To be precise, the Rich Young Guy did not say Jesus WAS anybody; he attributed to him a characteristic i.e. that of being "good". Jesus objected to being called "good" because only "God" is good. Thus, nobody but God possessed the characteristic of being "good". If Jesus was God, he would not have a problem with being called "good" but he did. Ergo, by impeccable logic, Jesus denied being God.
EDIT: The proper analogy would be if the question asked of me was "Oh, great chess player yadayada" and my answer was "Why callest me a great chessplayer? There is only one great chessplayer, Raul Capablanca." This is implicitly a denial that I am Raul Capablanca; if I actually was Raul capablanca I'd be spouting gibberish. You're not saying Jesus spouted gibberish are you?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, the question requires no real interpretation;
No, the question requires no real interpretation; you have to read both parts of the passage - the rhetorical question and the statement - together. ....
and
you have to read both parts of the passage - the rhetorical question and the statement - together.
This IS interpretation you sophist! You can not understand the meaning of the combination of one question and one statement without INTERPRETATION!
Back to LOGIC 101: (I hate to take you back to school son, but it seems you are still confused)
We are trying to understand what this verse means. We are trying to draw a conclusion. We have one statement and one question.
In order to find the logic conclusion they imply we MUST first determine the unstated declarations. All you have is a one statement. You need at least one more declarative statement to combine into a syllogism so that you can draw a LOGICAL conclusion.
What are the missing statements, and what is the logical conclusion?
I have given what I think the logic behind the question and statement is. You have provided your own interpretation - without giving the logic behind it. Either way, it requires support from other text and context. You interpretation has no additional support so it should be rejected.
Class out.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe fonts of the forum don't support math very well.
Well then, bring it on .... you little devil you.
Can't even post in cuneiforms.
Heck I can't even use a .wrl here as my avatar.
I do make some real cool fire and brimstone worlds too. errr should I say real hot.
So I content myself with pointing out the a "christian" ought to be far more concerned with the words of Christ than anybody else's.
It's not 2000 years ago when most people were illiterate and needed some body to tell them what the words were.
That is what the purpose of the disciples was and not to give "interpretations"as the word of God. Otherwise people in the future might reify the writer into god, and lose the words of the Kingdom.
There is no need for Paul's take on salvation unless Christ was incapable of delivering his core message.
Originally posted by ColettiDo you know what the qualifier "real" means, nitwit? What I am saying is the passage is absolutely clear and doesn't require any "real" interpretation. If Bobby Fischer says "I'm Bobby Fischer" a sophist like you would say "HMMM; how can we intterpret that?" Of course, the statement is exactly clear and you are merely engaging in sophistry to say other wise. And I'm not impressed by your dime store logic; you've proven over and over again incapable of making a truly logical argument. You have again failed here.
[b] No, the question requires no real interpretation;
and
you have to read both parts of the passage - the rhetorical question and the statement - together.
This IS interpretation you sophist! You can not understand the meaning of the combination of one question and one statement without INTERPRETATION!
Back to LOGIC 101: (I hat ...[text shortened]... d context. You interpretation has no additional support so it should be rejected.
Class out.[/b]
I gave my logic jackass; it's called Reading 101. Only your ridiculous dogma interferes with the plain meaning of the text. A statement does not need additional support if it is clear. This statement is clear and has only one logical conclusion. Therefore, your pretend need to torture it into meaning something else is BS of the highest degree.
Good is a Characteristic only of God
I am not Good
Therefore, I am not God.
Got it?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Ergo, by impeccable logic, Jesus denied being God."
To be precise, the Rich Young Guy did not say Jesus WAS anybody; he attributed to him a characteristic i.e. that of being "good". Jesus objected to being called "good" because only "God" is good. Thus, nobody but God possessed the characteristic of being "good". If Jesus was God, he would not have a problem with being called "good" b ...[text shortened]... Raul capablanca I'd be spouting gibberish. You're not saying Jesus spouted gibberish are you?
Your "impeccable" logic is only superceded by your "impeccable" abilities of interpreting texts.
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst: the "objection" is merely you asserted interpretation - but it is not logical by any means - you did not deduce it nor support it with other scripture.
To be precise, the Rich Young Guy did not say Jesus WAS anybody; he attributed to him a characteristic i.e. that of being "good". Jesus objected to being called "good" because only "God" is good. Thus, nobody but God possessed the characteristic of being "good". If Jesus was God, he would not have a problem with being called "good" b ...[text shortened]... Raul capablanca I'd be spouting gibberish. You're not saying Jesus spouted gibberish are you?
Second: Say it is well known that Raul Capablanca was the "only one great chess player." This would be analogous to "God is good." And say that what Raul Capablanca looked like is not well known. This would be analogous to the identity of the Son of God.
Now if a stranger went up to Raul Capablanca and immediately said "You are the one great chess player" He could reasonably reply "Why do you call me the greatest chess player. Only Raul Capablanca is the greatest chess player." Which means - you shouldn't call me the greatest chess player unless you know who really I am."
It's like saying "Do you know who you are talking too?"
Jesus never came out and declare his deity. If he had, the Pharisees could have legally stoned him on the spot. But there were many instances were one could easily interpret what he said as a declaration of his deity - which was what pissed off the Pharisees until they couldn't stand it and finally had him crucified. But they had to come up with false witnesses to do it. If been explicit, they could have simply killed him right out.
Had Christ denied his deity, he would not have been crucified. He had many opportunities to do so, including when he was questioned by Pilate.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes -that is you interpretation. Now back it up. As a professional sophist, you should be able to BS an answer. It certainly does not come from directly from "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" without interpretation.
...
Good is a Characteristic only of God
I am not Good
Therefore, I am not God.
Got it?
Regarding the issue of whether or not Jesus is God, it seems clear to me that this is yet another example of the language of a spiritual sage being misunderstood.
There is a saying in Vedic Hinduism (an older faith than Christianity, for those unaware of that) -- aham brahmasmi.. Translated from Sanskrit to English, this means roughly "I am That", or "I am the Absolute".
"I am the Absolute" is the essential basis of Jesus' statement in John's Gospel, "I and the Father are one."
The Sanskrit "aham", or "I", is the equivalent spiritual word for the "Son". The Sanskrit "brahmasmi" is a derivative of the word "Brahman", the Sanskrit term for the "Absolute", or "God the Father". ( There is a feminine form of God in Hinduism as well, usually termed "Shakti"; this is the parallel of the Christian "Holy Spirit", itself deriving from the Hebrew term "Ruach", or "divine wind" ).
So "aham brahmasmi" means, literally, "I am the Absolute", or "I am God".
Now this needs to be deeply understood.
"I am God" is not a statement of ego. The "I" in this case does not refer to the separative ego, the so-called personality that most people identify themselves with. The "I" in this case refers to pure consciousness when divested of all ego agendas, all separation based strategies. Once the appearance of separation has been dissolved -- once subject consciousness has merged with object consciousness, a term in Sanskrit called dharana -- then what is left over is a felt sense of unity with All. This "one with all" is identical to the mystical experience of "I am one with God". That is, the ego has disappeared into the sense of the Absolute, something like how a wave might suddenly recognize that its existence as a "wave" is in fact an illusion -- in reality, it is the entire ocean.
So the deepest enlightenment is one of recognizing one's intrinsic unity with the universe, one's essential interconnection with all of Life. When this enlightenment is expressed, it is "I am one with God."
When fundamentalists get hold of such a profound mystical teaching, it inevitably becomes only this teacher was "one with God". But almost certainly that was not the original intent. The original intent was a mystical expression of a profound spiritual realization.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisSplash
Regarding the issue of whether or not Jesus is God, it seems clear to me that this is yet another example of the language of a spiritual sage being misunderstood.
There is a saying in Vedic Hinduism (an older faith than Christianity, for those unaware of that) -- [b]aham brahmasmi.. Translated from Sanskrit to English, this means roughly "I am ...[text shortened]... inal intent. The original intent was a mystical expression of a profound spiritual realization. [/b]
Originally posted by ColettiLearn how to read, idiot.
Yes -that is you interpretation. Now back it up. As a professional sophist, you should be able to BS an answer. It certainly does not come from directly from "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" without interpretation.
Originally posted by ColettiYou don't: remember revelatory facts are more important than empirical facts. Who's credo is that? And how "logical" is that? And Mr. Logic explain to me again how the animals marched onto the boat built by the 900 year old man to avoid the worldwide flood 4300 years ago?
Learn how to reason moron. 😛
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you ready to being in extra-scriptural evidence to support your interpretation now?? You haven't even support started to support your weak interpretation with scripture. Put your red herring back in your bag of fallacy tricks.
You don't: remember revelatory facts are more important than empirical facts. Who's credo is that? And how "logical" is that? And Mr. Logic explain to me again how the animals marched onto the boat built by the 900 year old man to avoid the worldwide flood 4300 years ago?
Originally posted by ColettiColetti: Jesus never came out and declare his deity. If he had, the Pharisees could have legally stoned him on the spot. But there were many instances were one could easily interpret what he said as a declaration of his deity - which was what pissed off the Pharisees until they couldn't stand it and finally had him crucified. But they had to come up with false witnesses to do it. If been explicit, they could have simply killed him right out
First: the "objection" is merely you asserted interpretation - but it is not logical by any means - you did not deduce it nor support it with other scripture.
Second: Say it is well known that Raul Capablanca was the "only one great chess player." This would be analogous to "God is good." And say that what Raul Capablanca looked like is not ...[text shortened]... n crucified. He had many opportunities to do so, including when he was questioned by Pilate.
This is, of course, inconsistent with your belief that Christ was God. The Pharisees couldn't have "stoned him to death" unless he allowed it. Your own statements show that either: A) Christ wasn't God; or B) God isn't all-powerful (in the sense the Pharisees could have stoned God in human form to death without his consent so he had to resort to deception). So, which is it, Mr. Logic? A or B?