Originally posted by ivanhoeEspecially interesting is verse 34.
We were talking about the story of the Rich Young Ruler and what follows, especially the story of the beggar.
Read what I advised you to read, you moron.
Luke, chapter 18, 18-43
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=4567117&textreg=0&query=Why+callest+thou+me+good
But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.
(Luk 18:34 NASB)
Originally posted by ColettiAlso show where Christ asserts the he is indeed God.
That is probably your only hope of convincing anyone to accept your fallacious argument - keep repeating it over and over.
The reason you'd call someone a liar, is if in fact you think they are a liar. And when someone question a criticism - they just might be indicating that they disagree. But Jesus was complimented, not criticized. Your your ...[text shortened]... assertion that you are trying to argue. And so again your assertion is begging the question.
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiListen,you are obviously grasping at straws. Begging the question refers to a formal argument, not a mere statement of what someone says. If I say Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address and you say Charles Manson did, and I say you are wrong Abe Lincoln did, this is not "begging the question". It is merely pointing out your error. Your brand new "compliment-criticism" distinction is absurd; the idea that Jesus was fishing for a compliment is so silly I'm astonished you would make it. The import of the passage is absolutely clear; you have offered absolutely nothing to dispute the plain meaning of the words but ridiculous ramblings about a God who needs to deceive the Pharisees or get stoned to death or who wants to be complimented like a wife asking "Do I look fat in this dress?" Both make your omnipotent God look pretty petty.
That is probably your only hope of convincing anyone to accept your fallacious argument - keep repeating it over and over.
The reason you'd call someone a liar, is if in fact you think they are a liar. And when someone question a cri ...[text shortened]... to argue. And so again your assertion is begging the question.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeKiss my a**; I'll read what I please. Are you saying the story of the Rich Young Man and the beggar are both pieces of fiction? Use your own words; I'm tired of chasing cut and pastes because you Christians can't express an idea without crib notes.
We were talking about the story of the Rich Young Ruler and what follows, especially the story of the beggar.
Read what I advised you to read, you moron.
Luke, chapter 18, 18-43
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfi ...[text shortened]... =text&offset=4567117&textreg=0&query=Why+callest+thou+me+good
Originally posted by no1marauderI hate readn crap that can be simplified.... here here!!!
Kiss my a**; I'll read what I please. Are you saying the story of the Rich Young Man and the beggar are both pieces of fiction? Use your own words; I'm tired of chasing cut and pastes because you Christians can't express an idea without crib notes.
Originally posted by no1marauderI 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 - that is by definition "begging the question".
Listen,you are obviously grasping at straws. Begging the question refers to a formal argument, not a mere statement of what someone says. If I say Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address and you say Charles Manson did, and I say you are wrong Abe Lincoln did, this is not "begging the question". It is merely pointing out your error. You ...[text shortened]... a wife asking "Do I look fat in this dress?" Both make your omnipotent God look pretty petty.
To assert that Jesus is denying his goodness is simply absurd. Scripture is abundantly clear that Christ is good, true, light, Word, and without sin.
Far from fishing for compliments, Jesus was more likely rebuking the young man for flattering him. The young man was flattering Jesus by calling him "good teacher" and Jesus response is easily read as a subtle rebuke - questioning if the young mans question was honest. There is Rabbinic apothegm, “There is nothing else that is good but the law.” This would be well known to this young man, so prefacing "teacher" with "good" is flattery or an an acknowledgment of Jesus' deity. Since it is doubtful that the young man considered Christ to be more then a man, then it is flattery.
If the the Law is good, then the author of the Law is even greater. And scripture does not differentiate Christ and the Word. So one can only deny the goodness of Jesus by denying scripture all together. If scripture says Jesus is good, and this is undeniably true, then the only logic reading of this verse is Jesus is either affirming he is God, or merely rebuking the young man's flatter (or just as likely both) - and to assert that Jesus is rejecting his deity requires intentional stupidity. That is "absolutely clear".
😲
Originally posted by ColettiYou guys still at it eh?
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.
I think you have given a reason for Jesus wanted to keep it secret, but you haven't made the case that a sentence in the form discussed isn't a denial.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI 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 denied his goodness with some clear scriptural references.
You guys still at it eh?
I think you have given a reason for Jesus wanted to keep it secret, but you haven't made the case that a sentence in the form discussed isn't a denial.
I think his tremendous failure to do so is one of his more spectacular examples of his poor handling of basic logic. It hardly counts as sophistry since his argument is not clever.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI deny that the question you failed to ask wasn’t in the form of a denial! And if you ask again, I’ll deny that too! (I think thay call that a soliloquigizmo, or something.) 😳
You guys still at it eh?
I think you have given a reason for Jesus wanted to keep it secret, but you haven't made the case that a sentence in the form discussed isn't a denial.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Kiss my a**; I'll read what I please. Are you saying the story of the Rich Young Man and the beggar are both pieces of fiction? Use your own words; I'm tired of chasing cut and pastes because you Christians can't express an idea without crib notes.
Never heard of parables you literal barbarian ?
I'm not using my own words because you will be asking me to give my sources. I'm giving you them right away, you moronic babbler.
... and stop spouting your prejudices about Christians, you silly big-mouthed lawyer.
You simply are not able to read and interprete anything that is more complex than "Goldie Locks and the She-Bears".
1 edit
Originally posted by Coletti
Especially interesting is verse 34.But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.
(Luk 18:34 NASB)
I wonder how our lawyer would interpret that part ?
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.
Originally posted by ColettiStupid, I've already pointed out that I feel no need to pull extrinsic evidence to support something clearly stated; the "spectacular failure" is yours to grasp this extremely basic point of intrepretation. I leave it to others to read the passage and consider it as they would a normal conversation; the clear import is that of a denial. I cannot "prove" esp. to someone who has a dogmatic view that Jesus couldn't have possibly meant what he said that he meant what he said. But he said it (apparently). And I presume he meant it. Your arguments are complete BS; explain again why an omnipotent God had to deceive the Pharisees so he wouldn't get stoned to death?????????
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.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThese stories are not presented as parables; they are presented as actual occurrences. Is it your contention that they are parables?
Never heard of parables you literal barbarian ?
I'm not using my own words because you will be asking me to give my sources. I'm giving you them right away, you moronic babbler.
... and stop spouting your prejudices about Christians, you silly big-mouthed lawyer.
You simply are not able to read and interprete anything that is more complex than "Goldie Locks and the She-Bears".