The Power of Suggestion

Theo1689

Theo1689

Well-known member
Last night I was watching YTers reacting to a comedy routine by Peter Kay called "Misheard Lyrics". He would talk about singers singing ridiculous lyrics, and then play the audio to show he was right.

"Wash ya back" ("Want ya back", from "Back for Good", by Take That)
"Just let me staple the Vicar" ("Just let me state for the record", "We are Family", by Sister Sledge)
"Begging me for bird seed" ("begging me for mercy", "Mercy", by Duffy)
"Pork Pie" ("but bye", "Drive", by The Cars)
"Your burgers are the best" ("Your burdens I will bear", "You Are Not Alone", Michael Jackson)
"I believe that the hot dogs go on" ("the heart does go on", "My Heart Will Go On", Celine Dion)

And it's funny because once the suggestion is planted in your brain, that's what you EXPECT to hear, and so that's what you DO hear. The mind is a very powerful thing, and it can be controlled.


So why am I bringing this up on CARM?
Because the power of suggestion is strong, and it's alive and well on CARM. It's one of the things cults use.


You will hear something like this:

1) "Do you want to see a Bible verse that teaches that not everyone Jesus died for will be saved, thereby denying limited atonement? Just read 2 Pet. 2:1, '... false teachers among you, ... even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.' "

But guess what?
There is NO mention of "Jesus" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "cross" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "atonement" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "kurios" (the word standardly used for Jesus as "Lord") in that passage.
There is NOTHING in the passage that would make people reading 2 Pet. starting from 1:1 that this is referring to the atonement?

So where did that concept come from?
This is standard exegesis.
The idea that it was about Jesus and the atonement was PLANTED in your mind, and so that's what you expected to find, and that's what you probably WANTED to find.


This is NOT a godly way to treat Scripture.
 
Theo1689 said:
...
You will hear something like this:

1) "Do you want to see a Bible verse that teaches that not everyone Jesus died for will be saved, thereby denying limited atonement? Just read 2 Pet. 2:1, '... false teachers among you, ... even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.' "

But guess what?
There is NO mention of "Jesus" in that passage.
Click to expand...
Which Lord bought them; I doubt Jesus or the Father bought different false teachers.
2Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
 
Johnnybgood said:
I do not have BDAG but I read in a thread here earlier that quoted it that it referenced it was Christ in 2 Peter 1:1. Are you disagreeing with that source . If so can you explain why .

Thank you .
Click to expand...

Sure!

1) I reject the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

2) Peter is recorded in Scripture as ONLY referring to Jesus as "kurios", and NEVER as "despotes".

3) Jesus is only refered to as "despotes" once in Scripture, in Jude (IIRC).

4) All the other times "despotes" is used to refer to a member of the Godhead, it refers to the Father, not Jesus.

5) There is nothing in the context of the epistle that explicitly refers to the atonement ("Jesus", "Christ", "kurios", "cross", "atonement", "blood", etc. etc.)

6) I reject the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". I don't believe I need to prove that it's "not" referring to Jesus, the other side needs to prove why it IS referring to Jesus (and offer an argument more compelling than, "because some scholar is telling me what to believe.", or "because some scholar agrees with my opinion".)
 
Johnnybgood said:
I just searched and found the reference
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm responding to that post as we speak.

Notice that the content is bankrupt, containing nothing but:
1) fallacious appeals to authority;
2) mocking and personal attacks of anyone who "dares" disagree with the poster
(eg. "thorn in the flesh",
"naysayers",
"problematic for calvinists",
"jump through hoops",
"making circular arguments",
"refuse to follow the 'golden rule' of interpretation",
"obvious facts").

Greek scholars have acknowledged that there is much discussion on both sides, but this poster wants to claim that it is "obvious", and that anyone who disagrees with his opinion is apparently a moron.
 
The concept of God purchasing or buying men is only in Scripture used of ideas of atonement:

And they are singing a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book and to open its seals, because you were slaughtered and bought us in your blood for God out of every tribe and language and people and nation. (Rev 5:9 MLV)

That's the exact same Greek word as used in 2 Peter 2:1.

No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them--
the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- (Psa 49:7-8 NIV)

There are many examples of atonement linked to a financial transaction. I would like to see one Bible verse anywhere talking about God purchasing people not related to redemption.

The use of "despotes" would be explained by their state of being under judgment.
 
Dizerner said:
The concept of God purchasing or buying men is only in Scripture used of ideas of atonement:
Click to expand...

Ex. 15:16 Terror and dread fall upon them;
because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone,
till your people, O LORD, pass by,
till the people pass by whom you have purchased.

Deut. 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?


Dizerner said:
And they are singing a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book and to open its seals, because you were slaughtered and bought us in your blood for God out of every tribe and language and people and nation. (Rev 5:9 MLV)

That's the exact same Greek word as used in 2 Peter 2:1.
Click to expand...

Yes, both verses use the Greek word for "bought".
What is that supposed to prove?
Are you now arguing that EVERY use of the term, "bought" in the NT refers to the atonement?

Matt. 27:7 So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers.

Mark 11:15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.


Do you not "discern" the difference between Rev. 5:9 (which mentions "blood"), and 2 Pet. 2:1 (which mentions NOTHING referring to the atonement)?

Dizerner said:
There are many examples of atonement linked to a financial transaction.
Click to expand...

That is correct.
But 2 Pet. 2:1 simply isn't one of them.

Dizerner said:
The use of "despotes" would be explained by their state of being under judgment.
Click to expand...

That's not "exegesis", that's rationalization.
 
Theo1689 said:
So why am I bringing this up on CARM?
Because the power of suggestion is strong, and it's alive and well on CARM. It's one of the things cults use.


You will hear something like this:

1) "Do you want to see a Bible verse that teaches that not everyone Jesus died for will be saved, thereby denying limited atonement? Just read 2 Pet. 2:1, '... false teachers among you, ... even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.' "

But guess what?
There is NO mention of "Jesus" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "cross" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "atonement" in that passage.
There is NO mention of "kurios" (the word standardly used for Jesus as "Lord") in that passage.
There is NOTHING in the passage that would make people reading 2 Pet. starting from 1:1 that this is referring to the atonement?

So where did that concept come from?
This is standard exegesis.
The idea that it was about Jesus and the atonement was PLANTED in your mind, and so that's what you expected to find, and that's what you probably WANTED to find.


This is NOT a godly way to treat Scripture.
Click to expand...
Well lets see

2 Peter 2:1 (KJV)
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord (despotes)that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

The setting is the church and among Christians

That would limit the Lord (master) to Jesus Christ or God the father

Fortunately, we have a parallel text with more information

Jude 1:4 (KJV)
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

which informs us the master our only master is Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ bought the false prophets

There is but one way in which Christ is stated to have bought or purchased men in the New Testament and that is with his blood

Notice : “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28)

and that speaks of atonement

which we know transpired on the cross

and the parallel passage in Jude uses the typical term Kurios along with despotes to speak of Christ

so if one interested in examining the evidence and allowing the bible to interpret the passage for us it becomes evident

the passage is speaking of Christ having bought the false prophets and confirming what we read elsewhere

1 John 2:2 (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Hebrews 2:9 (KJV 1900)
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 6:51 (KJV 1900)
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

On the other hand, if you have a doctrine to protect and you are not willing to allow the bible to interpret itself

you can simply respond as in the op

and close your ears and eyes to the evidence

that however is not a sound way of interpreting the bible
 
Last edited:
Our Lord's God said:
Apparently you have not learned that when a verse or passage does not suit your creedal needs, then you are to completely lose all your basic reading skills and see things which are not there or fail to see that which is there. Don't you know this?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
Click to expand...
Within the whole context who else, besides God, is mentioned as having bought the false teachers who denied him?
 
Johnnybgood said:
That looks like a good argument especially if we leave all outside influences and lexicons and laying them aside and just use the Bible to interpret the passages. I know the hardest thing for anyone to do is read the Bible putting aside our beliefs or preconceived ideas about the Bible . I think what is missing from reading the Bible is looking at it with fresh eyes and allowing God to teach us what it is saying without our prejudice or bias influencing what we read .

Arminians see the Bible through their beliefs and Calvinists through their beliefs . And maybe like @ReverendRV likes to say maybe there is something compatible with each system that could be blended together . On the other hand maybe not but I see both sides in certain areas making valid points. I know we are all suppose to read the Bible when we study it objectively and it’s not the easiest thing to do if we have a certain set of beliefs .

disclaimer I’m not saying you are right or wrong @fltom but I do see you making a valid argument. I’m just here to observe different views, learn and to try and be a better student of the Bible .

Thank you
Click to expand...
That is being a Berean

and you are correct we should allow the bible to interpret itself whenever possible
 
Johnnybgood said:
That looks like a good argument especially if we leave all outside influences and lexicons and laying them aside and just use the Bible to interpret the passages.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a balance to be found here. Many people misuse the lexicons. They were NEVER intended to be used by those who don't know the Biblical languages. It is IMPOSSIBLE to properly interpret a foreign text simply by looking up each word and doing some global "search and replace". Meaning comes from SYNTAX, and how words relate to each other in context.

So lexicons are not bad per se, they exist for a reason, and they are very helpful. The problem only exists when they are MIS-used, and that happens when people who don't understand Greek try to use them to make Biblical arguments. I'm reminded of a video of two 17-year-olds trying to use a rotary-dial phone. They had no clue how to use it.

Then you say we should "just use the Bible to interpret the passages". Well, that sounds all well and good, but how do you do that? The Bible wasn't written in English, it was written in Hebrew and Greek. And words don't mean the same thing in different languages. If someone is going to study Russian literature, they don't study the English translations of Russian works, they learn the Russian language and read the works in their original wording. Just reading translations isn't going to give a complete and full understanding. That's why it's highly recommended for pastors and elders to be able to read the Biblical languages.

One of the biggest problems I've seen is that people who don't read Greek, read the Bible, and when then come to a word like "world", or "foreknew", they assume the English connotation, rather than trying to understand the Greek connotation. And this is to be expected, since we are reading an English translation, but at the same time we have to remember that it wasn't originally written in English, and we have to keep in mind that the semantic range of the Greek term may be different (while overlapping) the semantic range of the English term. And this is where learning the Greek comes in, or reading the commentaries of Greek scholars.

For instance, concerning the word "know" (which is the root of "foreknow"), I've already posted a word study which demonstrates that both in the Hebrew and Greek, the word "know" was used to mean "relationship", rather than merely "possession of information". But that connotation is missing from the English.

Johnnybgood said:
I know the hardest thing for anyone to do is read the Bible putting aside our beliefs or preconceived ideas about the Bible . I think what is missing from reading the Bible is looking at it with fresh eyes and allowing God to teach us what it is saying without our prejudice or bias influencing what we read .

Arminians see the Bible through their beliefs and Calvinists through their beliefs .
Click to expand...

Well, that's a generalized statement that doesn't apply to all people, but I do agree that it is a problem that many have. I guess I need to remind you that in the beginning, I was a Calvinism-hating Arminian. But it was the the Bible that convinced me that Calvinism was true, and I was compelled to accept it, because my allegiance is to God and His truth, and not to any "theology". Further, I take other views seriously, and I test them to see if there's any truth in them. I play "devil's advocate" to test my own beliefs.

Johnnybgood said:
I know we are all suppose to read the Bible when we study it objectively and it’s not the easiest thing to do if we have a certain set of beliefs .
Click to expand...

Another thing I learned to do early on in apologetics was to read the ENTIRE passage a proof-text is contained in. Far too often people use verses like "holy fortune cookies", isolated from their context, and as I showed in the "Power of Suggestion" thread, it leaves them open to project their own preferred context (ie. eisegesis) onto the verse. 2 Pet. 2:1 is a perfect example of this.

Johnnybgood said:
That looks like a good argument especially if we leave all outside influences and lexicons and laying them aside and just use the Bible to interpret the passages.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I cringed when I read that, since he didn't make any good argument at all.

1) He didn't demonstrate that 2 Pet. 2 was about the atonement by the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of 2 Pet. 2, he ran off to unrelated passages.

2) He wanted "Master" to refer to Jesus, so he SELF-SERVINGLY ran to Jude 4, which does refer to Jesus as "Master", and argues that it "must" refer to Jesus in 2 Pet. 2:1. But there's no reason to link Jude 4 to 2 Pet. 2:1, let alone claim it a "parallel" verse, unless you have already ASSUMED that 2 Pet. 2:1 is about the atonement (which is the fallacy of begging the question).

3) He wanted 2 Pet. 2:1 to refer to the atonement, so he SELF-SERVINGLY ran to Acts 20:28, which does refer to the atonement, and argues that therefore 2 Pet. 2:1 must refer to the atonement. But there's on reason to link Acts 20:28 to 2 Pet. 2:1, unless you have already ASSUMED that 2 Pet. 2:1 is about the atonement (which is the fallacy of begging the question).


Where is the "good argument"?
I think Tom's post is a perfect example of your observation, "I know the hardest thing for anyone to do is read the Bible putting aside our beliefs or preconceived ideas about the Bible .... Arminians see the Bible through their beliefs". Because that's precisely what Tom did.
 
fltom said:
Does not appear to be a related case

There is abundant Old Testament precedence for the translation sin offering as well as New Testament evidence
Click to expand...

How come the Greek translation (LXX) didn't add the word Greek word for offering after sin if they truly felt that was self evident?
 
Johnnybgood said:
And what about Jesus He was an offering for our sins as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world right ?

Im reading through Hebrews on all the OT sin offerings and they were types of Jesus right ?

What am I missing here ?

It seems sometimes we are just talking past each other and that can get frustrating. It’s like everyone has their own point to prove and sometimes we are more alike here than people want to admit at times.

thank you .
Click to expand...
Offering Sacrifices was part of the Levitical Ordinances. The Mosaic Covenant is said to consist of 613 Ordinances, which includes the Ten Commandments. If a Law had been given that could impart Life, then Righteousness would certainly have come by the Law. The Day of Atonement, and other ceremonies such as the Passover Seder fall under this Principle. These Passages testify of Jesus, and the Law is meant to prove we're Sinners. The Old Covenant Sacrifices are just another Law to keep, and If you Keep one; you are required to Keep them All. Grace is no longer Grace. There is no Grace in Law; even the Law of Sacrifice...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top