03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI don't want to repeat myself, so I won't.
I need only say that a question is not necessarily (or even in most cases ) a type of denial. One example of a question not inferring a denial was all it took destroy the assertion. And since all no1 has done is repeat this assertion is is up to him to show this case is a denial. All he needs to do is support his assertion by showing that Christ has denie ...[text shortened]... s poor handling of basic logic. It hardly counts as sophistry since his argument is not clever.
I don't think you have shown that the sentence form being used could not reasonably be seen as a denial. You have, however, given a reason why Jesus might want to keep quiet. Wait, I think I said that.
I recall reading in some other parts of Mark about Jesus commanding expunged devils to keep quiet (the devils knew the truth about Jesus) and asking people he helped to keep quiet about it (not to publish I think it says)
My take on it, if you are interested, is that Jesus is rebuking the rich man, knowing that he will not give away his goods.
Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
I think Jesus is blowing him off, to use modern vernacular.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiColetti: and your premises includes the assertion that all questions infer denials
I see you failed to look up "begging the question". If you make an argument wherein the conclusion you are trying to prove is also one of the premises you are asserting - you are "begging the question". You are trying to argue that Jesus' question is a denial of his goodness - and your premises includes the assertion that all questions infer denials - ...[text shortened]... is rejecting his deity requires intentional stupidity. That is "absolutely clear".
😲
What a moron! Where do I state that??? I am saying that in the context of this passage THIS PARTICULAR RHETORICAL QUESTION IS A DENIAL. Can you possibly get that distinction through your lead encased skull? Thus, there is no "begging of the question" , twit.
You guys spend a whole lot of time arguing that Jesus really didn't mean what he says like in Matthew 25. What kind of "Christians" are you? I noticed you have also dodged the question concerning Jesus' lack of knowledge of the day and hour of the Second Coming. Is there any part of Jesus' words that you do believe in?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you mean in contrast? The RYR went away sad in not being able to do the impossible, but the blind beggar receive his sight for merely having faith in Christ.
EDIT: If one wants to understand the story of the Young Rich Ruler it is very helpfull to read the following story of the blind beggar. It mirrors the story of the RYR in an interesting and explaining way.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightVery succinct. I agree.
My take on it, if you are interested, is that Jesus is rebuking the rich man, knowing that he will not give away his goods.
Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
I think Jesus is blowing him off, to use modern vernacular.
03 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightLook let's put the passage in context - Mark 10: 17-22:
I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't.
I don't think you have shown that the sentence form being used could not reasonably be seen as a denial. You have, however, given a reason why Jesus might want to keep quiet. Wait, I thi ...[text shortened]...
I think Jesus is blowing him off, to use modern vernacular.
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
Jesus clearly doesn't "blow him off". And again why is the Almighty, omnipotent God afraid of the Pharisees?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
These stories are not presented as parables; they are presented as actual occurrences. Is it your contention that they are parables?
They may have happened or may not have happened. It is completely irrelevant, you simpleton. Look upon them as parables, maybe then you are able to grasp some meaning and understanding, you paper hat.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightThat's reasonable. It could be a denial, or it could be an affirmation. Taken strictly and without context it could mean lots of things. What is clear is that it is not clear in itself. I think to be consistent with Christs others teaching and the rest of Scripture, the least likely reading is it is a denial of Christ's goodness.
I don't think you have shown that the sentence form being used could not reasonably be seen as a denial. You have, however, given a reason why Jesus might want to keep quiet. Wait, I think I said that.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeHey, once again we are in complete agreement. This is the second time today!
They may have happened or may not have happened. It is completely irrelevant, you simpleton. Look upon them as parables, maybe then you are able to grasp some meaning and understanding, you paper hat.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf they are meant as parables I'll look at them as parables, if they're meant as reality then I'll look at them as reality. According to you, apparently it would make no difference at all if Jesus actually existed; the parables would remain in that case. Is that what you're saying, jerk?
They may have happened or may not have happened. It is completely irrelevant, you simpleton. Look upon them as parables, maybe then you are able to grasp some meaning and understanding, you paper hat.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhy again would an omnipotent God be afraid of the Pharisees? Explain the "logic" behind that, Coletti.
That's reasonable. It could be a denial, or it could be an affirmation. Taken strictly and without context it could mean lots of things. What is clear is that it is not clear in itself. I think to be consistent with Christs others teaching and the rest of Scripture, the least likely reading is it is a denial of Christ's goodness.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
If they are meant as parables I'll look at them as parables, if they're meant as reality then I'll look at them as reality. According to you, apparently it would make no difference at all if Jesus actually existed; the parables would remain in that case. Is that what you're saying, jerk?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Is that one of your famous "analogies", Mr. Nice Guy ?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightNow, I don’t know if that’s the “right” interpretation—I’m not sure there is such a thing with this kind of story; they often seem to be multi-layered, and amenable to different hermeneutics—including a “close” reading, which seems to be what no1’s legal/contractual reading is like, or a literary reading, like a parable-story.
I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't.
I don't think you have shown that the sentence form being used could not reasonably be seen as a denial. You have, however, given a reason why Jesus might want to keep quiet. Wait, I think I said that.
I recall reading in some other parts of Mark about Jesus commanding expunged devils to keep quiet (t ...[text shortened]... e good but one, that is, God.
I think Jesus is blowing him off, to use modern vernacular.
But—I like it. I wonder if in the Greek, there is any kind of pun like “good” and “goods” (as in the Hebrew there often is). Of course, with my (non)skills, it will take hours…. There goes my reading again…
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesdThose ancients were pretty tricky.
Now, I don’t know if that’s the “right” interpretation—I’m not sure there is such a thing with this kind of story; they often seem to be multi-layered, and amenable to different hermeneutics—including a “close” reading, which seems to be what no1’s legal/contractual reading is like, or a literary reading, like a parable-story.
But—I like it. I wo ...[text shortened]... often is). Of course, with my (non)skills, it will take hours…. There goes my reading again…
Of course there is more than one way to interpret a story, otherwise we'd all be Catholic ...
The thing is, it sure as heck still looks like a denial to me!