatically possible for Jesus to have "been raised (passive voice; by God)" AND ALSO to have raised himself.

I believe I have addressed the grammatical aspect of your concerns above in full; so, I will exit with this summary.

As I have stated repeatedly throughout our discussion I believe the grammar of the relevant passages give a both/and picture – we have explicit texts that state God is the agent of raising and we have explicit texts where Jesus states he will be the agent, or is the agent, of his raising.

Additionally, we have the aorist passive ἠγέρθη with the (middle) θη marker and the middle voice ἐγήγερται that may be read and understood grammatically in favor of Jesus having acted on himself in other texts.

Further, it is not my purpose to dissuade you from your position of only God having raised Jesus; rather, it is to explain briefly, utilizing the greek text, how it is that I am able to read this in a different light than yourself.

Hopefully, all of the above responses provide clarity as to where our differences lie, and highlight how we have come to our individual conclusions concerning this matter.

[Deleted User] · August 2019

@Pages wrote

@Bill_Coley Doesn't the use of the passive voice to report Jesus' resurrection, by the rules of grammar, mean Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his raising?

@Pages This is what, as English speakers, we are used to understanding, and this is most certainly the case with the explicit i.e., God raised, raised by God clauses you refer to – and I agree with.

Well, since there are explicit statements about Jesus' resurrection such as God raised, raised by God ... why contradict those explicit statements by claiming that not God raised Jesus but rather Jesus raised Jesus (Jesus raised himself) ???

Do not these explicit statements about the resurrection of Jesus clearly and plainly tell and show by Whom Jesus was raised, was resurrected (in those places where a clause in passive voice is used?

As for Greek grammar having not only passive voice but also a middle voice (with identical word forms), one should note that in the case of a dead person and his/her being raised from the dead, there CAN NOT be a middle voice, because by definition a dead person CAN NOT act upon him-/herself.

Pages · August 2019

@Wolfgang

Well, since there are explicit statements about Jesus' resurrection such as God raised, raised by God ... why contradict those explicit statements by claiming that not God raised Jesus but rather Jesus raised Jesus (Jesus raised himself) ???

I believe you are misunderstanding my position on this issue. I’m not pitting one against the other, God vs. Jesus, for the honor of sole agent in the raising as the second half of your sentence would imply.

In my view there is no contradiction or conflict that both God and Jesus acted together, in harmony and unity, as co-agents in the resurrection. Same position I have held throughout this discussion which is more recently reflected within the last seven sentences above the picture in your post. 😊

My understanding is derived through the texts where God is agent, the texts where Jesus is agent, and other texts where the passive voice may be interpreted as having an active sense within greek grammar. A both/and proposition.

...because by definition a dead person CAN NOT act upon him-/herself.

I would say this premise is at odds with scripture where Jesus states he possesses ἔχω (to have) all that is necessary ἐξουσίαν (power, authority) to preform the task; hence, Jesus has the power, authority, and ability to both actively τίθημι lay down and λαβεῖν take up his life Jn. 10:17-18.

Further, there is the additional support of Jn. 10:17-18 found in texts where Jesus is the subject of the verb in the active voice – ἀναστῆναι (rise, rose) Mk. 8:31, Lk. 24:7, 46, Jn. 20:9, Acts 10:41, 17:3, ἐγερῶ (raise) Jn. 2:19.

I believe this succinctly covers the above stated concerns in your response.

Bill_Coley · August 2019

@Pages posted:

In my view there is no contradiction or conflict that both God and Jesus acted together, in harmony and unity, as co-agents in the resurrection. Same position I have held throughout this discussion which is more recently reflected within the last seven sentences above the picture in your post. 😊

In my view, you have yet to present textual support for the claim that "God and Jesus acted together, in harmony and unity, as co-agents in the resurrection." The applicable texts simply give no indication that Jesus had ANY active role in his own resurrection." You have cited a verse about Jesus' "authority" to lay down and pick back up his life. But you have not cited a text in which Jesus or any of his disciples after the resurrection believed that "authority" reported any form of active participation in the resurrection.

In my view, that Jesus partnered with God in his resurrection would have been considered a BIG thing for Peter and Paul, but neither of them even hints at such an arrangement in their written or spoken NT words. What in your view explains Peter's and Paul's silence on such a profound element of the resurrection? Why in nearly all of their words do they claim that Jesus was the recipient, not the giver, of his resurrection?

[Deleted User] · August 2019

"Co-agents in resurrection" ?

Well, thinking of Jesus raising Lazarus, it is obvious that Jesus "woke up" Lazarus from the state of being dead to being alive again, and equally obvious that alive Lazarus then was the one getting up and coming out of the tomb. However, did Lazarus raise himself from the dead? was Lazarus a co-agent in being raised from the dead? NO!! Lazarus became only active again AFTER he had been raised from the dead and was alive again.

What about Jesus and his resurrection from the dead? It was not Jesus who raised himself from the state of being dead, it was God - his Father - who "woke up" the dead Jesus and Who gave him eternal life ...and afterwards the alive Jesus got up and out from the tomb.

C Mc · September 2019

Here is my "studied take" on the verse. Titus 2:13.

Paul describes the saints as “looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJV). The KJV translates this passage as “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” which has the saints waiting for the Father and the Son. While this translation is possible, the NKJV rendering is to be preferred for the following reasons:

The two nouns “God” and “Savior” are connected by one article, indicating that, as a rule, the two nouns are two designations of one object.
The entire New Testament looks forward to the second coming of Christ.
The context in verse 14 speaks of Christ alone.
This interpretation is in harmony with other passages such as John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. This text, therefore, is an explicit assertion of the deity of Christ.

The Cambridge Bible" reminds us that the Greek of Titus 2:13 is perfectly capable of the rendering, "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." It should be noted in this connection that the RSV translates Titus 2:13 precisely this way.

A. T. Robertson argued convincingly that when two substantives in the same case are connected by kai ("and"), the first being articular, and the second an arthrous, the two are in apposition.

Thus, in the common idiom, "the God and Father," [For e.g. Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13; James 1:27] or "the Lord and Father," [James 3:9 (R.S.V.)] the two epithets refer to one person. The same is true of the parallel idiom, "the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (R.S.V.) [2 Peter 2:20; 3:2]. The same idiom is found in 2 Peter 1:1, "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (R.S.V.). The K.J.V., however, translates the latter as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," and the A.S.V. has "God and the Saviour Jesus Christ," both making the reference to two persons. Likewise in Titus 2:13 the K.J.V. and the A.S.V. both have "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Robertson holds that in both these passages grammar demands that the reference be to one person.

The Christian’s living hope: Christ Jesus [is] our hope” (1 Tim 1:1); “Christ in you, [is] the hope of glory” (Col 1:27; cf. Titus 2:13).

The apostle Paul describes Christians who wait for their Lord’s return, as the blessed hope. Jesus will soon return. Read Titus 2:13, 14. One needs not fear that this world will not be turned into a thermo-nuclear wasteland. It will not end with millions of people battling over crumbs of bread. It will not be destroyed by some monster earthquake or devastating natural disaster. Although we may experience some or all of th ese calamities.

In the NT, we find that the Second Advent is the focus of the apostles' writings. Paul did not forget. The Second Advent was central to Paul's teaching and preaching. Paul considered Christ's return "the blessed hope" (Titus 2:13; cf. Heb 9:28).

Seven times Paul referred to the advent of Christ by means of the term parousia, which gives the twin meanings of presence and arrival. The word also connotes power and victory.

Parousia implies the complete and final victory of Christ over sin and death. "The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with ashout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first" (1 Thess 4:16).

A little more to the conversation. My hope in the return of Christ. CM

SOURCE:

H. C. G. Moule, The Romans in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: The University Press, 1925), p. 165
A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament,, pp. 7851; , pp. 61-68

[Deleted User] · September 2019

Lots of complicated theological attempts to interpret a passage in a way which would sort of make Paul say that our lord Jesus Christ is the greta God .... the problem is - and I would think all those trinity adherents are aware of it (!) - that there are a lot more passages in Paul's writings which plainly and clearly do NOT identify Jesus Christ and God, but rather emphatically distinguish between (1) God and (2) the man Jesus Christ.

It's plain truth in plain sight -- with the trinity dogma just as plain error in plain view of Scripture.

Also, the statement in Tit 2:13 is speaking about the appearing of the glory of the great God (see below interlinear rendering of Greek text) ... but NOT about a literal appearing of God Himself

13 προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης

awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory

του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου ⋄

of the great God and saviour our Jesus Christ;

A simple reading of the Greek text provides straight forward insight into the truth stated, whereas unfortunately many trinity dogma influenced translators have managed to shroud and muddy the truth of Scripture in favor of adhering to a prevalent dogma of later centuries.

Bill_Coley · September 2019

@C_M_ posted:

Here is my "studied take" on the verse. Titus 2:13. ...

Thank you for providing this exegesis, CM.

While I respect your point of view, and applaud your efforts in your most recent post, in my view your analysis fails to consider the broader context of Titus 2.13 that I pointed out at length in THIS POST back in April as my response to your OP in this thread. In short, that context is that...

Titus 1.4 refers to the separate/distinct entities "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior."
Titus 3.4-8 reports that God (the one called "our Savior") poured out the Spirit on us through Jesus Christ, which establishes another clear distinction between God - the one pouring out - and Jesus - the one through whom God pours out.

This creates a conflict between the two passages I cite and the one you cite. Ultimately, Jesus can't be God AND at the same time NOT God, so one of sets of texts - or at least our interpretation of them - must be wrong. That's where other texts come in, the most sensible reading of the VAST majority of which is that Jesus is NOT God. In addition, NO text directly says Jesus is God, and more important, Jesus himself NEVER claims to be God.

My April 11 post offered one other passage - 1 Timothy 2.5-6. It remains useful today:

"5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

In my view, those verses make an inarguable distinction between the "one God" and the "mediator" between that one God and humans. No one has yet to demonstrate how those two verses are consistent with the "Jesus is God" view. CM, I invite you to show me how they are.

C Mc · September 2019

It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian. CM

Bill_Coley · September 2019

@C_M_ posted:

Ms difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian.

Who is/are the "non-Christian[s]" you're referring to, CM? The only contributors to this thread have been you, me, @Wolfgang, @Pages , @YourTruthGod, and @Dave_L, all of whom are Christians from what I've read of their posts.

Bill_Coley · September 2019

@C_M_

I'm still waiting for you to identify the "non-Christian(s)" you referred to in a post three-plus days ago. Surely you don't plan to level such a potent charge then hide in silence when other posters seek to hold you accountable for it, do you? I know you've been on the forums to create multiple posts since I requested the identification, so you've certainly had the opportunity to respond. I look forward to resolving this matter soon.

C Mc · October 2019

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/14320#Comment_14320

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/14272#Comment_14272

Mr. Bill Coley,

Thanks for your inquiry to a recent post of mine. No, I am not hiding "in silence." I am exercising my rights and privileges that this forum affords me:

1. The choice to respond at the time I deem appropriate.

2. Select priorities here and in other areas of life given an allotment of time.

Notwithstanding, it's always reasonable and helpful for one to think before typing, as it is for one when it comes to speaking. I am sure you would agree to this, irrespective of your passion for a response to your question. Besides, I view your item, for what it is, a question, and not a demand. In answer to your question, please see below. I learned early in life, "good things come to those who wait."

Am I missing something? Is there some unwritten rule in CD that I must address your concerns anytime I sign in on these forums? Let's move forward and be considerate of a poster's rights to share. See new thread: "Who is a 'Christian'"? Thanks. CM

[Deleted User] · October 2019

CM, you were the one who indirectly indicated that there were "non-Christians" in this forum in one of your replies in a discussion in this forum. Bill would simply like to know who those non-Christians are.

It#s very simple ... and no need to open a different thread about the term "Christian" and what it means, etc. Just tell us, who you think the non-Christians (according to what you understand a Christian is) in this forum are

Bill_Coley · October 2019

@C_M_ posted

Am I missing something? Is there some unwritten rule in CD that I must address your concerns anytime I sign in on these forums? Let's move forward and be considerate of a poster's rights to share. See new thread: "Who is a 'Christian'"?

The issue here, CM, is NOT "Who is a Christian?" but rather whom did you refer to when, in response to my post and its questions about AND ONLY ABOUT Titus 2.13, the verse on which you launched this thread back in April - you posted "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" AND ONLY those words. You could have responded to my exegesis of the biblical text. You could have addressed the on-topic substantive request I made of you at my earlier post's close to explain how the verses of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 are consistent with the "Jesus is God" view. But you didn't. Instead, you responded ONLY with an editorial comment about the faith of one or more CD posters, I assume the posters who have contributed to this thread.

YOU made the claim, CM. YOU decided to veer from the topic of this thread - Titus 2.13 - into a commentary about another's faith. You didn't veer into a "Who is a Christian?" discussion. You veered into a "One or more of the posters in this thread aren't Christians" discussion. And since YOU made the claim, I think YOU should take responsibility for your claim and tell us whom you were referring to. If you're not willing to do so, then tell us plainly. Tell us that you're willing to accuse other CD posters not being Christians, but you're not willing to stand behind or stand accountable for your accusation.

Your new thread, Who is a Christian? is an interesting topic. My current sermon series, called "You Might Be a Christian If..." explores the same basic question. But the issue I'm raising here is not about the characteristics of a Christian. My issue is about the Christian(s) you accused of being a "non-Christian." Please address my question directly, completely, and quickly so that we can move on to other matters.

C Mc · October 2019

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/14342#Comment_14342

Bro. Bill,

Thanks for your response. It would be interesting to hear from @YourTruthGod, and @Dave_L on this especiallyL on this especially, on the new thread, "Who is a Christian?" I would even invite @Keep formed, Mitch, and @Pages, Jan to consider making a contribution in expressing some thoughts here and there. Truth is like the growth of corn.'"first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head'" (Mark 4:28, NIV).

Oh, Bill, could it be that you are reading too much into what I said and suggesting too much of what I "could have"; and trying to direct me, on what and how I should proceed in responding to what you, may or may not, have an interest. Bill, you know I am not you. Need I say more? The question remains in the new thread, "Who is a Christian?" Could it be that the answer you seek are in the answers to those questions in the new thread? Given that you have explored current sermon series, "You Might Be a Christian If...". What a great way in moving forward! CM

[Deleted User] · October 2019

CM, you run circles trying to avoid answering a very simple question which arose from that earlier comment you made about it being hard to have an exchange with non-Christians ....

To perhaps simplify the matter: Who are the non-Christians participating in these forums you had in mind and find it hard to have an exchange with?

Bill_Coley · October 2019

@C_M_ posted

Thanks for your response. It would be interesting to hear from @YourTruthGod, and @Dave_L on this especiallyL on this especially, on the new thread, "Who is a Christian?" I would even invite @Keep formed, Mitch, and @Pages, Jan to consider making a contribution in expressing some thoughts here and there. Truth is like the growth of corn.'"first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head'" (Mark 4:28, NIV).

Again, CM, the issue I'm raising in our current exchange is NOT addressed in any way by the subject matter of your "Who is a Christian?" thread. The issue I'm raising, and to which I continue to seek your direct, non-evasive response, is who is or are the people who you asserted in THIS POST are "non-Christian(s)"?

Oh, Bill, could it be that you are reading too much into what I said and suggesting too much of what I "could have"; and trying to direct me, on what and how I should proceed in responding to what you, may or may not, have an interest.

The only thing I'm "reading into" your previous post is your belief that in this thread you were engaged in a discussion of Titus 2.13 with one or more "non-Christian(s)." The only thing I expect from your next post is a direct, non-evasive response to my simple question: Who is or are the people who you asserted in THIS POST are "non-Christian(s)"?

Bill, you know I am not you. Need I say more?

Yes. You need to provide a direct and non-evasive response to my simple question: Who is or are the people who you asserted in THIS POST are "non-Christian(s)"?

The question remains in the new thread, "Who is a Christian?" Could it be that the answer you seek are in the answers to those questions in the new thread?

No, it's not possible that the answer I seek is in the answers to the questions you've posed in your new thread. The reason it's not possible is that the question I'm asking is, very properly, not among the questions you've posed there. Hence, I ask my simple question again, again in search of your direct, non-evasive response: Who is or are the people who you asserted in THIS POST are "non-Christian(s)"?

If by your assertion in that post you didn't mean to accuse anyone of being a "non-Christian," then please say so, and tell us what you DID mean. And also tell us how what you now claim your post actually meant makes sense in its original context:

In response to your "studied take" on Titus 2.13 I offered additional exegesis of the text, analysis that ended with a request that you explain how the verses of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 fit with the "Jesus is God" is God view.
In response to my additional exegesis of Titus 2.13 and the explanation request therein, you replied, "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian. CM"

If your assertion wasn't an accusation that one or more CD posters is a "non-Christian," tell us what your assertion was, and how what you now say it was makes sense IN THAT CONTEXT.

C Mc · October 2019

https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/14272#Comment_14272

Bill,

Why is this so important to you? Are you afraid I am calling you a non-Christian? or, You are really not a Christian? Or, one of the aforementioned is not a Christian or what they professed to be? I hope my statement has not soured you or others in using CD. I am sure none of you are sitting around waiting with bated-breath for a response, in which all have the answer, before my statement.

It's unfortunate, you find my response below, unacceptable:

CM said: Oh, Bill, could it be that you are reading too much into what I said and suggesting too much of what I "could have"; and trying to direct me, on what and how I should proceed in responding to what you, may or may not, have an interest.

Bill's response: "The only thing I'm "reading into" your previous post is your belief that in this thread you were engaged in a discussion of Titus 2.13 with one or more "non-Christian(s)." The only thing I expect from your next post is a direct, non-evasive response to my simple question: Who is or are the people who you asserted in THIS POST are "non-Christian(s)"?

Would my opinion, of what you know, you are, can make a difference in your life? If so, Wow and Why! If not, Let's move on and take hope who you know yourself to be.

Let's not major in minors, but major in the main thing -- Jesus is Lord. Let's continue to mine the Scriptures that God has provided through "Holy men" who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. I repeat:

"I should proceed in responding to what you, may or may not, have an interest...The question remains in the new thread, "Who is a Christian?" Could it be that the answer you seek are in the answers to those questions in the new thread? Given that you have explored current sermon series, "You Might Be a Christian If...". What a great way in moving forward! CM"

See you around the forums. CM

Bill_Coley · October 2019

@C_M_

Why is this so important to you?

It's important to me because in my view, in a previous post you called one or more fellow CD posters a non-Christian. I think that was both a profoundly serious accusation in Christian forums such as these AND a significant violation of the forums' "criticize ideas, not people" expectation that is found HERE.

It's also important to me because of the high value I give to the principles of accountability and personal responsibility. You made a serious charge when you called one or more of us non-Christians, one for which I believe you should stand accountable and accept responsibility. In my view, you have yet to do either.

Are you afraid I am calling you a non-Christian? or, You are really not a Christian? Or, one of the aforementioned is not a Christian or what they professed to be?

I am not "afraid" that you are calling me a non-Christian. I am alarmed and disappointed that you called ANY POSTER IN THESE FORUMS a non-Christian, especially as your only response to other posters' exegesis of the biblical text about which YOU created this thread.

FYI, I profess to be a Christian.

I hope my statement has not soured you or others in using CD. I am sure none of you are sitting around waiting with bated-breath for a response, in which all have the answer, before my statement.

It's unfortunate, you find my response below, unacceptable:

As you know from your review of recent posts, I continue to be an active poster in the CD forums. The ONLY thing I have "soured" on (and as a result, sworn off of) is engaging you in conventional forum engagements... until in this thread you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous response to the question I have posed to you now on several occasions: When in response to my post and its questions about Titus 2.13 - the verse on which you launched this thread back in April - you posted "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian," to whom were you referring?

I decided your "response" was unacceptable because in my view, it was neither a direct, non-evasive, nor unambiguous answer to my question.

Would my opinion, of what you know, you are, can make a difference in your life? If so, Wow and Why! If not, Let's move on and take hope who you know yourself to be.

With due respect, CM, your view of me and my faith makes no difference in my life. What DID make a difference in my life, however, was the alarm and disappointment I felt when I read your post that in my view called one or more CD posters a non-Christian.

If by moving on you mean my resuming conventional forum exchanges with you, I assure you that will happen as soon as you provide in this thread a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous response to the question I have asked you several times: When in response to my post and its questions about Titus 2.13 - the verse on which you launched this thread back in April - you posted "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian," to whom were you referring?

C Mc · October 2019

Mr. Bill,

Thanks for your response. I am afraid you creating more problems than what was said.

All the more, if I didn't state a name or names, then, you are reading into what I said.
I'm sorry you "think" what I said is "a profoundly serious accusation in Christian forums". When is it that your perception and projection on me becomes a reality in these forums?
Where is it written and when did I agreed, to your projection on me, is "a significant violation of the forums' "criticize ideas, not people"? Is this latter phase personal creation imposed on me and others in CD?
Besides, are you the sole arbiter to declare such? Is a thing so, because you say so?
In my opinion, your public accusation and action, toward me, in these forums, are unfounded and unnecessary.
Have you been deputized as the forums' enforcer? If so when and by whose authority? I missed the memo.
Bill, you said:

It's also important to me because of the high value I give to the principles of accountability and personal responsibility. You made a serious charge when you called one or more of us non-Christians, one for which I believe you should stand accountable and accept responsibility. In my view, you have yet to do either.

Truly, are you doing to me what you claimed I have done? Just because you have a "high value" for "the principles of accountability and personal responsibility", I am not willing to be your manufactured test case.

I am not requiring or demanding proof of your Christianity. Written posts speak for themselves. Beyond these, I don't know you. Are you ashamed of your posts? Do they reflect your inner heart? Do you want to revise some of positions on certain matters? Given that you don't care what I or anyone says about your Christianity, there is no further discussion needed. Besides, there are more important matters to cover in these forums. This, I am committed to doing. You are free to join me or continue to wallow in the mire of last week's unproductive conversations.

8. As for your "post and its questions about Titus 2.13", you need to be a little more considerate of others in your requests. The spirit of appearing to demand an answer or a response is one these forums should suspend with, as soon as possible. You seem to be the chief proponent of this tactic. It would be so much pleasant to allow a person the freedom to exercise their rights of time, to think, to reflect, study or not respond at all. We're all adults. Let's respect one another's rights and the freedoms these forums afford them. I respect your tenacity and assertiveness, but any sign of forcing or bullying someone, to respond, takes away from what Chairman Jan has in mind for these forums.

9. @Bill_Coley said: "I decided your "response" was unacceptable". Huh? In the real world, outside an American Court of Law your have to accept the response a person gives you. Since you seem to have a perceived expectation of your own devising, your posting on this matter is an exercise in futility. I expected you to use time (for all parties involved) better. Please suspend with the nebulous and let's move on. This, I am determined to do, with or without you.

10. @Bill_Coley said:

"...alarm and disappointment I felt when I read your post that in my view called one or more CD posters a non-Christian".

Your disappointment is unwarranted. You have no such post, even if you honestly believe so. I am sorry you have allowed yourself to be disturbed to the point of making an unnecessary public claim. You further stated...

"If by moving on you mean my resuming conventional forum exchanges with you, I assure you that will happen as soon as you provide in this thread a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous response to the question I have asked you several times":

It's nice to know that you think much of yourself. However, it doesn't justify sending "dog whistle" signals to boycott CD. Even if this is not your intention, you open the door and encourage such. Discouraging others from participation further in the forums until your demands are met, are shameful and unkind. This I find disappointing and below the man I perceive you to be. I will refrain from calling your behavior childish and infantile. I would say your reading into (attributing names) to my statement. I still believe you are better than this. What you think I said; it doesn't matter what I say to you matters (if I were to say such); and given that you can't, shouldn't and wouldn't try to speak for others , are all a distraction. Notwithstanding, this whole exchange is the lost of precious time and the waste of e-ink. May you find peace and comfort in moving forward. This is not "a hill to die on" or a cause to discourage others from sharing and readers from gleaning eternal truths. Embrace a new day. CM

Bill_Coley · October 2019

@C_M_

All the more, if I didn't state a name or names, then, you are reading into what I said.

Then simply tell me - directly and unambiguously - what you meant when, in response to my exegesis of Titus 2.13, you said "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian."

I'm sorry you "think" what I said is "a profoundly serious accusation in Christian forums". When is it that your perception and projection on me becomes a reality in these forums?

I never claim that my "perception and projection" - whatever those are - are a "reality in these forums" writ large. They are ONLY a reality for me; they guide and direct my and only my posts. In this particular circumstance, I have made clear that I will not engage you in conventional forum threads until you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question I've now posed to you a half dozen times without receiving such a reply. How and about what you or anyone else in the forums chooses to post is completely unaffected by and unrelated to my decision in this matter.

Where is it written and when did I agreed, to your projection on me, is "a significant violation of the forums' "criticize ideas, not people"? Is this latter phase personal creation imposed on me and others in CD?

It's of course not written anywhere, and neither you nor any other CD poster is under any obligation to agree with my conclusion about your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" statement.

Besides, are you the sole arbiter to declare such? Is a thing so, because you say so?

Of course I'm not the arbiter of such matters for anyone other than myself. A thing is so if I say so only for myself. Neither you nor any other CD poster has any responsibility to agree with my theology, politics, or assessments of particular posts.

In my opinion, your public accusation and action, toward me, in these forums, are unfounded and unnecessary.

You might have by now convinced me that my judgment about your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" statement was incorrect were you to have used ANY part of ANY response in this thread to explain - directly and unambiguously - what you meant by those words. You have chosen not to do so.

Whether a post is "unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder, so your conclusion about my judgment is of course yours to draw, as mine is for me to draw.

Have you been deputized as the forums' enforcer? If so when and by whose authority? I missed the memo.

You didn't miss the "memo" because there wasn't one. I am "deputized" to make decisions about my and only my posts. Your refusal to address my question since I first posed it to you nearly four weeks ago reflects your and every other CD poster's freedom to disregard my observations, conclusions, requests, and/or demands.

Truly, are you doing to me what you claimed I have done? Just because you have a "high value" for "the principles of accountability and personal responsibility", I am not willing to be your manufactured test case.

I think it's obvious that I am NOT doing to you what I claim you did through your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" statement," but you are free to conclude otherwise. Just as you are free not to be what you call my "manufactured test case."

I am not requiring or demanding proof of your Christianity. Written posts speak for themselves. Beyond these, I don't know you. Are you ashamed of your posts? Do they reflect your inner heart? Do you want to revise some of positions on certain matters? Given that you don't care what I or anyone says about your Christianity, there is no further discussion needed. Besides, there are more important matters to cover in these forums. This, I am committed to doing. You are free to join me or continue to wallow in the mire of last week's unproductive conversations.

The issue I raised had nothing to do with whether you asked for proof of my Christianity. The issue had to do with whether you judged me and/or others not to be Christians.

I am not ashamed of my posts, which in fact reflect my "inner heart."

Words matter to me, so the care with which I write means there is rarely an occasion when I feel the need to revise my posts. Such is certainly the case in this instance.

As for "wallow(ing) in the mire of last week's conversations, I remind you that it was YOU who returned us to this subject and resurrected our exchange on the matter of your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" statement. Before YOU engaged me via THIS POST on Wednesday, I hadn't mentioned the subject AT ALL since October 2, three weeks ago. I was quite at peace, engaging in other threads with other posters, not making even the slightest mention of our dispute. It was YOU, not I, who returned us to "the mire of last week's conversations."

As for your "post and its questions about Titus 2.13", you need to be a little more considerate of others in your requests. The spirit of appearing to demand an answer or a response is one these forums should suspend with, as soon as possible. You seem to be the chief proponent of this tactic. It would be so much pleasant to allow a person the freedom to exercise their rights of time, to think, to reflect, study or not respond at all. We're all adults. Let's respect one another's rights and the freedoms these forums afford them. I respect your tenacity and assertiveness, but any sign of forcing or bullying someone, to respond, takes away from what Chairman Jan has in mind for these forums.

This is quite simple: If you don't want to respond to my posts, don't respond. If you don't want to address my questions/observations/demands, don't address them. In this case, as I made clear, there is a consequence for not responding to my question about your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian:" I will not engage you in conventional threads. But before YOUR post yesterday that returned us to our dispute, we had functioned quite well despite that consequence, I thought. You posted your posts. I posted mine. I see no reason why we can't return to that mode now.

@Bill_Coley said: "I decided your "response" was unacceptable". Huh? In the real world, outside an American Court of Law your have to accept the response a person gives you. Since you seem to have a perceived expectation of your own devising, your posting on this matter is an exercise in futility. I expected you to use time (for all parties involved) better. Please suspend with the nebulous and let's move on. This, I am determined to do, with or without you.

In large part because I discovered the futility of my pursuit of your direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous response to my question about your "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" statement, I stopped posting about this matter on October 2, three weeks ago. I have posted about it in the last 24 hours ONLY because YOU returned us to our dispute with YOUR post.

C Mc · October 2019

Thank you for your response. CD releases you from your self-imposed restrictions, whenever you choose to do so. You're free to respond to anyone, any post, anytime, or at any length. We will see you around the forums. CM

[Deleted User] · October 2019

Thank you for your response. CD releases you from your self-imposed restrictions, whenever you choose to do so. You're free to respond to anyone, any post, anytime, or at any length. We will see you around the forums. CM

C_M stop beating around the bush with your twists and turns by which you try and evade answering the simple question you were asked. In your comment in a discussion here on CD forums, you stated it was "difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian". In response, you were asked to clarify Who was or were the non-Christians with whom if was difficult "having this discussion" .... That particular discussion was between you and Bill Coley ... why do you not want to answer that you consider him to be that non-Christian????

C Mc · October 2019

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/14650#Comment_14650

Wolfgang,

As far as I am concern, Bill, has given the final word on a matter that was unnecessary to begin with. Are you trying to resurrect it? Have you been appointed as Bill's surrogate? Or have you taken it upon yourself, as a volunteer, to attach yourself to the remnant of a by-gone matter? It is finished! CM

Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0