₦airaland Forum

malvisguy212:
In the Gospels, a rich, young man approached Jesus and said to him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus gave the infamous reply,“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” This story is
found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; critics of Jesus’ claims to deity often use it as ammunition in their case for a non-
divine Jesus. It seems, they argue, that
Jesus is denying deity here by refusing
the title ‘GOOD’ as it is something reserved solely for God. I contend that even a surface-level reading of this narrative does not even remotely support that conclusion.
I don’t see how Jesus’ clarification of
God’s nature is equivalent to him
denying deity. This is akin to someone
coming to me and calling me, “Dr. Paul.” I respond by saying, “Why do you call me
doctor? No man can be a doctor, only he
who holds a doctorate.”

I can either mean one of two things:

1. No one can be a doctor unless he
holds a doctorate.
2. I do not hold a doctorate.
3. Therefore, I am not a doctor.


or…

1. No one can be a doctor unless he
holds a doctorate.
2. I hold a doctorate.
3. Therefore, I am a doctor.

By asking “Why do you call me doctor?”,
am I denying my title? Of course not. I
am simply clarifying what the title
means. I am neither validating nor
rejecting the title. In any case, I don’t
have a doctorate (yet!) but the point still
stands.

You can see how such reasoning is
completely absurd, and yet this is what
we see when critics use Jesus’ words in
this passage to try to show his non deity. Having said all of that, let’s have another look at what Jesus said in this passage.

He only said two statements:

1. Why do you call me good?
2. No one is good except God

The only piece of information that Jesus
gave is this: No one is good but God.
There are 2 ways to understand his
statement:

1. Only God is good.
2. I am not good.
3. Therefore, I am not God.

or

1. Only God is good.
2. I am good.
3. Therefore, I am God.

In this specific instance, from these
words alone, Jesus does make known to
us which of these he meant. It is both
ignorant and presumptive of anyone to
use this passage, alone, to argue for
Jesus’ non-deity. Why should the first
reading be the desirable one over the
second reading? Jesus’ statement that
only God is good does not, itself, tell us
whether he was affirming or denying
being God.

But if we keep reading, we find that
Jesus sheds some light on what he
meant. Jesus answers the man’s original
question about obtaining eternal life
with this“You know the commandments:

‘You shall not murder, you shall not
commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'”

The man responds :”Teacher, I have kept all of these since I was a boy.”

Then Jesus finishes with: “One thing you
lack. Go, sell everything you have then
come, follow me.”

To summarize: In response to the man’s
question, “What must I do to gain eternal life?”, Jesus responds by telling him to
follow the commandments. But which
commandments does Jesus list?
Notice that Jesus only lists the
commandments that dealt with civil
affairs. The Ten Commandments of
Moses were divided into 2 parts: Laws on
dealing with God and Laws on dealing
with others. Respectively, these were the
moral and civil laws. Jesus names the
civil law for the young man and the
young man responds like any good Jew
would, These I have kept since I was
young.” The man was doing great on
keeping the civil law, but not so much
with the moral law. Instead of then
quoting the first four commandments to
the young man,the commandments that
dealt with man’s relationship with God, Jesus told the young man, “Sell your
possessions and follow me.” In other
words, “Your god is your money. Get rid
of that and follow me.” Jesus is equating
obeying the moral law with following
himself. The manner in which men can
obtain eternal life is by getting rid of the
false gods in their lives and following
Jesus , replacing them with him!
This claim is monumental! And it gives us
an answer to our initial dilemma. Did
Jesus deny or affirm his deity in asking,
“Why do you call me good?” I think the
answer is clear in light of the rest of that
conversation with the young man. Jesus
equated following himself with keeping
the moral law and obeying the
commandments that governed man’s
relationship with God. Thus, in bringing
up this passage as ammunition for a
non-divine Jesus, the critic shoots
himself in the foot by bringing to the
table a text in which Jesus clearly claims
deity.

RudeGang:
Father and Son. Logically, a Father is greater that the Son.

The trinity to me is a false and baseless belief which should be discarded. When Jesus Christ said "I and the Father are one," did he imply that they were equal entities? No. The word 'and' seperates both, with the Father being the greatest.

Reading the Bible with an open mind would certainly help one understand its deep teachings.

HardMirror:
The days of fighting physical battles is over, in fact if the bible is to be followed, it is even a sin to take vengeance in any form. The New testament makes it clear that gone are the days of an eye for an eye. It is the age of turning the left cheek when the right cheek is slapped. It is an age of fighting with spiritual weapons. It is an age of evangelism and not warfare.

There seems to be Absolutely NO REASON why a christian should be a soldier. Jesus would certainly from at any of his sheep throwing bombs at souls he created.

What are your thoughts on this?

Can a soldier indeed go to heaven if killed in warfare? Can a christian be a soldier?

Auki:
Blasphemy and a lie. Roman fairy tales and paganism.

Innocent Man dying for sinful world. God is Just not unjust.

abdulkabirO:
We all know God condemned the shedding of blood, while would He then sanction the shedding of blood of Jesus? Read Deut. 12: 29 - 32 with particular reference to verse 31. i am a religions student and i need clarification from anyone

malvisguy212:
If God eradicated everyone who has ever caused pain by selfishness, cheating, lying, gossiping or hurtful
remarks, who would be left? People say, "Suffering is God's fault!", In other words,if we disobey God,it's God's fault?
conveniently forgetting times our own anger, greed and lies hurt others. To wipe out some people who cause suffering, and spare you and me, would make God guilty of gross injustice. We have each added to humanity's shame.

If there is a God of love, the people he loves and longs to place in a pain-free world are the very ones who cause
humanity's suffering.

We are so far from being innocent that we owe our very existence to sin. If, for example, we traced our family tree far
enough,we would probably each find an ancestor born as a result of sin - rape, unlawful incest, a despised pregnancy,
sex before marriage, and the like.
Humanity can boast only ONE PERFECT PERSON . We killed him.

Frequently, we hear or read a comment like this:
"I simply cannot believe in a God who
permits innocent children to starve and suffer, and men like Hitler and Stalin to murder millions of people."

The examples may vary,but the thoughts are always the same. Supposedly,this is "proof" that either God doesn't exist, or that if He does, He either doesn't care about our sufferings, or He is not powerful enough to do
anything about them. But suffering is neither proof of God's non-existence or
existence. Saying, "If God exists, why is
there suffering?" is like saying "If San Francisco exists, why are there earthquakes?" Do earthquakes occur because San Francisco causes them? Or do they occur in spite of San Francisco? Or do they have nothing to do with San
Francisco? Well, we know the answer to that question because we know about San Francisco and we know about
earthquakes.But how much do we really know about God? If we define Him by our own nature, then He cannot be of
any greater character than ourselves.

We may ascribe to Him a greater power than ourselves, but when we suppose that God should or should not act like this or that,then all we are really saying is, "He should act like I would if I
were God."

STARVING:
Now, let's look at starving children. The Bible says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That
includes everything necessary to feed and provide for its inhabitants. Can anyone deny that the earth is capable of producing more than enough food to feed the entire globe? Well then, if people are starving, whose fault is that? If God made the earth, is He also supposed to plant and distribute our crops for us? Do you remember the tons of food that were shipped to Ethiopia,
but did not reach the starving people who needed it? Whose fault was that?

The reason that over 90% of the masses have barely enough to survive on,is that there is a problem of DISTRIBUTION, not of SUPPLY .A tiny minority have far more than they need, depriving the many.

SUFFERING:
Regarding suffering that is the result of sin, what could be clearer than Romans 1:28–29 and Galatians 6:8–9? The
unbeliever may stomp about with all vigor and complain that it is "bigotry" to associate the rise of AIDS and other diseases to sin; that biblical morality is
narrow-minded, outdated, and totally wrong. But this fact is unalterable: In a society where biblical morality is abandoned, suffering always increases.
Where biblical morality is followed, suffering always declines. Always. (Isa.59:1-4).

As to Hitler, Stalin, street gangs and senseless murders: Would any of these things happen if people followed the teachings of Jesus? Do you realize what
this world would be like if people simply followed God's instructions? There would be no murder, no wars. There would be no welfare, because families
would take care of their own (and families would stay together) and those who did not have families would be
provided for by their fellow-members in Christ. There would be no starvation… I could go on, but the point is: God has
provided us answers; whose fault is it that we don't seek them or heed them when we find them?

I suspect that those who use suffering as a "proof" of God's non-existence would not want to have their free choice taken away from them,but that's exactly what God would have to do if He were to enforce His will on the earth. For if God were to intervene in the matter of
suffering, would He not also intervene in the matter of sin? If He did, He would have to be a dictator.

Then how would we react? We would not want that,and according to the Bible, God doesn't want it either. He wants us to obey Him because we want to, not because we have to. And in order to accomplish this, He must allow two things to happen. First, in order to grant us free choice, He must provide us with graphic examples of the consequences of the wrong choice. Secondly,He must allow injustices and sufferings; otherwise he'd provide sinful mankind with every blessing and benefit without restriction. If everything in this life was fair, good and happy, what need would there be to seek a better life? Why would we seek a Deliverer, if there was nothing to be delivered from? Suffering is not something that ought to turn people away from God, but draw them to Him.

hopefulLandlord:
how does this refute the fact that one can suffer even when one is with your god? Jobs example proves this beyond reasonable doubt


can a Christian suffer?

soulpeppersoup:
Any Christian who is suffering lack understanding. Persecution is different from suffering. You are not permitted as a Christian to suffer beyond awhile or a moment.

hopefulLandlord:
yeah

Job in your fairytale book suffered because he "Chose the wrong way"

these Christians

Elbizzcklinz:
Listen, i was a good christain, an exco in a christain org. i lived a good life, but where is God. Nw i see a big diff b/w me an atheist, they are happy and prosperous.

Teempakguy:
You need to understand that the God of the old testament isn't the one Christians claim to serve today. That guy was a serious badass who didn't give a f**k. He didn't pretend to love anyone. He treated the world like he owned it. Did whatever he wanted (and even regretted many of his actions). Jacob's story is just another example of he being himself.

You can imagine my smirk when an enthusiastic choir singer proclaims: "from the beginning of time, you never change!"

Yeah right.

xxxtedyxxx:
I still don't know why God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

CC lalasticlala ishilove

Background story.

InesQor:
Hmm left to me I think religion is PART of our relationship with God.

It's like saying "there is something called breathing and then there's being alive, and nobody should mix the two". They are intertwined, and one is a strong sign of the other.

Our religion is the apparent evidence that we have a relationship with God. Anybody can claim to have a relationship with God.

Seun:
What I remember saying is that it is an observable fact that we are apes. Whether we evolved from ancient apes, or God made us as apes, that doesn't change the observable fact that we are apes, based on DNA and anatomical similarities between human beings and other apes. If your reason for rejecting evolution is your distaste for the idea that we are just incredibly smart apes, then I'm sorry, but it doesn't work.

JackBizzle:
Exodus 21; 20-21


20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…

Seun:
Actually, humans are apes. Biologically, we have all the characteristics that are used to identify apes as apes. This is an observable fact. The physical differences between humans and chimps are less pronounced than the differences between pugs and greyhounds, which are both dogs. You cannot deny the simple and obvious fact of our anatomical similarities with the other apes, unless you are dishonest or greatly misinformed. Beyond that, our DNA codes, which make us who we are, are very similar to those of other apes. It's unfruitful to reject facts.

Yet the biblical God is unmistakably similar to humans. Perhaps you can reconcile this with the facts by saying that God designed the process of evolution such that it would give rise to an intelligent creature that looks very similar to him. He made man in his image through evolution.

Samunique:
Bless you bro!
Happy to hear from you.

malvisguy212:
Read it one more time and point were I contradict myself, let us start there. The substance is in the heart which you cannot see because you belong to the pagan world, why did the pagan at antioch first call the apostles christian ?

Samunique:
Honestly, we need someone like Jehu of the time of Jezebel to deal with this rampaging Islamic menace which has been allowed to thrive by the western political correctness.

Meanwhile where is malvisguy212 it's been long ?

skeendyke:
After a long time being away from this section, I must say I'm very glad to see the faces of Scholar8200 and Malvisguy212. It is really great to see you both.

Scholar8200:
Indeed, where have you been?

Scholar8200:
Christian meditation focuses God via His Word and brings a release of man to God's Power.

Other meditations focuses on man and endeavours, by certain preternatural props , to stir up certain latent abilities whereby those mentioned aid the usage thereof in ways by no means advantageous.

QuietHammer:
Ha! Christian!

hopefulLandlord:
I doubt you know what you're talking about

Let's examine the verses, shall we?

I'll be quoting from KJV

Judges 11:31

"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

Take note of the bolded because it'll be referenced later

Vs34

And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

Vs36

And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

Take note of this bolded too

Vs39

And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed

All the bewailing has next to nothing to do with this

1 he promised to offer whatever comes out to meet him as BURNT OFFERING

2 she said Jephthah should do what he vowed

2 His father DID TO HER ACCORDING TO HIS VOW WHICH HE HAD VOWED

scholars who found the story hard to swallow simply started using bewailing and lamentation as a copout and you're regurgitating the same thing

Seun:
God in the old testament was tribalistic. He didn't sanction kidnapping Israelites for slavery, but he allowed them to buy slaves from neighbouring tribes regardless of how those slaves were enslaved. This is exactly how America practiced slavery before abolishing it. American weren't allowed to kidnap other Americans for slavery, but they could purchase our ancestors who were kidnapped from Africa. I don't think any country has ever allowed it's free citizens to kidnap other free citizens and sell them into slavery. There is nothing to commend in that verse.

AnonyNymous:
I think it would've been better for your bible to state "Thou shall not own another human being". explicitly and clearly. But it didn't, and there are cases of people owning people in the bible. How can you tell me that looking at a girl's ass (which is in the ten commandments) is a more dangerous/deadly thing than owning another human being??