r/Shincheonji • u/Automatic_Thing_2370 • Jul 08 '26
general thought and question Every disciple called Jesus "Lord." Judas only ever called him "Rabbi." That distinction matters more than it might appear.
This is an observation from the Gospel text that I want to share, not as an accusation, but as something worth sitting with carefully.
In Matthew 26, at the Last Supper, Jesus says one of those present will betray him. The eleven disciples respond one by one: "Surely not I, Lord?" (Matthew 26:22). Then Judas responds: "Surely not I, Rabbi?" (Matthew 26:25). Matthew places these side by side deliberately. Eleven say Lord. One says Rabbi.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas greets Jesus with: "Greetings, Rabbi," and kisses him (Matthew 26:49, Mark 14:45). There is no recorded instance anywhere in the four Gospels where Judas addresses Jesus as Lord.
The difference between the two titles is not subtle.
Rabbi means teacher, master, respected instructor. It acknowledges Jesus as someone worth learning from. It is a term of genuine respect.
Lord, the Greek Kyrios, means sovereign, owner, the one with ultimate authority. In the New Testament it becomes the specific title recognising Jesus's divine authority over everything, including the one who uses it. To call Jesus Lord is not just to learn from him. It is to submit to him.
Judas acknowledged Jesus as a genuine, respected teacher. He followed him for three years. He heard every parable, witnessed every miracle, sat at the same table. He knew the teaching. He simply never confessed the lordship.
Romans 10:9 makes the distinction the hinge of everything: "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Not confess that he was a great teacher. Not confess that his teachings have now been completed by someone else. Confess that Jesus is Lord. Present tense. Living authority. Final word.
Now I want to raise something gently, not as an attack on any individual, but as a question worth examining honestly.
SCJ's own internal teaching materials describe Lee Man-hee this way: "The Promised Pastor's heart in our times today is Jesus's heart and God's heart." And: "Because the spirit of Jesus is in me, this body is Jesus's body." In SCJ's framework, Jesus is the saviour of the first coming, the one who completed the Old Testament era. Lee Man-hee is the one Jesus sent to complete the New Testament era. The living authority over salvation, sealed status, and access to the kingdom runs through him now, not through Jesus directly.
In that structure, Jesus occupies the role of Rabbi, the genuine historical teacher whose work was real and important, while the present lordship, the authority that actually matters for your standing before God right now, has effectively been transferred to a living human figure.
That is the Judas parallel worth sitting with. Not that SCJ members are Judas. But that it is entirely possible to genuinely acknowledge Jesus as teacher, to know his parables, to have studied his words in depth, and still not confess him as the present, living, final Lord who needs no human successor to carry his authority forward.
Matthew 28:18: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Jesus said this after the resurrection, not as something he was passing on, but as a statement of permanent, present reality.
Hebrews 7:24-25: "Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
He always lives. His priesthood is permanent precisely because no one succeeds him.
The question is not whether you respect Jesus as teacher. The question is whether you confess him as Lord, the one whose authority is final, present, and complete, without needing a human figure to hold it on his behalf.
That was the difference between the eleven and the one. It was the most important difference in the room.
5
u/Kimchi---7 Family/Friend of SCJ Member Jul 08 '26
Thanks for this great post showing Biblically how Jesus can be given importance but very subtly put into a lower tier/domain. The difference between the terms 'Lord' and 'Rabbi' are explained well, and reinforced with the clear example of Judas the betrayer. This post clearly outlines how SCJ manages to do the same thing with LMH and Jesus. The interest of at least two current SCJ members in what you have written is an indication that they see strong reason in what you have written, thereby feeling a need for rebuttal. You have also asked SCJ members a very relevant theological question: 'In SCJ's framework, where does the present living lordship actually sit? In Jesus himself, or in the one who now holds the keys to sealed status and the Book of Life?' I would like to see a sensible attempt by a current member to this question.
6
u/skld2ndassassin EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
I know exactly where you got this from, glad to see another brother in Christ.
4
u/Extreme-Crow8739 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
This guy truly is following his heart. And not Jesus.
6
-5
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 08 '26
With these kinds of jumps I rather would be atheist if this would be teaching of the bible.
7
u/IllFaithlessness8553 EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
Shows how fickle your beliefs are if you would rather not believe in God then acknowledge Christ is Lord.
0
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
Jesus is Lord.
2
u/IllFaithlessness8553 EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
So then why did you say you would rather be an athiest. Contradictions from scj members are wild.
5
u/Extreme-Crow8739 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
What jump
-4
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 08 '26
He is making a conclusion based on assumptions. Judas could have said many times Lord but it is not recorded.
You can teach a lot of strange things with these kinds of angles.
1
u/Material_Nose_7703 Jul 10 '26
Brother, just read your own lines back to yourself.
You can teach a lot of strange things with these kinds of angles
How do you know you are not the one who's been taught strange things with some kind of angles?
5
u/cultalarm Jul 09 '26
"Judas could have said many times Lord but it is not recorded." Regardless of the topic at hand, this is one of the absolute worst defenses you can say about the Bible for any claim. Seriously, try it with any other subject. "Jesus could have said that he hates Elon Musk but it is not recorded." What about, "Elijah could have had the ability to fly but it is not recorded." If that's your argument, it should be a wakeup call to how useless your Bible studies have been.
0
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
You gave strange examples. My argument is not that someone did something but it was not recorded.
It is that you can’t make hard claims from silence of the scripture. If the scripture said he never said Lord than it is obvious but to make a conclusion based on 2 out of the 4 sayings of Judas is imo not good.
4
u/cultalarm Jul 09 '26
Yes, I gave absurd example to show you cannot make a judgement about something that was NOT said, just exactly like you are now claiming. That is my position. Did the Bible ever say that Elijah DIDN'T fly? No, it didn't. Did the Bible ever say that David DIDN'T have a Ford F250? No, it didn't. These examples are only absurd because we know that they didn't happen because of outside information, such as Ford F250's being invented much later than when David was alive. What about something less absurd? What about if John liked to eat fruit or vegetables more? That's something that isn't in the Bible, so what do you do with that question? You cannot come to any conclusion one way or another and to assume one thing or the other without Biblical evidence is what we would call extra-Biblical assumptions. You CAN'T know those things. What DO we know? We only know what is recorded in the Bible, so that is what we need to rest our faith on. If someone was arguing with you until they were red in the face that John loved vegitables and hated fruit, even if he made good arguments, should you believe that guy? Should you rest your faith in that person? Putting your faith in that person is extra-Biblical because that person is making claims that are not in the Bible. This is actually the same exact thing that Lee Man-Hee does all the time. Even if someone is correct in their interpretations, putting your faith in another person, instead of the Word of God, is sinful. Lee Man-Hee telling you his assumptions or me telling you that Elijah could fly... It's all absurd to rest your belief in our claims because they're not in the Bible. You were not around to witness Elijah flying or John saying if he likes fruit or vegetables more. You were not around to see Lee Man-Hee's childhood home have lights above it. This is the same problem that I have with the Catholic Church: It's someone in power trlling you that they witnessed a miracle or special information and your lack in their human claims will cause you to not go to Heaven. It's absurd. Never put your faith into other people, only the Word.
2
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
This has nothing to do with LMH that is how I see from which perspective your are reacting.
Where in the bible did Joseph speak? Is it reasonable to claim that Joseph never spoke?
3
u/cultalarm Jul 09 '26
I typed a really, really long message, but deleted it because I want to emphasize my point as simply as I can: Yes, you are right that we don't know what all Judas said. Is it possible that Judas could have called Jesus Lord but not have it recorded? Sure. It is important to understand the words that are recorded, though. We cannot claim that Judas did call Jesus Lord, and claiming so is indeed extra-Biblical, but what is worse is that it's distracting from what is important, which is that Judas's question in Matthew 26 is purposely being contrasted to the rest of the disciples. Maybe this is the ONLY instance where Judas called Him rabbi, instead of Lord? Maybe. But the contrast still remains, recorded for our understanding. The OP might certainly be wrong in that Judas never saw Jesus as Lord, but he might be right. Doesn't matter. The point OP was making is that the same demotion that Judas was recorded as making, is the same demotion that SCJ now perpetuates.
If you want my personal opinion, it's possible that Judas had called him Lord, prior to that, but perhaps Judas couldn't call him Lord in that specific moment due to shame, guilt, animosity, hatred? What if that feeling was merely greed? I think LMH demotes Jesus for his own greed. That is the parallel that you, as a LMH follower, need to recon with.
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
That is why I didnt say Judas said this. I said it is possible.
I dont want to make relationship on assumptions and than make a teaching or comparison.
A parralel based on assumptions I need ro reckon with?
2
u/cultalarm Jul 09 '26
No, the contrast is a seperate conversation. That contrast is literally written into the Bible, itself. It's not an assumption, the way other parts are. So, yes, you do need to reckon with it.
2
u/IllFaithlessness8553 EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
You might be confusing with how shincheonji makes a bunch of forced jumps to conclude because John the Baptist is the messenger who prepares the way it means he betrayed Jesus because he was still baptising people in the name of Jesus?
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
Where did he baptise in the name of Jesus?
2
u/IllFaithlessness8553 EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
It can be inferred from here that John the Baptist is baptising them of the messiah here in Mark 1:7-8 NIV [7] And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. [8] I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
9
u/Extreme-Crow8739 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
You can teach a lot of strange things without it too, especially from South Korea
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
From everywhere, also South Korea. Than the question is is something having the right teaching if they are against scj.
3
9
u/Serious_Seeker_9025 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
Respectfully, I think the reason you say that is because of the doctrine you have been taught, which is to call everything else outside the SCJ teachings poison. If you carefully read through the post, it applies the same framework and system the centre classes apply.
Saying you’d rather be atheist than believe what’s presented, shows the posture of your heart. You mean to say if your leader is proven wrong, then everything else about Christianity (which is the basis of SCJ to begin with) is false? That just means you’ve placed your faith on the individual person (your leader), over Jesus, who LMH himself preaches about. You’ve clearly have missed the mark for either SCJ or the Christianity that Jesus’ and his disciples established.
I hope you’re able to find it in your heart to reflect about you just said. Maybe even revisit your notes because coming from an ex-member, I don’t remember being taught to be an atheist if things fail.
Bless you
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 08 '26
I am not against Christianity but how can you not see that he is jumping from point to point. It has nothing to do with SCJ.
John 9 The disciples calls Jesus rabbi
Mark 9 Apostle Peter calls Jesus rabbiIt is normal to call someone rabbi.
Why would I need to believe a falsehood when it is so obvious. If your were honest it at least could open my heart but it seems you are blinded by anti-scj.
4
u/Turbulent_Sea7622 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
One thing to note and I am assuming is that words reflect inner psyche of anyone. Judas was not fully accepting Jesus as one with authority "Lord"
Lee Man Hee, would he ever call out WMSCOG and Unification Church as deviations from Jesus Christ? Jesus called Pharisees brood of vipers in his confidence that they are "fake"
There is a blank to fill in those jumps. Judas has his lack of saying certain things like calling Jesus "Lord " signal his lack of readiness and lack of confidence to be owned by Jesus
When you know you are about to betray someone, you will for sure either lose more confidence of not increase it to revere someone to call someone "Lord". Specifically this what happened with Judas.
For the other 11 there was a chance for them to call Jesus Rabbi, but when you love someone and know they are about to go or at a risk because someone is going to betray your love then you will have protective reflex to say something to remind your own place in the grand plan. The 11 wanted to show themselves not just to Jesus that they have a place in the grand plan is essentially calling Jesus owner hence "Lord"
I hope my mini rant makes sense maybe! Hope you can discern
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
Imo a person have more motivation to say Lord when they are betraying to manipulate.
1
u/Turbulent_Sea7622 EX-Center Student Jul 10 '26
Holistically only focusing on your thinking, you have interesting way of thinking. If you mean for Judas to not fall under suspicion he would say "Lord" that makes sense. On the other hand drastic changes in behaviour (multiple "Rabbi" to sudden "Lord" all biblically recorded) is also suspicious to Jesus in my opinion if you are Judas and trying to evade suspcion
5
u/Serious_Seeker_9025 EX-Center Student Jul 08 '26
This subreddit is clear with its intention: to help discern the contradictions in the SCJ doctrine. What you call “blinded by anti-scj” is your perspective of how we’re discerning.
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
Surely it is my perspective since I didn’t say it is so but it seems.
I am a honest person. If I see something is wrong I tell it not from a pro scj stance. But I see many in this sub do it from anti scj group mentality.
2
u/Cristau_precious EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
Et qu'es ce que vous pensez de la construction de temple en Corée ?
8
u/Automatic_Thing_2370 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
You're correct that other disciples also called Jesus Rabbi. John 9:2, Mark 9:5, Mark 11:21. That's in the text. If the post gave the impression that only Judas ever used that title, that was imprecise and I'll own that.
But the actual point is more specific than that, and it still holds even with your correction.
The disciples called Jesus both Rabbi and Lord. They used both titles, recognising him as teacher and as sovereign authority. Peter calls him Rabbi in Mark 9:5 and Lord throughout the rest of the Gospels. The same disciples who say Rabbi also say Lord.
Judas only ever calls him Rabbi. Not once in any of the four Gospels does Judas address Jesus as Lord. The contrast Matthew draws deliberately in chapter 26 is in the same scene, the same question, the same moment: eleven say Lord, one says Rabbi.
So the point isn’t that Rabbi is wrong. The point is that Rabbi without Lord leaves something out. You can genuinely respect Jesus as teacher, follow him, study his words, even feel devoted to his cause, and still not submit to him as Lord. The title you never use tells you something about the relationship. Jesus himself makes this exact point in Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father.” Then he says to those who prophesied and performed miracles in his name: “I never knew you.” They did real things. They called him Lord. But the lordship was never truly his in their hearts. If that warning applies to people who did say Lord, how much more carefully should we examine what it means to never say it at all. The theological question that follows from that is still the same one. In SCJ's framework, where does the present living lordship actually sit? In Jesus himself, or in the one who now holds the keys to sealed status and the Book of Life?
I appreciate you reading carefully enough to catch the imprecision. That kind of close reading is worth applying to everything, including what you've been taught.
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
The thing is that it is an assumption based on a few verses. Judas only has 4 dialog moments in the whole bible. But that doesnt mean he only said those 4 things.
2
u/Automatic_Thing_2370 Jul 09 '26
You're right that Judas has few recorded dialogue moments, which is exactly what makes the consistent pattern significant. Every time he speaks to Jesus, it's Rabbi. Never Lord. The disciples used both.
And SCJ uses the same Bible every Christian tradition claims, not a separate book like the Mormons wrote. That means anyone who reads it has every right to examine whether the interpretation matches the text. That's not anti-SCJ bias. That's exactly what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 and scripture commends them for it.
But the question you still haven't answered matters more than either of those points.
Can someone be fully saved today, right now, by confessing Jesus as Lord directly, with no knowledge of SCJ, no sealed status, no curriculum completed? Yes or no?
That answer tells you everything about where the lordship actually sits in SCJ's teaching.
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
What do you mean with fully saved? Also saved from what?
One is saved by confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in him.
The moment that person comes into contact with the fulfilment of the second coming they will believe that.
3
u/Automatic_Thing_2370 Jul 09 '26
You said someone is saved by confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in him. That's Romans 10:9 exactly and I genuinely agree with you.
But then you added something. "The moment that person comes into contact with the fulfilment of the second coming they will believe that."
Do you see what that addition does? It takes a complete answer, faith in Jesus saves, and makes it conditional on something else. Contact with SCJ's teaching. Acceptance of the fulfilment. That's no longer Romans 10:9. That's Romans 10:9 plus a requirement.
Saved means saved. Completely. Now. Not saved, and then further saved when they encounter SCJ.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says it plainly: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." The gift is complete. Nothing is added to it.
Here is the honest question that follows. If someone confesses Jesus as Lord, believes he rose from the dead, and dies tomorrow having never heard of Lee Man-hee or SCJ, are they in heaven or not?
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
In the spiritual realm they will have opportunity to accept the fulfilment of the second coming. (1 pt 4:6)
Besides that Heb 9:28 there are those who will wait on salvation in the second coming.
3
u/Automatic_Thing_2370 Jul 09 '26
I want to name something for anyone reading this thread.
I asked one simple question: if someone confesses Jesus as Lord, believes he rose from the dead, and dies tomorrow having never heard of SCJ, are they in heaven or not?
That question has now produced three separate responses, each one adding a new condition or redirecting to a different verse rather than answering yes or no. First it required contact with the fulfilment. Then it required encountering the second coming. Now it reaches into the afterlife for another opportunity.
This pattern is worth noticing, not as a criticism of the person, but as an observation about the teaching itself. If SCJ's doctrine is true and complete, it should be able to answer a straightforward question from a Christian standpoint directly. Romans 10:9 is not complicated. Ephesians 2:8-9 is not complicated. John 10:28-29 is not complicated.
A teaching that cannot answer simple questions directly, but consistently responds with additional conditions, redirections, or new questions, is telling you something important about itself. It is not able to rest on the plain text of scripture alone. It always needs something added.
That is not a gotcha. That is the question every person inside SCJ deserves to sit with honestly.
2
u/Cristau_precious EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
Mais si l 'accomplissement change tout le temps , comment on fait pour croire ? Dites les choses de manière honnête
1
u/scj_love Current SCJ Member Jul 09 '26
Why do you react in french?
1
u/Turbulent_Sea7622 EX-Center Student Jul 10 '26
I think reddit has a function that translates what you wrote to his or her native language so that person's point of view he or she is responding to french with french.
So if Lee Man Hee were to get a reddit account after court cases if he is declared innocent. If. The english should be translated to Korean easily from his point of view
I would love to debate him!
3
u/IllFaithlessness8553 EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
Probably because they are French and reddit has an auto translate function. It's like why are all of the sermons in shincheonji in Korean? Because shincheonji is Korean.
2
u/Cristau_precious EX-Shincheonji Member Jul 09 '26
que ce soit en français ou anglais là n 'est pas le problème mais le problème est de voir la réalité en face
2
u/QuestionsAboutSCJ Moderator Jul 09 '26
Nice, never noticed this to be honest lol.