Good: (MW) of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent
(Free Dictionary): that which is morally right; righteousness.
Good person: (MW) an honest, helpful, or morally good person
(Free Dictionary): a person who is good to other people
Craig, at another blog, has repeatedly taken issue with my posts on Good People. He also refuses to define how he's using the word Good and finds my answers about good people to "mean both everything and nothing..." but clearly, my definition/descriptions don't do that.
Someone who kills, lies and cheats is not a good person.
Someone who is kind, helpful, patient, loving, gracious IS a good person.
We can't say objectively "this person is good and that person is bad" because Good is subjective.
Craig, at another blog, has repeatedly taken issue with my posts on Good People. He also refuses to define how he's using the word Good and finds my answers about good people to "mean both everything and nothing..." but clearly, my definition/descriptions don't do that.
Someone who kills, lies and cheats is not a good person.
Someone who is kind, helpful, patient, loving, gracious IS a good person.
We can't say objectively "this person is good and that person is bad" because Good is subjective.
Nonetheless, it's just not that difficult to
recognize good behavior or to say, "That is a good person."
It's not that difficult for most of us to be able to say that. Even Marshal and Craig (both of whom are objecting to me saying that there are good people) appear to concede that there are good people. (Craig: "I know people who, by my subjective standards, I would consider to be good.")
Yes, it's just not that difficult to recognize good behavior or to say, "That is a good person."
I know a person (actually, I know several people for whom the following description fits...) who...
Yes, it's just not that difficult to recognize good behavior or to say, "That is a good person."
I know a person (actually, I know several people for whom the following description fits...) who...
works
every day helping homeless people on their job (or teaching children, or nursing...);
raised and
loved wonderful children;
taught and cared for and mentored
other people's children;
live in small circles so that they're
limiting the amount of pollution they produce;
are honest and
patient with people, even stubborn or obnoxious people;
pick up
litter when they spot it on the sidewalk;
don't litter themselves;
do kind things for and with poor people, for immigrants, for
oppressed Muslims;
On the other hand,
Perhaps their worst habit is watching too much TV (no small thing, that!);
Their diet
could be better;
They DO lose patience with obnoxious people some
times;
They do fail to help some people some times (when they're tired
from helping people all day, for instance);
They have gossiped;
They stole a pencil when they were a child (I don't really know this, just acknowledging that they probably have done things of that nature);
Of course, they have never
killed, beaten, stolen from people, sexually harassed anyone, etc. No
"big" crimes/wrong-doing.
In short, they are generally genuinely good people. NOT perfect people, but no one has ever said one must be perfect to be good and that's just not a rational description.
Indeed, those who would insist that you must be perfect to be counted Good would be a rather grace-less person. A pharisee, perhaps.
In short, they are generally genuinely good people. NOT perfect people, but no one has ever said one must be perfect to be good and that's just not a rational description.
Indeed, those who would insist that you must be perfect to be counted Good would be a rather grace-less person. A pharisee, perhaps.
Yes, I DO know good people. Genuinely good people. Beyond that, I am close enough to them to know that they have no hidden secret murders or assaults they've taken part in.
They are not perfect, but by any reasonable measure, they are good.
Just because there is no objective measure to definitively say, "THEY ARE OBJECTIVELY GOOD PEOPLE," we can easily note and say, "They are, by reasonable measures, very good people."
I know such people. I go to church and work with a large number of them.
Calvinists and skeptics who say otherwise are just not dealing with reality and, most likely, they are choosing to define Good in some non-standard and irrational manner.
Good: of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent
When I say Good people, I just mean "people of a favorable character or tendency: virtuous, right, commendable: Kind, benevolent." And yes, they exist. No matter what the Pharisees may say.
105 comments:
You do not relate the discussion honestly, because you refuse to address the premise from which the discussion arose. As such, you again are dealing with a straw man position.
What straw man? What premise?
I'm saying that y'all are operating from the point of view that there are no good people in a "real" sense, as you all define Good. I'm saying that clearly there are good people as humans normally define Good.
You’re a very good person, Dan. Keep it up.
Marshal, not so much. Room for lots of improvement. He has the innate capacity, just lacks good character.
What happened to my comment, Dan?
I have not seen any comments from you on this post after that first one.
OK, so perhaps I didn't click the Publish button as I thought. I often post when I'm in a hurry. But the confusion is yet another reason why your irrational deleting policy should be jettisoned in favor of a less cowardly one.
The premise you ignore is Stan's response to the notion that people are "basically good" which flies in the face of Scriptural teaching. He offers a small number of verses to support this premise. I later added Mark 10:18 in further support, which is far more to the point of contradicting the "basically good" notion. The premise was what Scripture teaches on the issue.
Your strawman is as follows: "I'm saying that clearly there are good people as humans normally define Good." No one is saying otherwise, and in fact, all three of us have made reference to the fact that there is no issue with applying the word to other humans based on the human behaviors. It's just that how we regard each other doesn't in the least bit mitigate Biblical teaching with regard to the fact that we are all sinners, all have a sin nature and that there is no one who is good but God alone. Your strawman argument is in pointing out that people regard other people as good.
As an addition to the discussion, we can clearly see that some people regard good people as not, and those who are not good as good. The example from this thread is in feo's comments, whereby he disparages me based on his own notions of what constitutes good. Ironically, he doesn't even live up to his own standards in that regard.
Stan's response to the notion that people are "basically good" which flies in the face of Scriptural teaching.
This is STILL question begging. Do you know what that fallacy is?
There are some verses in the Bible that calvinists and others have taken to mean that the notion that people are basically good "flies in the face of Scriptural teaching." But DO those verses indicate that is reality? Or is that just the particular interpretation that some people have? AND, regardless of whether some do or don't have that particular interpretation and whether it's a faithful interpretation STILL leaves open, "But does the real world evidence support that religious opinion?"
To answer those questions, you can't respond, "the notion of people being good flies in the face of Scriptural teaching..." That IS the question!
And for the record, it's NOT my position that people are "basically good." My position is that people are imperfect. There are plenty of people making bad choices, but there are also plenty of people being classically "good," as good is defined.
YES, Jesus is quoted as saying the words, "There is no one good but God..." BUT does that mean what it says literally OR is it a case of hyperbole or otherwise figurative language? THAT is the question. You can't respond, "We know that Jesus meant it literally because he said, 'there is no one good but god...'" THAT is question begging and a fallacy.
Marshal... No one is saying otherwise
So, we all agree that there ARE good people in the world. Then the question remains DOES the Bible teach what you think it does and, even if it does (which IS the question), does a particular religious teaching have it right, when observing real world data and making rational conclusions?
You can't answer that question by merely citing Mark 10. Question begging.
And for the record, I'm FULLY acknowledging that you all are talking out of both sides of your mouth... BOTH acknowledging (reluctantly) that there are good people AND arguing that NO ONE is good, by YOUR alternative definition that you're conflating with God's Word.
Setting aside that bit of fallacious reasoning you're engaging in, let's take your hunch at face value:
YOU believe that there are no "good/God" people in the world
AND
You believe that all people who are not "good/God" are fatally/eternally flawed
AND
you believe that we all are SO flawed that the only "just" (your god's "just") punishment is to be tortured for an eternity.
So, even though there are "normally good" people in the world, they "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity for the lesser sins/imperfections in their lives.
Is that a fair summary of your calvinist hunches?
I understand the "question begging" fallacy. It's not in play when someone is stating the premise put forth. Again, he was responding to the notion held by many that people are basically good. He cited Scripture to support an opposing premise that people are NOT basically good. He's not using a conclusion to support a conclusion. He's citing from Scripture that which leads him to the conclusion. Thus, no question begging.
Now, YOU seem to insist that Scripture must clearly state when we ought or ought not take a given verse literally. That's absurd. If you aren't comfortable with a straightforward statement in Scripture, then it is up to YOU to make the case the verse in question means something other than the context in which it exists implies. Without doing so, your objections amount to petulance and are worthless for disabusing us of that which is no less than obvious from the crystal clear words on the page.
Regarding "real world evidence"...there is none you can offer that proves that the Biblical teaching...indeed the words of Christ...are wrong. Works do not prove one is good or not a sinner. You're trying to conflate the worldly with the spiritual. From the perspective of spiritual, there's no "real world evidence" of "perfect". The same is true for "good". We aspire to both, but can never truly attain either. All you can do is provide evidence that someone is good relative to other people, based on human notions of "goid", which may for some be based on an all too imperfect perception of what "good" truly is (God), but which is satisfactory for human purposes.
I don't need to prove Christ meant v18 literally, because there's no rational reason to believe otherwise based on the passage in which we find it. And while you desperately need to believe there's some other meaning, you've not so much as done squat to compel any other understanding. Whether that failure is more curious than your suggestion v18 shouldn't be taken literally, I can't say.
As such, we're not in any way talking out both sides of our mouths, because we're distinguishing between two clearly different points YOU continue to conflate. We're talking about what Scripture/God/Jesus says. You're talking about what people say. We don't disagree with either, while you once again demonstrate you have a problem with the former...and you once again satisfy yourself with asserting we're wrong, while doing nothing to back it up. What's the name of the logical fallacy that says, "You're wrong because I say so"?
More later.
Continuing...
To reiterate, our position is there's a vast difference between true goodness (God) versus human goodness (how humans use the term to differentiate between each other's character). The difference is a proper acknowledgment of God's greatness, His perfection, His glory. At the same time it's an acknowledgment of how we fall short regardless of good we think we are, or good others think we are. Compared to other people, some we label "good". But relative to God, those same people are not. This is what Jesus is saying in v18. It is without debate. I know this is so because, aside from the clear implication of His words, you continue to avoid mounting a case for an alternative possibility to what Scripture teaches on the topic except by appealing to the non-Scriptural.
If you're going to take my "hunch", as you need to call my proper understanding, you really need to state it accurately. You begin with a purposely flawed representation..."flawed" because I've corrected it several times already. Thus you're back to strawman territory. So let me correct you yet again: No one comes to the Father but through Christ. He told us this Himself. We are all sinners worthy of death. It's a not at all hidden teaching of Scripture. No amount of good deeds gets us to God. We can't be "good" enough. Only by accepting Christ will we be redeemed and counted as "good" enough. So if you want to pretend "my" God is evil incarnate for setting the rules as He has, that's your problem. He'll find a way to get over it, I'm sure. But this only means that you're dictating to God what's fair, loving, just and merciful. Because YOU believe being good in human terms should be good enough for Him, and anything short of YOUR standards makes him evil...well...good luck with that. It just stands as one more teaching if Scripture you reject because it offends Dan Trabue.
This is why I delete your comments, Marshal. I ask you straightforward, reasonable questions and you don't answer them directly. Deleting until you answer the questions is my only way of holding you accountable, getting answers. But I'll leave these non-answers up for one second to give you a chance to actually answer the questions asked. If you don't, they're gone.
“To reiterate, our position is there's a vast difference between true goodness (God) versus human goodness (how humans use the term to differentiate between each other's character). The difference is a proper acknowledgment of God's greatness, His perfection, His glory. At the same time it's an acknowledgment of how we fall short regardless of good we think we are, or good others think we are. Compared to other people, some we label "good". But relative to God, those same people are not.”
This is such childish thinking.
There is no vast difference between god’s goodness and ours. If there is, how do you quantify “difference”? Is god twice as good? Ten times? A thousand? It’s the same childishness as thinking a divine being is invested whether lowercase or uppercase letters are used. The same childishness that ascribes gender to a divine being. God is god. Human beings are mortal nature. Our goodness is indeed a capacity derived from our being created in the image and likeness of god. So, too, a muskrat reflects the glory of god. The point is that we have it. And our capacity for freedom gives us some control by our choices and our commitments.
Dan and I are committed to loving people. All people. We choose very often to expand our compassion and sympathies and acts of sacrifice to pitch in where others have need. I think, Dan, you would agree that we are more good than when we were younger. We are able to grow in our goodness. Growth in anything also is a capacity we possess that reflects our nature as like god.
But we are not god. God is not good. God is not love. God is not grace. God is god. Goodness and love and grace emanate FROM god’s being like light from the sun. God’s nature streams forth but is NOT a character trait. God precedes character traits and capacities. God is a priori to and the foundation of all virtues. O virtues without god. But god cannot logically be reduced to a virtues even though in speech we must sound like god is a virtue. So, god is not really OF goodness, since good is a predicate, a modifier of god that we must employ for reasons of our own reasoning and language.
Why do you call me good, rich man? Isn’t it true that we say “only god is good”? But you perceive something else, don’t you? That is why you are here in all eagerness and intent and will, asking me these questions. Well, if you really want to be good, follow me.
The rich man could have chosen to follow Jesus. He had the capacity. Others did. On that day he couldn’t commit totally to the good in front of him. And so Jesus was sad. No reason to be sad if Jesus thinks like Marshal: well, human beings are all too wicked to be really good. It’s up to god to decide who is saved. I’m off the hook for truly growing more and more good, more compassionate, more sympathetic, more sacrificial for others. I just need to stay away from drink, fuck only within marriage, and harass all who will not live the straight, white-worshipping, male dominant life.
You’re no good, Marshall. You decided long ago to remain a latent child.
Dan,
I don't know what question(s) you insist I've left unanswered. My lengthy response to that which you posted previously is quite comprehensive, detailed and direct. To have deleted it would have confirmed the charge that you delete what you requested BECAUSE it answers your questions and exposes the fact you can't overcome the truth I put forth. You would do your reputation a great service to respond in kind rather than take your usual way out. So rather than delete, explain where I failed in your opinion and I'll cite from that response where I didn't and furnish elaboration and/or clarification.
In the meantime, consider your own feelings were you to have spent time to express yourself only to be deleted. That never happens at my blog. "Grace", you know...
Oh, please, you’re a lying hypocrite.
My questions to you (numbered here for clarity):
1. But DO those verses indicate that is reality?
2. Or is that just the particular interpretation that some people have?
3. AND, regardless of whether some do or don't have that particular interpretation and whether it's a faithful interpretation STILL leaves open, "But does the real world evidence support that religious opinion?"
Your apparent answer:
he (Stan) was responding to the notion held by many that people are basically good. He cited Scripture to support an opposing premise that people are NOT basically good. He's not using a conclusion to support a conclusion. He's citing from Scripture that which leads him to the conclusion. Thus, no question begging.
Yes, that IS STAN's (and your) particular OPINIONS. But I'm asking for SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF. That, or an admission that it's just your opinion, in spite of the fact that you admit that by normal standards, there ARE good people in the world. To say, "Jesus said X" and for someone to ask "But does that mean X is a fact, or was he speaking metaphorically, not factually? or was he mistaken?" for YOU to respond with "But, Jesus said X" is very literally question begging.
Last time, support the claim that there are "no good people in the world" with some DATA and proof, not jacked up hunches.
Support the claim that when Jesus said "there was no one good but God" that he was offering an authoritative definition of Good that overrides and redefines the normal understanding.
Your NEXT RESPONSE should begin, "There are definitively no good people in the world because of this data..." and provide the data, support, evidence. DON'T merely cite YOUR hunch about how YOU interpret a verse in the Bible, that is NOT support.
It would be support for the question: Did Jesus ever talk about there being no good people..." but THAT is not the question being asked.
Do you understand the task before you?
So, when you say things like this...
To reiterate, our position is there's a vast difference between true goodness (God) versus human goodness (how humans use the term to differentiate between each other's character). The difference is a proper acknowledgment of God's greatness,
Your other "answer..."
I don't need to prove Christ meant v18 literally, because there's no rational reason to believe otherwise based on the passage in which we find it.
I KNOW what your hunches are. I'm asking you to support it with some DATA and actual proof, not merely citing YOUR hunches about YOUR interpretations of a bible verse.
I can support my position because we all agree that there are observably good people in the world as we reasonably understand Good. You, Craig and I, at least, all agree on that. What you need to support is
A. The normal understanding of Good is not the "correct" one or the "god-approved" one.
B. And that there are no Good people in the world, even as you define it with this alternative and deviant definition.
As to "I don't need to support it..." Yes, yes, you do. THAT is what this post is about. SUPPORT YOUR HUNCHES.
So, begin with THAT answer or admit that you can't. And you can't, so have the intellectual honesty and fortitude to admit it, directly.
More...
I also summed up your calvinist position thusly...
YOU believe that there are no "good/God" people in the world
AND
You believe that all people who are not "good/God" are fatally/eternally flawed
AND
you believe that we all are SO flawed that the only "just" (your god's "just") punishment is to be tortured for an eternity.
So, even though there are "normally good" people in the world, they "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity for the lesser sins/imperfections in their lives.
4. Is that a fair summary of your calvinist hunches?
That question remains unanswered. I think perhaps you were playing around the topic when you said this...
No one comes to the Father but through Christ. He told us this Himself. We are all sinners worthy of death. It's a not at all hidden teaching of Scripture. No amount of good deeds gets us to God. We can't be "good" enough.
But if so, I'm asking you to support it. We are "sinners worthy of death."
5. Does that mean that because we are not perfect, that we are "worthy of" eternal torture?
For the record, I'm not arguing good deeds get us to Christ. I believe in Grace. But YOU are arguing the inverse, that simple imperfection (your apparent definition of "not good") is sufficient to earn us eternal torture.
6. I'm asking for you to support that claim, if it's the claim you're making.
"Yes, that IS STAN's (and your) particular OPINIONS. But I'm asking for SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF."
DUDE!!! Are you an effin' lunatic? You freakin' quote my words in full and then ignore them!! It's incredible! Look again:
he (Stan) was responding to the notion held by many that people are basically good. He cited Scripture to support an opposing premise that people are NOT basically good. He's not using a conclusion to support a conclusion. He's citing from Scripture that which leads him to the conclusion.
Note the bold. That's the key. His premise is what Scripture says. To support the premise, then, he cites those verses which provides the premise. If I say, "Dan believes XYZ." THAT is the premise. When I provide written or recorded evidence of you expressing that belief, that written or recorded evidence IS the freakin "SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF"!!!! JEEZ!!! What the hell is wrong with you? What premise do you WANT him to be putting forth, because you've got what the hell you've been demanding....AGAIN!!!
So it's NOT "his opinion" that Scripture says we're born in iniquity, that we're stained with Adam's sin, that we have a sin nature...and all the other verses Stan provided. It's the teachings of Scripture on the subject of man's basic sinfulness. It's not a matter of what we do. It's a matter of what we are. As I told your sock puppet, having a sin nature does not prevent us from doing nice things. But doing nice things doesn't mean we're "good". The best you can say is that it means we try to be. But even when we make it a habit, it still doesn't mean we aren't sinners. Why is this absolutely kindergarten level Christian teaching so troublesome for you?
Now let's get to your questions and I'll answer them yet again:
1. But DO those verses indicate that is reality?
Why not? Except for the fact that you don't like them, why wouldn't they? What "SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF" do you have that could possibly contradict it? Is there some verse in Scripture that tells us we aren't to take it literally, that it's not reality? Which verse would that be? You're always trying to dismiss verses you like by insisting the Bible must say this or that (where does it say it's a history book? Where does it say it's a rule book?) Where does it say it's not reality? Without this level of evidence, for which you demand we provide for every little thing you don't like about Scripture, it absolutely is a truth claim and reality.
2. Or is that just the particular interpretation that some people have?
Once again, it's like you demanding an explanation of a STOP sign before you'll stop every time you come upon one in the road. "Does it indicate that I must stop, or is that just someone's "hunch"?" If there's a better interpretation, why won't you just freaking spell it out? When the hell do we get to hear one of your superior "interpretations" of what "STOP" means? It's not an "interpretation". It's what the verses say...the meaning in unambiguous. If it wasn't, you'd have given the list of alternatives already. And please don't indict yourself further with another "four corners of the earth" suggestion as if it's the same type of statement.
3. AND, regardless of whether some do or don't have that particular interpretation and whether it's a faithful interpretation STILL leaves open, "But does the real world evidence support that religious opinion?"
This is particularly goofy. What "real world evidence" is there for the existence of God? What "real world evidence" is there for the resurrection of Christ? What "real world evidence" for ANY miracle of the Bible, pre- or post- the beginning of modern history recording? Your continued offering of good works isn't evidence that mitigates the point.
I also don't understand the need you have to base your belief of the Biblical only if it conforms with the worldly. What kind of a Christian does that? Not an intelligent one, because...you know..."Professing themselves to be wise" and all.
What's more, man's sin nature is not something "real world evidence" can prove or deny. It's not within the purview of the real world to do so. As if that isn't enough, it's not consistent with the premise to insist upon "real world evidence" to support what Scripture teaches. Stan presented what Scripture posits regarding the nature of man. The verses he provided are evidence of what Scripture posits. If you wish to argue with Stan, you need to deal with Stan's premise and the evidence for it, as well as where the evidence in support or opposition must researched and found...Scripture...NOT "the real world". (As if Scripture isn't dealing with the real world in the only way that matters!)
Continuing on...
"Last time, support the claim that there are "no good people in the world" with some DATA and proof, not jacked up hunches."
Straw man alert!!! This isn't the claim, muh man. Neither Stan, Craig or I have made this claim. Once again...for the billionth time...Stan was responding to the widely held opinion that "people are basically good". His premise...for the billionth time...was that Scripture doesn't back that opinion at all. As such, how can I be under any obligation to support a claim that I, nor my compadres, haven't made? If you can find a comment from any of us that demonstrated we were arguing "there are no good people in the world", you'll need to provide date and time (as well as which post, as this issue has been debated over several now). You can't penalize me for not answering this one.
"Support the claim that when Jesus said "there was no one good but God" that he was offering an authoritative definition of Good that overrides and redefines the normal understanding."
This also isn't exactly an accurate presentation of where I was going when I offered the verse (Mark 10:18), which I did in response to further demands for "SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF" of Stan's premise. Christ has all the authority God gave Him, why wouldn't ANY definition of ANY word given by Him be authoritative? And where in Scripture does it demand that God/Christ or Scripture in general abide what YOU regard as "normal understanding" rather than "normal understanding" flow from Scriptural teaching or the words of God/Christ? You continue to demand that God/Christ/Scripture bend to worldly norms. But here is a place where the prevailing understanding was clearly corrected by Christ. That is, what YOU now regard as "normal understanding" seemed clearly to be the normal understanding of the rich, young man, now wasn't it?
Thus, YOUR RESPONSE should be a reasoned, Scripture supported argument that indicates...if not proves...that Jesus meant something other than how normal, rational people would take "no one is good but God alone". What does it mean, Dan, and how do you support that meaning?
At this point, I've no doubt you haven't the stones to address the concerns your objections provoked from the first moment you expressed them, so I expect deletion. That's how you roll. But I'm going to carry one anyway, just to remind you that I'm hip to the fact that you're blowing smoke because you've found yourself painted in a corner again. That's why you delete.
"I KNOW what your hunches are. I'm asking you to support it with some DATA and actual proof, not merely citing YOUR hunches about YOUR interpretations of a bible verse."
I don't understand this. You want me to provide evidence that there's a vast difference between God and the rest of us? This is somehow news to you? Or, like feo, you think you're a god? Help me out here.
"I can support my position because we all agree that there are observably good people in the world as we reasonably understand Good."
That we all agree that we can ascribe to some the term "good"...and mean it...doesn't mitigate Christ's statement in v18. It does nothing to address that only God is good, and all else are poor reflections, even if we're in awe of the goodness of another human being. You can't possibly believe that any human person can be good enough to be comparable to God, do you? This is an important question you need to answer in order to show you even understand what our position is. It seems you still don't get it.
Still more coming...
Re: your stop sign analogy. This is actually a great analogy to help you understand what you're failing to understand.
When one sees a stop sign there is one and only one interpretation needed. It always always always always always means stop. Cease movement. Come to a halt. It always means that there's no interpretation needed. The legal system defines it completely. Cease all forward movement. There's nothing to interpret, just stop. Period. Have a question about what it means specifically? You can appeal to the legal system and get an authoritative answer.
Do you agree on that part?
On the other hand, when you read a line in the Bible, it sometimes could be a figurative line. Sometimes it could be that the author meant it literally. Sometimes SOME people think that the author meant it literally and OTHER people don't.
The thing is, those words in the Bible that have to be interpreted. And further, there is NO ONE SINGLE authority to which we may appeal to get a definitive and authoritative answer.
It's not sufficient to say, "The Bible contains 'the line the four corners of the Earth' therefore it must be taken literally, therefore it must be assumed that the Earth is a flat Square." You have to be able to support 1. WHY it should be taken literally and 2. WHY it should be taken literally EVEN IF one doesn't necessarily "believe in the Bible" OR "believe in the evangelical interpretation of the Bible."
The Bible needs to be interpreted and IS interpreted. We ALL agree that there is figurative language in the Bible and some language that may or may not be/should or should not be taken as literal or factual.
Beyond that, there is no single authority to settle disputes on questions about biblical interpretation. Just because some may appeal to a million conservative evangelicals who all agree that Line 1 should be understood literally or factually, that is not "proof" of the claim.
Yes, we DO know how to interpret a stop sign and understand it pretty specifically/exactingly. We know how to appeal to an authority if there's a question about how to understand it.
That is not true for your hunches about the Bible and the world.
Marshal... YOUR RESPONSE should be a reasoned, Scripture supported argument that indicates...if not proves...that Jesus meant something other than how normal, rational people would take "no one is good but God alone". What does it mean, Dan, and how do you support that meaning?
I've done this repeatedly. I've cited YOU for my support.
We ALL KNOW that there are good people in the world, as we normally understand Good. Thus, Jesus wasn't denying reality, therefore, he must have been making another point.
It's the same as the Four Corners imagery. If a verse contains something that we can observably see is not reality, then we ought not take it literally. Duh.
Now, you may not agree with this extremely rational opinion, but you can't say I have not explained why we should take it figuratively. We should take it figuratively for the same reason that we - YOU - take "four corners" literally. Taking it literally doesn't make sense.
Now, since we all know there are good people in the world, since we can reasonably observe them, then there are at least three options to take with that sort of verse.
1. Say, "Since Jesus said there were no good people, then he MUST HAVE been talking literally and offering a new alternative definition of Good. Thus, we should define "true goodness" as Perfection or God." Just change the meaning of the word. We can do that, but it's not rational nor is it needed.
2. We could say, "Since we can see there are good people, since Jesus makes appeals to good people doing good things, we can reasonably conclude that he wasn't speaking literally. It seems quite clear that he must have been speaking figuratively... for instance, hyperbolically saying to the rich man, there is no one PERFECTLY good but God..."
2a. Also, in the very next verse, Jesus says, “One thing you lack. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” So IF you're going to take the "no one good but God" literally, do you also believe that this means that this man was SO CLOSE to being perfect and "Good" that if he just did this "ONE THING," THEN he would be good/perfect? Or was he speaking with hyperbole there, too? But no, you want to suggest take one line literally and then the very next line figuratively. Go figure.
3. OR, we could say, "The Bible is not a science book nor a scholarly treatment on the nature of human nature... Just because there is a line/lines in it that refer to ideas about human nature and goodness does not mean that this is an authoritative or reliable source. And that is certainly true when it comes to some human traditions' hunches about what these passages mean."
Now, what I've been asking for is SUPPORT for the claim that there are no good humans. You are welcome to believe it as a theory, but unless you can SUPPORT it with something more substantive than your flawed human hunches about how to interpret verses and understand "human nature," well, then it's just your unsubstantiated hunch.
I was interrupted and will post the comment I was in the middle of composing when they occurred. I will afterwards continue where I left off and then deal with your most recent comments...because unlike you and feo, I don't dodge:
"A. The normal understanding of Good is not the "correct" one or the "god-approved" one.
B. And that there are no Good people in the world, even as you define it with this alternative and deviant definition."
I'm astounded at how you continue to miss the point. It's not difficult.
A. Our "normal understanding" of good is a relative understanding. It separates some people from others as far as their observable character and deeds. It is certainly "correct" for our purposes, but no, it isn't "correct" given Christ's clear and unambiguous statement. Why this bothers you continues to be a mystery because despite your claims, you've done nothing to explain it. Today's "normal understanding" of the word "gay" is not the correct one. There are many words that fall under this caveat. We apply the word "perfect" knowing perfection is unattainable. Yet you want to insist that "good" is "redefined" because Jesus said only God is good. "Normal" or "common" understanding does not mean "true definition". Christ, who has a leg up on "understanding" given his divine nature, tells us what the "true" definition of "good" is, and everything else is pale imitation at best. Deal with it. It's reality.
B. Again, the term is used relatively. I absolutely acknowledge the existence of those who by human terms are especially good people. But even the best of them aren't truly good, for only God is good. They are still great examples for the rest of us and indeed, they are manifestations of the "little steps to success" concept when compared to the true good that is God. We can't be God, but we can be the best possible human representation of His goodness by emulating the best of our kind. Mother Theresa is a good person. She's not truly good because she's not God, but she's good to extent that she stands as an example worth emulating, thereby bringing ourselves just a bit closer to what God is...even though we can never truly be as He is, Him being God and all and we just His creation.
Once again, we see there is no contradiction in what we're saying until someone like you chooses to pretend there is no distinction between God and ourselves.
"As to "I don't need to support it..." Yes, yes, you do. THAT is what this post is about. SUPPORT YOUR HUNCHES."
At some point, you've got to prove they're hunches at all, rather than what they truly are...accurate representation of the verses in question. You continue to whine that I'm wrong. You don't do jack shit to support that contention. You pretend to question whether or not the verses in question should be taken literally, yet you don't do squat to persuade it shouldn't be. In the meantime, you have no problem taking literally that Jesus meant the financially poor rather than the spiritually poor and don't do a damned thing to provide "SUPPORT, DATA, PROOF" for that. Why is that? I dare you to try to worm your way out of this disparity. This notion that only WE have to prove a verse is to be taken literally while you do nothing to prove it needn't be is dishonest. I insist the verses that have been presented to support the Scripture position that contradicts the "people are basically good" meme are direct, unambiguous and such that no possibility of figurative intent is conveyed anywhere in or around the verses. As such, it is up to you to provide such evidence that suggests or proves they are figurative expressions. You don't. That's dishonest and cowardly. I can't defend that "STOP" means stop until you present your evidence for suggesting it means something else.
continuing...
Marshal... A. Our "normal understanding" of good is a relative understanding.
Support it.
The person who "only" beats children but doesn't kill them is relatively better than the one who beats and kills children AND YET, that person is NOT good by reasonable evaluation of what makes someone good.
The Miss Sues of the world who do no serious harm to anyone and who are kind and helpful and supportive and loving towards others IS good by reasonable evaluations of what makes someone good. She's not good because she's better relative to the killer. She's good by virtue of being a decent person who acts kindly and helpfully.
See? I can support the notion that reasonable evaluations of good are not reliant upon relative comparisons, they just fit the definition and understanding of Good that most people have and can agree upon. I can support my claim.
Support yours.
Marshal... even the best of them aren't truly good, for only God is good
SUPPORT the claim. Who says one must be perfect as God in order to be counted "truly good?"
SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
you've got to prove they're hunches at all, rather than what they truly are...accurate representation of the verses in question. You continue to whine that I'm wrong. You don't do jack shit to support that contention.
No one is arguing "There is NOT a verse in the Bible that quotes Jesus as saying 'no one is good but God.'" What you need to support is that we must take that as a literal definition of Good.
I point to good people to prove that you're wrong to say there are no good people in the world. You are making an EXTRA claim that "no, I mean TRULY good." and define that to be perfect. But PROVE that it must be defined that way.
SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
"So, begin with THAT answer or admit that you can't."
Admitting I can't support what's absolutely obvious is ludicrous. No rational person would tolerate such a demand. Admit you can't provide a valid alternative to the meaning of the clear claims of Scripture. That would be easier and more honest.
"I'm asking you to support it. We are "sinners worthy of death.""
I've done this, but I'll do it yet again. However, at some point, you need to make the case that these verses don't confirm my position if you wish to suggest you know better:
Romans 6:23 and 3:23. John 3:16, 1 John 4:9 The first two relate to the concept that we are worthy of death. The second do so indirectly by stating that accepting Christ avoids our righteous end.
Stand by...computer issues...
OK...issues resolved...
"So, even though there are "normally good" people in the world, they "deserve" to be tortured for an eternity for the lesser sins/imperfections in their lives."
What we deserve isn't based upon what we do, except for accepting Christ as our Savior and believing him Him. If you mean "normally good" as those who are actual Christians, then what you're saying isn't so much that they are truly "good", as Christ meant the term, but that they are redeemed and counted as good as a result.
But if you're going to regard as good those who do what is a human concept of "good deeds", then you have no idea of what it means to be Christian, nor what Scripture teaches as regards how eternal life is attained.
Thus, whether one is "deserving" of eternal life or punishment is not a matter of good deeds, or how well regarded by other people, but by faith and belief that Christ is Lord. Christ said the only way to the Father is through Him. What, in your fevered imaginings, becomes of those who do not accept Him? Are you going to suggest that Christ lied? That He has no idea of whether or not one must accept Him in order to come to the Father? Or maybe you think that what He said doesn't mean what He said and you will never provide any evidence to support that?
If "good" means the same for us as it does for God...then we are not sinners and have no need of Christ...He didn't have to die on the cross...no Messiah was necessary. What evidence can you provide that this is even remotely true or possible. It flies in the face of the complete arch of Biblical teaching...from start to finish. Yes, Scripture absolutely teaches that we are not good, that we are not "good enough", that we are not "perfect enough" to be in God's presence, and there's nothing we can do to alter that fact BUT for Christ. Stan's premise, therefore, is Scripture's premise...its core teaching...that despite our best efforts we are deserving of death because we are indeed not "good", but sinners worthy of damnation........except for Christ. He paid the price we owed for our sin nature. THAT is absolutely how it works. But go ahead. Point to where Scripture says otherwise. I'll wait here while you don't.
"5. Does that mean that because we are not perfect, that we are "worthy of" eternal torture?"
Yes. Are you going to get some balls now and show me where Scripture teaches something different? The moment Adam sinned, his descendants were no longer worthy of being in God's presence.
Imagine a racist living in your house. Not a racist you believe has a chance of being reformed, but a racist who is committed in his racism, perhaps to convert YOU to his ways. Are you going to permit such a person to dwell among your family? to be in your presence from now on? And are you going to abide a third party's opinion that his black heart is no reason to deny him space in your home because of the third party's standards of virtue and character that don't give a care about your own?
Don't bullshit me. Of course you wouldn't. You'd put the racist out if he wouldn't mend his evil ways. Knowing in advance there was no chance of reform, you wouldn't let him in in the first place. Yet you'd demand that God admit into His Holy presence anyone so long as they satisfy Dan Traube's terms and standards. Doesn't work that way. Try to find Scripture that proves me wrong.
Not quite done just yet...
"6. I'm asking for you to support that claim, if it's the claim you're making."
Well, shit, I could've saved a lot of keystrokes had I begun here. You haven't accurately presented my claims yet, and that's despite my several restatements of my claims. Nonetheless, I've supported my positions completely, comprehensively and in a manner that goes far beyond what you've yet to begin doing to refute or rebut my position.
Now I'll look at your interruptions posted after I stated I wasn't finished with your initial demands...
"Re: your stop sign analogy...snip...
Do you agree on that part?"
yes
"On the other hand, when you read a line in the Bible, it sometimes could be a figurative line."
But that's the problem. If YOU think it's figurative, it is YOU who needs to supply evidence to support the contention. It's not up to me to prove it ISN'T figurative! That's absurd and no more than a ploy to dismiss the clear meaning you don't wish to accept. ("Make THAT guy prove "STOP" means "STOP", while we continue to roll through the intersection as it suits us!")
And here's a helpful hint: Asserting that some verses in Scripture are figurative does not stand as evidence that a verse in dispute is or should be regarded as figurative. That's cheap and lazy. Focus on the verse in question and provide some evidence to support your contention that shouldn't be taken literally. Keep in mind that, at least in this case and the case of the initial premise of Stan, your evidence MUST come from Scripture itself, as the premise regards what Scripture teaches on the subject of man's nature.
"The thing is, those words in the Bible that have to be interpreted. And further, there is NO ONE SINGLE authority to which we may appeal to get a definitive and authoritative answer."
Again, you use this subjectively, whenever a premise, interpretation or intention of any passage or verse is such that you find it problematic to your worldly ways. As such, you can say this about absolutely every verse in Scripture, as well as every line in any book of history or science. Again, it is up to YOU to prove that the words provided don't mean what the words convey on their face. Figurative? It's up to YOU to prove it and to provide the meaning of the figurative language. You say this simply to stifle, not to educate and illuminate. You are in essence saying, "It doesn't mean that." to which one asks, "then what does it mean?" to which you then respond, "well...it doesn't mean THAT!" and we get absolutely nothing more. Not compelling at all, Dan. Rather cheap and intellectually lazy.
"Beyond that, there is no single authority to settle disputes on questions about biblical interpretation."
Except you're merely creating a dispute that the text doesn't itself provoke. I doubt you could find anyone...and certainly not very many...who would dispute how we understand the verses Stan has offered, and fewer still the meaning of the verse I offered (Mark10:18). Go ahead and try.
continuing....
"Yes, we DO know how to interpret a stop sign and understand it pretty specifically/exactingly."
And so are we able to interpret v18 because it is every bit as clear and unequivocal as is a stop sign, which is why I use the stop sign analogy (which is a lesson in what an analogy looks like. you're welcome). There's no confusion about what v18 means except that you inject confusion to serve your agenda. If you have no agenda, then what's your problem with the meaning of the verse that is so clear on its face? Please try to explain SOMETHING about your objection. Dancing around it doesn't cut it.
"I've done this repeatedly. I've cited YOU for my support."
No you haven't. You haven't even come close. You've only engaged in your routine "nyuh uh" response, or an appeal to "some verses are figurative so this one might be, too" nonsense.
"We ALL KNOW that there are good people in the world, as we normally understand Good."
That has nothing to do with whether or not Christ was referring to people in His statement regarding who is or isn't good. How we "normally understand good" is a human construct, BASED UPON THE TRUE DEFINITION AS ASSERTED BY CHRIST IN v18, that stands apart from that true definition. It is useful for human purposes, but doesn't mitigate Christ's authoritative statement that no one is good but God alone. So indeed, He wasn't referring to people, but instead was clearly separating people from the only One who truly is good.
"Thus, Jesus wasn't denying reality, therefore, he must have been making another point."
Not "denying", but "clarifying" reality, as He did when He said hate was akin to murder and lust akin to adultery. Here, He was affirming and clarifying that "good" is akin to "God". It's freakin' crystal, Dan. Like a STOP sign. Deal with it.
"It's the same as the Four Corners imagery. If a verse contains something that we can observably see is not reality, then we ought not take it literally. Duh."
"Duh" indeed! The problem for you is that you can't observe God. So Christ explained the truth for such as you. There is no one good but God alone. It's not imagery. If it is, prove it. Pointing to those you regard are "good people" doesn't cut it, because Christ is describing God...not people. He's saying God is good alone. You're not observing God to pretend you see reality. You're observing people...none of whom are God...not even feo. Duh! Even if you think in terms of the person of Jesus Christ. Is anyone as "good" as He was while He walked the earth and carried on His ministry? Name one who is like Him!! You prove your position false by your own rules. Thanks for the help.
continuing...
"Now, you may not agree with this extremely rational opinion, but you can't say I have not explained why we should take it figuratively. We should take it figuratively for the same reason that we - YOU - take "four corners" literally. Taking it literally doesn't make sense."
But it's not a rational opinion as I explained above. It contradicts itself given the concept of observation. You can't observe God, therefore you have nothing against which you can compare Him. You can only observe Christ from the record of the Gospels and by them you can't name a single person in history who compares to HIM! Thus, to provide and explanation that is so flawed, even by your own criteria, means you've explained nothing. It's like saying, "birds fly and I know this because fish swim. You many not like this opinion, but you can't say I didn't provide an explanation." What you've provided is neither rational nor an explanation. You continue to conflate the unrelated in order to pretend you've made your point. You've made nothing but a mess that further damages credibility that was already severely lacking.
"Now, since we all know there are good people in the world, since we can reasonably observe them, then there are at least three options to take with that sort of verse."
1. As I said, Jesus' statement was a clarification of what "good" truly is. That doesn't mean we can't refer to each other as "good". There's nothing irrational about this at all except for your unwillingness to accept reality. There's no conflict here. We can refer to any human as good so long as we keep in mind that the reality is that that good person isn't really good, because only God is. That's not a redefinition. That's a proper understanding of goodness. The conflict is your inability or unwillingness to differentiate between human subjectivity and Christ's clarification of reality.
2. Nonsense. You're injecting your own opinion and calling it reality. Jesus referring to people as good doesn't mitigate His words in v18. He did much that was reflective of His assuming human form. That He engages in human custom and practices doesn't mean He's being figurative in v18. Just because He doesn't satisfy you by constantly qualifying every word He says that as being either figurative or literal doesn't help your case at all. It's just more childish petulance.
2a. Now you're embarrassing yourself, and I'm embarrassed for you. I already actually spoke on this early on. His remarks regarding only God being good are separate from what follows. The dude addressed Christ and then asked his question. Christ first questioned his word choice in his salutation and then proceeded to deal with his question. Are you now going to tell me that He or Scripture needs to distinguish between the two in order for you to consider this obvious fact? That would certainly be your style, but you'd indict yourself again in a negative way.
3. Now you're again making the teachings of Scripture subordinate to science or academics (again, "professing themselves wise..."). That doesn't wash, Dan. You're just doing what you always do when you object to the obvious by saying Christ is wrong because people say something different. What kind of Christian does that? Not a real one.
"Now, what I've been asking for is SUPPORT for the claim that there are no good humans."
No you're not. You've been asking for me to join you in admitting Christ is wrong. I'm not going to do that, because I don't believe He ever is. His statement is clear. It's unambiguous, unequivocal. YOU'RE the one who doesn't believe what He says. You're the one who doesn't believe that Scripture teaches we are all sinners. That we are worthy of death as a result of having a sin nature. That some of us will suffer eternally because of it. You're the one who rejects basic Christian teaching on this matter. My support is that basic Christian teaching and if you believe this long-held, traditional understanding is mistaken, you'll need to do something more substantial than the lame-assed appeals to unsupported human opinion that thus far has done nothing but conflate two distinct realities. You're the one who needs to prove that Scripture I accept is somehow just a "hunch". I'm still waiting.
One last comment to be up-to-date...
"Marshal... A. Our "normal understanding" of good is a relative understanding.
Support it."
I did. Repeatedly and comprehensively.
"The person who "only" beats children but doesn't kill them is relatively better than the one who beats and kills children AND YET, that person is NOT good by reasonable evaluation of what makes someone good."
The problem here is that your example is a matter of subjectivity. The person who "only" spanks his children is relatively better than the one who mercilessly beats his without killing them. We can do all sorts of gradations here and the result is the same. You've only been dealing in subjective notions of goodness or lack thereof. This, however, goes to the point: human application of the term "good". It's still a matter of relativity, in this case based on varying subjective opinions, but all are still relative and all are still less than the level of goodness that only God possesses. That level is the true definition of good. All human applications represent lesser reflections of that true definition relative to it. Not a hard concept to accept without getting the vapors. What's your malfunction?
"The Miss Sues of the world who do no serious harm to anyone and who are kind and helpful and supportive and loving towards others IS good by reasonable evaluations of what makes someone good. She's not good because she's better relative to the killer. She's good by virtue of being a decent person who acts kindly and helpfully."
You're going in circles, saying the same thing over and over and never doing a damned thing to support the claim that Christ didn't mean v18 just as He said it. Miss Sue hasn't lost her sin nature simply because she's, by your standards (or "human" standards if you prefer) "decent" and acts kindly and helpfully. She is in spite of her sin nature. But she's still a sinner. My support is the teachings of Scripture affirmed by theologians for thousands of years. It's not "interpretation", but rather the clear and unambiguous. No one "interprets" the obvious. They "interpret" that which is less so and it is there where legitimate debate can occur. Not as regards the obvious. Christ's words in v18 are obvious, unambiguous, non-threatening in fact, and reminds us of just how badly in need of Him we are. We're not good, no matter how "decent, kind and helpful" we are or try to be. That's because of WHAT we are...sinners...stained by Adam's sin and as a result worthy of death. Again, basic Christian teaching and the reason Christ lived among us and died on the cross. And yet, Miss Sue is indeed good relative to the killer, because by human standards, she does those things that we deem are good things to do. Thus, those who do more of those things we regard as better (more good) than those who do less or none of those things. But only God is good. It's a really easy concept with which to deal. I think you may need counseling because you think it indicts you among your fellow man. You're already indicted in the mind of God, which is why we have Christ. It's a simple, basic Christian concept.
Of course, if you're not really Christian, but only call yourself one, you can hope for the best as all other religions rely upon good works for their salvation. Not us Christians. We rely on Christ. He knows we're not good because He affirmed no one is but God alone.
"See? I can support the notion that reasonable evaluations of good are not reliant upon relative comparisons."
But that's exactly what you're doing. The comparisons are based on deeds. The more good deeds, the more "good" a person is. That's what you're affirming here. You want to limit your example to only the wonderful Miss Sue compared to the killer, but there's an almost infinite number of degrees between one and the other. To each we may make it easy on ourselves and use only two classifications....good and not good..., but the reality is that they are all on a scale. One person may only do one good thing. Compared to another who's never done so much as one good thing that first person is...if not "good" in our estimation...at least better than the second guy. Along comes a third who does the same good thing as the fist, but does it twice. He's twice as good. Yet another does the same thing every day, or does one different nice thing every day. He's better still. He's good man in a way the other three aren't and certainly more so than the second guy who did nothing.
But what of that second guy. He doesn't engage in behaviors we regard as "bad" or "evil". He just exists. By comparison to his buddy who does one bad thing, he's pretty good. His buddy's brother does one bad thing every day. His brother is good by comparison and that second guy is a freakin' gem!
Let's look at is yet another way: there are forty thousand Miss Sues. My aren't they good!!! But there are twenty Mrs. Hannahs that do far, far more than any of the Miss Sues. By comparison, the Miss Sues aren't exactly the epitome of good. Yet we use the same term for all of them, particularly in relation to the first guy who does one good thing, the second guy who does no good things, the third who does one good thing every day. Each of these people are or aren't good relative to each other as we commonly understand the term "good". But in truth, even by our standards, even with out Christ clarifying the reality, none of us is good when compared to God. How could we possibly be? He's God. It's what He is.
"SUPPORT the claim. Who says one must be perfect as God in order to be counted "truly good?""
No one. That's another straw man. But I can say without reservation that no one can possibly attain perfection and thus it's not possible that anyone can be counted as "truly good". That's because there's only one God. That is to say, no one can attain that level of good, even if by Christ's redemption, one can be regarded as such. Do you think yourself a god? Do you regard any person not the Only Begotten Son of God to be a god? We're the created, part of creation. We're not the Creator.
"What you need to support is that we must take that as a literal definition of Good."
What you demand is akin to demanding proof of a negative. You want me to prove that we shouldn't take it literally. Again, with such a direct, straightforward statement, on what basis should I not take it literally? Because you know people you regard as good? That's absurd. Again, there are two realities that are not in conflict no matter how much you need them to be:
1. Only God is good. It serves our salvation to acknowledge this.
2. We can refer to people as good based on their observable character and deeds. It's serves our purposes as humans interacting with other humans to do so.
No conflict. Both are true because they exist apart from each other on different levels. God is something we are not nor ever will be. We can only (and should) pattern ourselves and our behavior on His will.
"I point to good people to prove that you're wrong to say there are no good people in the world."
But that doesn't prove I'm wrong on this point, because you assert the goodness of people based on human criteria. That's fine. We're allowed to do that. But it doesn't mitigate Christ's words in the least. It doesn't mitigate Biblical teaching on the nature of man. Thus, you're only asserting I'm wrong. You're not proving it. Even as an example of evidence, it doesn't make the case. It only means that by human standards, some people are "good" in relation to other humans. Your assertion is Pharisee in the temple to my tax collector. I'm defending a Biblical position and you're arguing against it with worldly evidence, none of which can possibly contradict Biblical teaching and the direct words of Christ. You complain because the truth means we must be perfect. But that's the whole point of it all. We're not perfect and as a result we're screwed. Fortunately, for those of us who recognize that we're screwed, we have Christ who gets us in if we abide Him. It's a beautiful thing. I thank God every day for Him.
Now for feo's hilarity:
"There is no vast difference between god’s goodness and ours."
Uhhh, yes there is. And it's even greater between yours and his compared to the rest of us...and gosh, that's a low bar, Skeeter.
"If there is, how do you quantify “difference”? Is god twice as good? Ten times? A thousand?"
Actually, it's immeasurable. I know you see yourself as a god, but that only makes one of you who agrees. You're not even as good as me, and that's not all that great. Hell, you're not even as good as Donald Trump. He's just ignorant of Christianity. You've downright rejected it.
"It’s the same childishness as thinking a divine being is invested whether lowercase or uppercase letters are used."
We who are in awe of God regard it as reverence. You who think He's just some dude on the street will pay in the end.
"The same childishness that ascribes gender to a divine being."
Yeah, that Jesus of Nazareth...what a rube!
"God is god. Human beings are mortal nature."
Wow! Did you just learn this today? What a good boy you are!
"Our goodness is indeed a capacity derived from our being created in the image and likeness of god."
That doesn't mitigate the reality that we are sinful by nature and prone to sinful behavior. We default to service of ourselves rather than to God. We must be taught to be "good". Note those raised in unstable households. Some may learn goodness nonetheless, but learn it they do. It is far less likely that any will simply "be" good from birth without it being taught them. For some, environment isn't enough. Di yourself, for example. You claim a high level theological education and you're still a dick. I pray for you nonetheless, Richard.
"Dan and I are committed to loving people. All people."
No you're not. You're a dick. You say worse than that over and over to me and Craig all the time. You've been an ass and a half from your first appearance on the blogs and it hasn't abated for a moment. Your only commitment is to your self-promotion and you're failing miserably. But thanks for the laugh. I can always count on you for that.
"But we are not god."
Ooh, tough one. I'm torn between, "Make up your mind" and "YOU'RE certainly not!" Either response works here.
"God is not good. God is not love. God is not grace."
Uh oh! You're going to have to turn in your Lefty Decoder Ring! That's mandatory dogma of the "progressive" set.
"Goodness and love and grace emanate FROM god’s being like light from the sun."
Nonsense and poppycock meant to project wisdom and insight. Professing yourself wise, you're a dumbass. There's no logic in suggesting that something flows from nothing. What's more, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." -1 John 4:8
Gee...from whom should I take my cues, the apostle John, or the dumbass feo? Hmmm. The rest of the paragraph is just you trying to pretend you know something for which you couldn't defend with real evidence of any kind, much less the kind Dan so often demands. It's just more of your self-satisfying babbling that make you think you're wise. But again....dumbass. That's the reality of you.
"Why do you call me good, rich man? Isn’t it true that we say “only god is good”? But you perceive something else, don’t you? That is why you are here in all eagerness and intent and will, asking me these questions. Well, if you really want to be good, follow me."
This is crap. You're putting words in Christ's mouth in order to make a point the text itself doesn't imply or support. You don't have the understanding to be so presumptuous. As I said to Dan. The dude approached Jesus and addressed Him and then asked a question. Jesus responded to the salutation first in order to correct Him and to point out that only God is good. There's no indication that the guy "perceived" anything. Indeed, Christ is telling him he doesn't know who he is addressing. He didn't ask the guy "isn't it true..." He TOLD the dude, "no one is good but God alone". Then He went on to answer his question. You don't "interpret". You twist to make it mean something to fit your agenda, much in the way Dan's pastor does during Easter sermons.
"No reason to be sad if Jesus thinks like Marshal: well, human beings are all too wicked to be really good."
And there you go being a dick again. This isn't in the least representative of anything I've ever said, implied, or hinted. It's your smarmy condescension, as if you have any justification for being so. You don't. You're a dumbass who fancies himself wise and knowledgeable and who tries to baffle with bullshit being unable to dazzle with brilliance...since you have none. And of course you top it all off with another idiotic pro-immorality, racist remark. You fool no one, Bucky. Not me, and certainly not God. You're a fraud and a not very good one.
You're in my prayers. Repent and accept Christ as your Savior. Worship God instead of yourself.
Marshal thinks god is Simba. And he plays Poomba.
Marshal: “He never taught "grace". He never mentioned "grace"...
“Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now,
for you will be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you[d] on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.
But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you love those who love you, what GRACE (χάρις) is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what GRACE (χάρις) is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what GRACE (χάρις) is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
Sounds like Grace to me.
Absolutely.
At the very least, the VERY least, the two biblicists, Craig and Marshal, are ignorant on the message of the gospel of Luke.
More than that, Marshal just makes stuff up.
Pointing these things out so clearly is why they block me.
"Sounds like Grace to me."
Except it isn't. Look at all the Biblical translations (ESV, NIV, KJV, etc.) and you will not find that most of them use the word in this passage or the the Mark parallel. They speak of "credit", "benefit", "blessing" and other words that speak of "reward" (a word used quite a bit) for an act.
But "Grace", as it is most commonly understood (an important criteria for Dan as we know he throws that criteria around when he wants something understood the way he like it) is "unmerited favor". That is, getting something without having done anything to deserve it. Basically, Jesus is saying here, "Big deal. Even jerks like feo love their own families and friends. You don't get a pat on the back for loving your friends. That's easy!" He's not at all speaking of "unmerited favor".
Thus, no ignorance here on my part or Craig's. And Dan, I would caution you against being so quick to agree with feo just because he's taking your side. It damages your already suspect credibility.
But even when feo exposes his lack of intelligence (or his unjustified sense of intellectual superiority), it has nothing to do with why he's blocked, and the liar well knows it. Or, if he still doesn't know, it just proves he's nowhere near as smart as he so desperately needs everyone to believe.
So feo, that's not even a "nice try", but thanks for playing anyway.
Marshal believes in the Bible. Just not the original one. He thinks Jesus is from Grand Rapids.
“He never mentioned "grace" You’ll lie even about Jesus, Marshal.
The word Jesus uses in Luke is χάρις. That’s the word for grace.
The entire section is how to live with grace. Just like Dan has been arguing. We can choose to live by grace: “love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.”
Marshal... " "Grace", as it is most commonly understood (an important criteria for Dan as we know he throws that criteria around when he wants something understood the way he like it) is "unmerited favor". "
Marshal, do you know that's NOT the definition of the Greek word in question? As Feodor is rightly stating (although, I will be glad to admit that I was unaware of that particular use of the term in Luke 6)? If I'm not mistaken, that "unmerited favor" is a relatively new definition assigned to the word to explain the CALVINIST/Evangelical human traditions about God. You're begging the question, again.
Feodor, do you happen to know the etymology/origin of the "definition" of grace to be "unmerited favor..."? I don't know that I even disagree with it, I just don't think it's a biblical definition. I'd be willing to bet that is a phrase that originated in the last 500 years, and maybe in the last 200... It sounds very "Billy Graham-ish."
From Bible Study Tools website...
CHARIS
grace
that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
good will, loving-kindness, favour
of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
what is due to grace
the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
the token or proof of grace, benefit
a gift of grace
benefit, bounty
thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/charis.html
The concern with merit relative to salvation arise with particular emphasis in Augustine’s objections to Pelagius. Much later, the Council of Trent as the Catholic Church articulated its objection to the Reformation.
As for the phrase “God’s unmerited favor”, I can only think of a book by Charles Spurgeon; so,19th century: “Grace: God’s Unmerited Favor”
A great joke for your post:
The gardener of an English estate is out doing his job. A visitor is walking the gardens admiring the cultivated and landscapes flowers, the plants, the vegetables and trees and says, “God’s best work!”
The gardener looks up and says, “you should have seen it when he was in charge of it.”
Reflecting on the joke, god charges us with the care, the planting, the tilling, the rule of nature by bringing order and beauty and purpose to nature. We make god's creation better. We add goodness: we are made in the likeness of god. Genesis is saying that god made us to be the loving god's of nature.
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, in having dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
"Marshal believes in the Bible. Just not the original one."
There's only one. You should read it sometime.
"The word Jesus uses in Luke is χάρις. That’s the word for grace."
Context matters, sad feo. As I stated, most translations do not translate the meaning as the "grace" to which I refer...the grace to which Paul and most of Scripture refers. You guys are using it as a term for basic charity/love. But in the most oft read contexts, it is more than simply being nice to someone. What God extends to us He does without regard to whether or not we are deserving of it, for as sinners we most certainly are not. That's the lesson and message of the Good News Christ brought to the poor in spirit. We're not worthy, but God deigns to count us as such because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross...His blood spilled being necessary for the purpose.
"The entire section is how to live with grace."
But it ignores the point, which is in reference to our treatment to our enemies. Once again, His point was that it's no big deal to simply love those who love us. Everyone does that and it's not a sign of true Christian love. We get no special credit for doing what comes naturally. That's how the term "charis" is used here, so it's not what this discussion has been about. We're to love those who treat us badly, who oppose us, who are arrogant false priests who condescend because they're far more interested in posturing as intellectually superior than in simply engaging in discourse.
"As for the phrase “God’s unmerited favor”, I can only think of..." several epistles of a few apostles wherein the concept is plain for all to see. Paul in particular constantly makes references to God's favor granted us through no efforts of our own. It's not hard to find.
"We make god's creation better."
Have you seen Detroit lately? The sidewalks of San Francisco?
"Marshal, do you know that's NOT the definition of the Greek word in question?"
You can't have it both ways, Dan. You can't scold Craig or myself for not taking a word for how it's commonly used and then be strict when common usage doesn't work for you.
"If I'm not mistaken, that "unmerited favor" is a relatively new definition..."
You are mistaken. "Unmerited favor" is an accurate label for a concept repeatedly taught by Paul and affirmed by Peter and John in their epistles. Doesn't matter who coined it or when. It's how Paul uses the term. It's what he means by it. Not a hunch. It's the fact of the matter.
"From Bible Study Tools website..."
"An accurate, common definition describes grace as the unmerited favor of God toward man." (Bold italics mine)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/grace/
Marshal then: "You depend upon numbers to validate your goofy opinions of what Scripture means."
Marshal now: "most translations do not translate the meaning as the "grace" to which I refer"
Not only does you worship a book, Marshal, you only worship it in English, choosing to disparage the language that Jesus and the first church spoke. This kind of stupid and self-destructive ignorance is par for the course for you.
___
"As for the phrase “God’s unmerited favor”, I can only think of..." several epistles of a few apostles wherein the concept is plain for all to see. Paul in particular constantly makes references..."
Find them; give us the quote. Should have already done that. You can't find the phrase, can you?
____
San Francisco is a beautiful city. Ever been there?
Detroit built the exceptional American you want back. Rich men emptied it of the benefit it deserved. The truth is hard for brutalist colluders like yourself. How's that truck of yours doing?
Dan, the problem in logic for Calvinists on grace is that there cannot be "unmerited favor" if god has already predestined the elect for salvation BEFORE the foundations of the earth. If time does not matter, then behavior cannot be considered. Doesn't matter how good or not you are.
The inferential question, then, that was always raised in anxiety to Calvin, and over which he struggled, was, "then how do you know if you are among the elect?" Calvin delivered 16 sermons on the Ten Commandments, through most of which he was addressing the broad issue called the Consolation of the Conscience, which especially regarded human freedom. Freedom was worrying because feeling free as a Christian who has already been chosen could lead to antinomianism. What Marshal and Craig fantasize as - and then repress their fantasies of - lawlessness, profligacy, opulence. Calving came up with two answers: trust the leaders; keep your nose down and work hard.
And, given the message that Christians were now indeed free in Christ, but fearing antinomianism, Calvin preached that one cannot enjoy anything unless it fits in with the express purposes of god. Laughter, feasting, gaining wealth, enjoying music, or drinking wine. Well, no one knew what god wanted from these things, so they were avoided. Except unavoidably gaining wealth by being disciplined and honest and shrewd businessmen. Geneva, and subsequently protestant Northern Europe, was then filled with rich men who couldn't spend it. Not even to do good for those worse off. Who knew if god wanted such a thing? Money for those who couldn't provide for themselves? How could that be god's plan? Money for those who were ill when everyone knows illness is due to some sin? How could that be god's plan?
This accumulation of wealth with an anxiety of salvation became what Max Weber described as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Over time, it came to be understood within Calvinism that anxious accrual of anxious riches that should remain hoarded was the very sign of god's favor - the consultation of the conscience that, yes, you were among the elect. But there weren't THAT many rich men. Only a very few Calvinists were really rich. Perhaps it is when one is in a rich, slavishly religious society that one knew one was among the elect. Damn the rest of the world and damn those within that couldn't toe the line. Geneva, then Zurich, then Basel, Germany, Scotland, and then the golden age of Dutch empire understood themselves this way.
England superseded the Dutch empire and Calvinism ran into a roadblock of salving their conscience. Were they the elect?
Various non-conformists first from England and later sectarian separatists from Scotland, joined the expedition to the new world to make a new city of God. First they had to get to the Netherlands, the last capital of protestant consolation. Then, America. But not the cities. Sinners and Catholic and Anglican heretics and Jewish heathens filled the cities.
These ideological foundations to American white identity are the legacy Marshal and Craig and Stan, et al, believe in. And added to their sense of being the elect of god: justified in destroying a native population, and in enslaving an African one, in order to build god's city on a hill.
Dan: "You see, believe it or not, we are morally reasoning creature this."
Marshal: “Not according to Scripture. Not according to law enforcement statistics. Not according to history or international human rights organizations.
1. The world is at present at its lowest levels of famine, homelessness, and war. International rights organizations are trying to get us to care for the millions left out.
2. The US is experiencing its lowest crime rates sine the 50s.
These facts can be attributed to billions of us who use moral reasoning. Marshal may not know any of them.
And, Marshal Continues his ignorantly gross, wild claims because doesn’t know scripture.
“Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”
“... but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”
“The naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps.“
“The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
"Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right.”
“Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
“For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.”
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.”
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them...”
"Behold, I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, While you pondered what to say. "I even paid close attention to you; Indeed, there was no one who refuted Job, Not one of you who answered his words.“
"Not only does you worship a book, Marshal, you only worship it in English, choosing to disparage the language that Jesus and the first church spoke."
No I doesn't.
"Find them; give us the quote. Should have already done that. You can't find the phrase, can you?"
Still waiting for that evidence that Christ wasn't serious when He said, there is no one good but God alone.
I was wrong, Marshal, you don't even really believe in the Bible. If you did, you wouldn't lie so much.
Just look at your response. Two nothings, one diversion, and you attacked a typo. You just needed to say something because you read the three things I pointed out and had zero grounds to rebut them. And you were revealed, for the fourth or fifth time in as many weeks how ignorant you are on scripture.
But you were disturbed. And, yet, on your blog, you claim that you can ignore my comments sent to your blog. You claim to send them to the trash. Well, the above empty responses of yours that you just had to see in print make it obvious that you read my comments. And are disturbed.
Your claim to ignore me is a lie. Just look at the most recent two posts of yours.
Oh, sad troll. I don't ALWAYS trash your spammed comments. I've said more than once that I take a gander now and then. I'm not in any way obliged to respond to every single stupid thing you say, even those stupid things I actually read. I don't owe you that in the least, nor are you deserving. And I especially am not obliged to respond to off-topic comments submitted because you can't access other blogs where you've more than worn out your welcome.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for that evidence that Christ wasn't serious when He said, there is no one good but God alone.
You don’t have the integrity to acknowledge that Jesus used the word, grace, or that both testaments hold up the capacity human beings to reason, reason well, and even negotiate in reason with god.
You’re not waiting for evidence. You ignore evidence. And you defend your ignorance.
You’re just waiting for another opportunity to lie.
If you read that statement of Jesus as a propositional claim of truth then his opening remark must be, too. Why do you call me good? Read as propositional claim, one has to interpret that as a disclaimer: I am not good. Only God is good.
Clearly he is not making propositional claims. He almost never dies when he’s sparring with strangers. He teases with untruths. Go call your husband and come back. Is it right to heal on the Sabbath? John’s baptism, was it from heaven or of human origin? It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. No one is good. What is truth?
"You don’t have the integrity to acknowledge that Jesus used the word, grace, or that both testaments hold up the capacity human beings to reason, reason well, and even negotiate in reason with god."
But I do have the integrity to know that some Biblical translations lean toward meaning, while others toward literal, word-for-word translations. With this in mind, I see that those that use the word "credit", as in, what credit is that to you?, are a better understanding of the passage you're so desperately trying to use against me.
Even Dan provided a list of meanings for the original Greek work "charis". This means context is important for determining if any use of the word carries the same meaning every time it's used. Another example, though opposite to this is "love". It is a good illustration of the difficulties in translating ancient (or any) languages. We use the one word "love" in place of every distinctly different Greek offering (eros, agape, for example).
Then, one must also have the integrity to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?
Finally, this whole "He DID use the word" is a distraction from the point and a purposeful avoidance of the context in which He did, just to pretend you know more. There's no ignorance on my part with regard to this discussion, but there is a ton of dishonesty on yours.
In Mark 10:8, Jesus is most definitely making a truth claim. That not all of His words throughout the Gospels are specifically truth claims, that doesn't negate the fact that He's making one here. So again, if that's not the case, your job is to prove it. Absent such proof, there is no reason to suspect He didn't mean what He said in just the way the words used imply. Absent such proof, you're just playing games rather than accepting that Jesus affirmed the premise Stan put forth, that Scripture contradicts the human notion that man is basically good.
"Even Dan provided a list of meanings for the original Greek work "charis"." And "credit" is not among them.
You are right, Marshal, to note that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But I'm surprised by your concession. He probably knew enough koine to get by and may or may not have known Hebrew as it was not the conversational language in Judea. Of course, if Jesus didn't know Greek, then it goes without saying that the two Galileans didn't. And Mark and Luke never knew Jesus.
But if, Marshal, you want to go with modern scholarly consensus and claim that we do not have - in fact - an honest recording of Jesus words and therefore we don't really know what he said, only the gospel writers' interpretations of interpretations, then I'm willing to stop stooping to your level and work from such an understanding. But it means wholesale gutting of your faith in the Bible and changing the very nature of the source for your understanding. Such are the implications of your claim that all we have is interpretation upon interpretation upon interpretation. We have not choice, then, in the light of the distance from our gospel sources from the historical Jesus, but to shape our interpretation of Scripture from the context of our faith from in the midst of our current community using the best Enlightenment platformed reasoning that we have. And so, for starters, Genesis is clearly myth; we have zero evidence of the facticity of anything until the time of David and that is scant, and we go on from there to necessarily interpret Jesus' ministry by the second and third hand interpretations of it by all the documents of the New Testament.
____
The complete entry from Strong's, which should mean more to you than me:
charis, grace
Strong's Number: 5485 Browse Lexicon
χαρις
1. grace - that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
2. good will, loving-kindness, favour of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
3. WHAT IS DUE TO GRACE
a. THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF ONE GOVERNED BY THE POWER OF DIVINE GRACE
b. THE TOKEN OR PROOF OF GRACE, BENEFIT
b1 A GIFT OF GRACE
b2 BENEFIT, BOUNTY
4. THANKS, (FOR BENEFITS, SERVICES, FAVOURS), RECOMPENSE, REWARD
_____
kleos
κλέος,
Definition: fame
Usage: glory, fame, praise; rumor, report, CREDIT.
Dan, Marshal has unknowingly admitted against his foundational lies that we do not have an accurate record of Jesus’ own words. He agrees with modern scholarship that all Jesus could reasonably have spoken well was Aramaic and not the Greek of the Gospels. So, too, applying reason with common sense, no Galilean was speaking Greek. So Matthew and John were certainly written later by Greek writers writing in their name. This explains why the syntax and texts of Matthew and Luke could agree so much of the time: they shared in common the Greek text of Mark and some other Greek source of sayings.
That Marshal admits these clear conclusions of modern scholarship that our biblical texts are interpretations of interpretations of interpretations sadly destroys his foundational claim that the text has everything right, and demolishes his simplistic process of theological thinking that rests on that now discredited claim.
Marshal’s choked admission makes clear how the Holy Spirt leads us: we must from our corporate faith as the Church worshipping in love interpret Holy Scripture and the teachings throughout church history in the light of our best reason and faith in order to make sense life and love for ourselves and our time. It’s up to us, the living, as it always must be, to form the shape of truth which contains the content of Jesus’ revelation as the incarnate god. Thank god we can be such good Christians as created beings who image god that the challenge is easily done... when we are together in love and kindly and humble holiness.
Nice misrepresentation of my words. You're a pro at lying.
I am utterly unsurprised that you are oblivious to how your own words (“Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”) destroy the proposition that the Gospels are an absolute trustworthy record of what the historical Jesus actually said.
I trust Scripture. I don't trust false priests like you. Nothing you've put forth begins to address the main premise, that Scripture contradicts the common notion that man is basically good. People like you don't use "reason" to understand Scripture. You use personal desire to interpret Scripture to your liking.
More later...
You lie. You don’t trust scripture. This is not trusting scripture:
“Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”
Or... you lied because you don’t have the basic Christian decency to take care of your own soul by admitting you made a mistake about Jesus not speaking his word for grace.
So, you made this up - which you really don’t believe - in order to hide: “Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”
Which lie is it, Marshal? Doesn’t really matter. What matters is how deep in the bag you are in self-deceit and how from Christian behavior. You won’t admit that you are human; that you have anger; that you blame others for your anger, which is hate; that you don’t yet have faith in your beliefs because your beliefs serve the purposes of covering up your anger in hate.
Admit you are human. Admit you’ve been choosing to walk a long way down the path of evil and destruction to your own self.
And turn around clean.
So badly do you need to believe you're intellectually and/or morally superior that you will deflect, obfuscate and avoid the point being made that exposes you for the fraud you are. It seems this is a malady for which there is no cure...you're hopelessly deceitful and self-absorbed.
You wish to focus on a literal translation of a verse because of the use of a particular Greek word that may or may not be the best translation of the Aramaic Jesus likely spoke. The most common translations seem to carry the spirit of the verse better than the literal use of the word "charis". If your whole purpose is to score a point because "charis" appears in the original Greek, then fine. Do your happy dance. It does little to address the underlying point of the discussion, nor does it mitigate the reality that Scripture contradicts the widely held notion that man is basically good.
The real like here is pretty much anything you say. You are NOT a Christian based on your behavior exhibited routinely since the first day you soiled the blogosphere by your presence. You are NOT clever enough to psychoanalyze me or Craig or anyone else, but instead have this desperate need to believe the worst about people who understand Scripture far better than you without what you claim is your level of education.
While you whine about me admitting to mistakes, you continue to propagate so many of your own regarding the faith. Here, you wish to insist, with the lamest of arguments, that man is indeed good (laughably) because he can do good things, never grasping that one is not required to do anything to be what one is, and therefore if man is encouraged or instructed to be good, then one cannot by definition be good in the first place. Assuming you're actually a man, for example, it would be idiotic to tell you to be one...except that I suspect you rarely behave as one...because biologically you already are one.
So keep trying, sad feo. Maybe one day you'll even convince yourself of the lies you tell us.
It's not about what I need to believe. You need to stop lying. You can be smart as hell, Marshal, who knows? But you lie to yourself to justify your anger turned into hate.
If you think the Greek NT is a questionable interpretation of what Jesus actually said you destroy the foundations of all the rigid doctrines and dogma you've professed as long as you first ran into those helicopter engineers. That's just the simple, clear, logical implications of your twisted allergy to just saying you got it wrong.
All we know from scripture is that Jesus spoke of grace and taught it right here in this passage. And that fact shows that Jesus' conception of grace and goodness does not agree with your rigid, frigid, semantic nonsense.
And these diarrhetic words, Marshal, to illustrate for you, is deflection, diversion, obfuscation and avoidance of simply admitting that you were wrong, that the only Jesus we have in scripture does indeed, contrary to what you said, talk about grace and does indeed, contrary to what you said, develops a lesson on grace... and also petty, whining, and a sad defense for your gutter behavior:
"So badly do you need to believe you're intellectually and/or morally superior that you will deflect, obfuscate and avoid the point..." Diversion itself.
"It seems this is a malady for which there is no cure.." Avoidance itself
"Do your happy dance." Deflection itself
"You are NOT a Christian" Whining
"You are NOT clever enough to psychoanalyze me" Obfuscation
"this desperate need to believe the worst about people" Obviously a lie since I learned quite well from the scholars who taught me enough to continuingly identify your repeated mistakes.
"It's not about what I need to believe."
For you it certainly is and your years of comments backs this up perfectly.
"You need to stop lying."
You need to stop accusing me of lying until you can actually provide evidence that I've actually lied. Hasn't happened yet, and since I have no need to lie in these "conversations" in the first place, it won't happen anytime soon.
"But you lie to yourself to justify your anger turned into hate."
What "anger"? What "hate"? More baseless accusations you desperately need to believe.
"If you think the Greek NT is a questionable interpretation of what Jesus actually said you destroy the foundations of all the rigid doctrines and dogma you've professed as long as you first ran into those helicopter engineers."
What I "think" is that your understanding of the verse you use to pretend you're more knowledgeable fails to accomplish that dubious purpose. You assume the use of the word "charis" in that verse denotes the English word grace simply because a couple of Bibles that presents "literal" translation provides the most accurate translation of the intent or meaning. But even "rubes" like me understand that translations differ for various reasons, that some seek word-for-word translations while other seek to convey the meaning behind the words. For a good explanation for what you should actually know if you have the education you claim to have, I submit the following:
https://www.thenivbible.com/blog/choosing-right-bible-church/
With that in mind, I further submit that the verse you think proves I'm wrong actually doesn't unless one is choosing a word-for-word translation, which doesn't actually convey the meaning that most translations make clear. But in the simplest terms, the "correct" or most accurate translation of Luke 6:32 would be, "If you love those who love you, big deal. Even feodors do that." The context in which this verse lies deals with loving one's enemies. (You certainly are incapable, as your routine arrogant and condescending demeanor make plain.) And while one might make the argument that the "loving thy enemies" encouragement is an expression of grace, one then has to define how the word "grace" is being used. It seems Dan wishes to have it mean, "be nice". Paul doesn't seem at all to use it in that manner, and the "grace" Christ may be teaching in His ministry...if He's concerned with it at all...is the unmerited favor of God toward His sinful creations...NOT "being nice".
As to my "helicopter engineers", in all the time since I posted their brilliant explanations, you haven't done jack feo to rebut them. You've never done more than disparage them for their careers as if they are somehow incapable of being expert in more than one field...all while you prove yourself to be expert in none. Given all your many failed attempts to posture yourself as a fart smeller...er...smart feller, I see absolutely no reason to question their understanding and devotion to Scripture.
So again, is the meaning of the word "charis" in the context of 6:32 "grace"? It seems obvious that it is not...more certainly not "grace" as you and Dan would like the word to mean, which itself seems of your own invention rather than a plain understanding of Scripture.
"So badly do you need to believe you're intellectually and/or morally superior that you will deflect, obfuscate and avoid the point..." Your mental/emotional instability and insecurity.
"It seems this is a malady for which there is no cure.." Sad reality itself.
"Do your happy dance." What you do without just cause after failing to defeat even your strawmen.
"You are NOT a Christian" Truth.
"You are NOT clever enough to psychoanalyze me" More truth.
"this desperate need to believe the worst about people who understand Scripture far better than you without what you claim is your level of education." Is the malady of yours for which their apparently is no cure. Sad.
Now, let's see how much time I have to post my latest about your "plan" after having wasted time correcting your irrational rantings once again.
“Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”
You keep destroying your credibility when you hide from your words by enacting yourself your own accusations: you “deflect, divert, obfuscate and avoid” what you’ve just written and try a defense stolen from liberal wisdom: reading Scripture is an act of interpretive skill. You did this when you raise up “context” and syntactical word choice in translational, etc.
Your need to use liberal ideas of biblical study reveals the truth of what you said: Scripture is an ancient literary art, not a historical record. And as such, all we can do is interpret for our time by being clear in the creative and interpretive strategies and deliberately composed motivations of these written, often opaque texts.
___
You did it again. You got scripture all wrong on a basic level. You have zero bible comprehension, whirlybird.
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit [Χάρις] those who listen.“
“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone.”
And then there is this, which Paul writes as a greeting to every church in his letters and to Philemon: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
If grace is solely the unmerited favor of god’s salvation given once for all time to not consequentially good human beings, why is Paul extending it in his best wishes... so frequently?
Found on 7th century BCE scrolls, the oldest copies found of biblical texts, this priest’s blessing from Numbers: “The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make His face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance on you and give you peace.”
Wishing god’s kindness and peace to others is a very nice, gracious thing to do. A good thing to do. Contrary to what you say, Paul did it. Ancient priests did it. And still do.
That would all be nice if the subject on the table had to do with those uses of the word. It doesn't. And that's where you continue to go wrong, playing games with meanings in order to deflect from the subject and your poor attacks on the premise you haven't been able to overcome. Scripture contradicts the notion that man is basically good.
You, and Dan, also fail in your constant claim that Christ's message to us was to be nice to each other, when the real message of grace was God's unmerited favor toward us, freeing us from the shackles of the Law in order to no longer be separated from Him. And you do this by again providing me with evidence that my position is correct...that you are playing semantic games with the word "charis" simply to denigrate rather than "building others up". I truly appreciate the help. If only you had a helicopter engineer to help you understand just how poor your understanding is.
The only game I’m playing is trying to get it through you thick skull that Jesus and Paul are two New Testament characters who, in various texts of the New Testament use one Greek word only for grace, and use it like any good, meaty word with layered and abstract meaning. Just as Dan has perpetually explained to you
And when it’s your turn you “deflect, divert, obfuscate and avoid” admitting the clear, Biblical truth.
Indeed and that's the game to which I refer. But the true fact is that the Greek word used for "grace" (and English word not derived from "charis") is also used for other purposes, as we see in Luke 6:32. And so to insist that it is used to mean "grace" when it is used in this passage to mean something else is clearly obfuscation on your part, and clearly an intent to prop yourself up as the intellectually superior person you clearly are not. With this clear and unequivocal fact in mind, I was clearly correct in saying that Jesus didn't use the word "grace" as the term is being discussed here.
You’ve got problems at home, Marshal. Go tend to them.
NASB Chief turns KJV, Denounces NASB
“I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words…it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong…I’m in trouble;…I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening…there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven’t gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort’s corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn’t gone into it…that’s how easily one can be deceived…Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?”
– Frank Logsdon
Frank Logsdon was a major player in the development of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He was a friend of Dewey Lockman, and was involved in a feasibility study involving purchasing the copyright of the American Standard Version (ASV) with Lockman that lead to the eventual production of the NASB. He interviewed some of the translators for the job, and even wrote the preface to the translation.
Slowly, he became aware that there was something wrong with the NASB. He eventually rejected it, and promoted the KJV. This was a major defection for the modern version crowd
Below is his speech, in it’s entirety, rejecting the NASB, and endorsing the Textus Receptus and the KJV.”
And as the above fundamentalist wars over which Greek texts and which English language versions appear ungainly a thousand years later shows, and as you, Marshal, have unwillingly admitted (“Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”) interpreting the NT cannot ever be definitive about what Jesus actually said. We cannot trust the layers of accumulated translations that are all interpretations.
The book is not a guarantee. And no one can agree which one the Holy Ghost prefers.
All you can do is suggest what you think consistent with your theological commitments. Just like a liberal. Although yours are pretty brutal. For certain reasons.
https://blog.drwile.com/dr-frank-logsdon-and-the-nasb-another-christian-myth/
You again fail in your endeavors to posture as intellectually superior and more laughingly, as more honest. Equally ludicrous is your unjustified belief that you are capable of comprehending what you read. The only thing I've admitted is, in addition to what I just typed out, that YOU are not a trustworthy source for determining what Jesus said, less so what the Holy Spirit might say to the faithful.
More to the point, your intention of furthering this self-promotion does nothing to mitigate the reality that Luke 6:32 does not speak of grace by using the Greek "charis", which isn't the word from which we derive the English "grace".
And once again, for I'm sure I've responded to this already, my "theological commitments" are informed by Scripture. Unlike you and Dan, I do not impose anything on Scripture to make it more palatable, as that would certainly make me "just like a liberal"...perish the thought!
At some point, hopefully before either of us dies, it would be nice to see you actually try to justify your hateful opinions of me, hopefully with some substantive proofs and evidence. The certain reasons you won't and can't are already known, but it would be entertaining to watch you try.
Marshal's actual words, “Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?”
___
Marshal's actual words, "the Greek 'charis', which isn't the word from which we derive the English 'grace'."
Do you think, Marshal, the NT comes to us in Latin? If so, then you must believe that Jerome wrote the gospels in about 400 AD. If you don't really believe that, then you prove my point. The Latin, gratia, is a translation of charis. As such, it is an interpretation. And since you cast doubt on whether we know what Jesus said at all, you are relying on a 19th century English translation of a 15th century Elizabethan English translation of a 5th century Latin translation of a 2nd century Greek interpretation...
You are a long ways away from Jesus, Marshal. In thought, word, and deed. The Bible cannot be absolute word of faith. As a book it is superseded by the living Christ reigning in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
A book is questionable. Just as you affirmed.
Even Stan has tacitly acknowledged the "fundamentlst problem" by aligning himself with William Lloyd Garrison whom he considers was on the right side of history:
"The human mind is greater than any book. The mind sits in judgment on every book. If there be truth in the book, we take it; if error, we discard it. Why refer this to the Bible? In this country, the Bible has been used to support slavery and capital punishment; while in the old countries, it has been quoted to sustain all manner of tyranny and persecution. All reforms are anti-Bible.”
- William Lloyd Garrison
YOU are questionable...and that's being gracious. You're far, far worse. The "book" is the our only true source of our knowledge of the faith, without which you'd know nothing of God, Christ or the Holy Spirit and as such could not pretend it guided you to promote, celebrate and enable sinful behavior God clearly and unambiguously prohibits. That is to say, you couldn't so easily, willingly and arrogantly blaspheme the Holy Spirit by your attributing your clear rejection of Christian teaching to the Holy Spirit.
And once again, I'm not casting doubt on Jesus and what He said. I'm clearly assaulting your poor understanding of Scripture and your desire to make it say what you need it to say in order to rationalize your non-Christian positions. Luke 6:32 is NOT an example of grace, despite the use of the word "charis", which isn't used to denote the grace of which we speak in this discussion. This is true regardless of how badly you need the verse to pretend you're smarter than me...a very grace-free attitude for sure. Thus, again, if the word isn't being used by Christ in the manner we are discussing the word, then He isn't saying "grace", He's saying something else and my position is yet again affirmed, while yours is worthless. What "charis" means is determined by how it is used.
You do not know the living Christ, nor the Spirit. You only know your real god, the wholly imperfect and certainly not "good" feodope.
I've been busy on vacation and otherwise and haven't really had anything to add to the conversation. Just referring back to my original post, the point stands, they're clearly good people in the world as good is normally understood.
Conservative evangelicals, among others, like to pretend that there's some other vague and unknown definition for good that's not Good, as the word is typically understood.
Marshall has suggested that good is defined as "God." This, of course, is simply not the definition of good as it is normally understood in the English language.
If people like Marshal want to argue that humans are not God, I'm fine with that. But use that word. Don't argue that people aren't good when clearly the facts are there are good people in the world. That's all I was saying.
"Conservative evangelicals, among others, like to pretend that there's some other vague and unknown definition for good that's not Good, as the word is typically understood."
Sorry, Dan. But that's not at all an accurate representation of the premise being discussed. Once again, this all began with Stan looking at the the widely held notion "people are basically good" and comparing that notion with what Scripture says. It is clearly in disagreement with that notion, and I then offered Christ's own words for further support of the opposition. YOU want to pretend it's a different definition, when the reality is that how God/Christ defines the word does not mean we can't use it to describe our fellow humans, with the caveat that what counts as "good" to us does not necessarily mean we are TRULY "good" as God/Christ views the word. This gives you the vapors, but it shouldn't. It's simply an acknowledgement of the vast difference between God and the rest of us.
So, by whose standards do you describe another as "good"? By God's standards, or by human standards. Clearly, you do so by human standards and demand that God's standards are equal to human standards. They are not and can't be. So I can say, "Dan is a good man", but that is only by comparison to other human beings based on human standards for what constitutes "good". That standard may indeed be derived from our understanding of God (as presented to us in Scripture, our only source for such information), but it doesn't mean that Dan is truly good, since only God is. We know this because Jesus said so and you've yet to provide a shred of evidence from Scripture that He meant something else. And since the argument is a matter of "what does Scripture say", you cannot do anything other than find an alternative notion from Scripture. Appeals to non-Scriptural sources doesn't get it done when the premise is a matter of what Scripture says. As such, the ball is still in your court.
While you were away, Dan, Marshal unwillingly gave up the lie that the Greek New Testament texts on which all our modern translations are based are an accurate (much less, verbatim) representation of what the historical Jesus said.
Marshal first claimed: “He never taught "grace". He never mentioned "grace".
We demonstrated that Marshal is completely wrong. Jesus says the word and teaches the meaning in Luke 6.
In apparent embarrassment, Marshal later claimed this: "Then, one must also have the integrity to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?"
And with this claim, Marshal has introduced the historic reality that 1) Jesus probably was not a master of the Greek language (or, in fact, Hebrew) and was rather an Aramaic speaker. 2) the oldest card sized text we have of the New Testament is in Greek, as are the 3rd and 4th centuries Greek texts that make up the bulk of the rest of the NT. 3) So, the Greek texts - our closest copies of the NT are generally 200 to 300 years removed from the historical Jesus and are, at best, translations of what people remember Jesus saying. 4) Our English gospels are interpretive translations of copies of translations a few centuries removed from Jesus may or may not have said.
In Marshal's very words: What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?
Indeed.
Marshal has with that statement given up 400 years of radical protestant claims about the sacrosanct trustworthiness of New Testament scripture.
Fortunately, learned Christianity has long dealt with this problem by remembering that the Holy Spirit lives in us, not a book, and by "us" we mean the body of Christ gathered as the ecclesia, called out to worship god in common prayer and supplication and studying and interpreting the scriptures with our chiefest reason and faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in common union with the community.
So, Dan, Marshal let slip, once, how his entire way of thinking of god by scripture is a corruption of the textual witness in the NT and the history of linguistic translations that unavoidably depend upon interpretation.
He choked. And has now returned to his deplorable habit of lies supported by dodge, diversion, denial, and spinning myths.
I'm sure Dan can read his own blog, feo. But thanks so much for presuming he needs your explanation for what has transpired. He could easily read your nonsense and decide for himself whether or not to buy it (I'm sure he likely has bought it). You continue to falsely present my words which are clear for all to see, even if not clear to understand by those like yourself so lacking in comprehension skills.
In the meantime, still not a single piece of evidence or coherent argument to support the notion that Jesus did not mean "only God alone" is good. So much easier to attack your strawman.
You said Jesus never mentioned grace.
I gave you the clear evidence and the simple argument that he did.
In anxious, despairing response to which you piled lie upon lie, dodge upon dodge, fake denial upon manufactured myth.
In the midst of which you wrote two sentences that destroy all basis for believing in the inerrancy and literal clarity of biblical scripture.
Simple as that. Your integrity is as consumable as straw. You’ve multiplied the evidence comment after comment. Your denial of the Greek text - the sole authoritative documents of our gospels - and your own despairing question , “What then, is the actual words He used?”, demonstrate with crystal clarity that you have abandoned any basis for informed interpretation.
"Simple as that."
Yes, feo. You're as simple as that.
I've not denied the text at all. I've denied your arguments. Ironically, you deny the text constantly, preferring to accuse those who don't as worshipers of a book.
There was no desperation in my question, as it referred to meaning, not literal translation of an ancient word which, as Dan's own linked offering proves, is used to mean a variety of things...similar things perhaps, but not identical. As such, I do not at all have a problem with how most translate that intention, while you hang your pointed hat from your pointed head on what you desperately need to believe proves me wrong. It does not. The rendering of Christ's meaning by the word "charis" is NOT intended to imply the word "grace" as it is being discussed here. "Informed interpretation" by actual scholars (of which you aren't close to being one) does not in the least agree with you.
As such, I've not done a thing to "destroy all basis for believing in the inerrancy and literal clarity of"...anything. That remains intact and more honestly inferred by those like me. YOU'RE the one who makes a mockery of Scripture's message as you set it aside to pretend you're informed by some spirit you blasphemously assert is His.
Thus, you gave no evidence that Christ mentioned grace. You only provided evidence that a Greek word sometimes rendered as grace was used in Luke 6:32 and ASSERTED it was rendered as "grace". YOUR sorry purpose has been nothing more than to try to prove me wrong and at the same time validate your false opinion of yourself as intellectually superior. You failed yet again.
And still, no evidence that Christ's statement that there is no one good but God alone means something other than "there is no one good but God alone". Dodge upon dodge indeed!
Then, one must also have the integrity to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used?”
This is a statement of utter distrust in New Testament witness to the life, ministry, and passion of Jesus Christ. And, to the extent that it is based on facts, it destroys the protestant principle of sola scriptura.
And you, Marshall, wrote it.
Just Facts.
No. It's not, no matter how badly you need to believe it is because you can't get me to believe you're as clever as you laughingly regard yourself. It's a statement of utter disgust of you. You don't look to Scripture for truth. You look to yourself and crap on Scripture when it doesn't serve your non-Christian agenda. THAT is the fact.
When you wrote, “What then, is the actual words He used?”, you revealed t h at you don’t look to scripture for truth. At best you only look for your desires in it.
You can play Trump all you want. You cannot dissolve facts.
That question was for YOU, who insists that He was actually using an Aramaic word meaning "grace". I contend that the word used by the gospel writer was not to convey the meaning "grace" at all. As such, the truth (a word with which you have no familiarity) is that He didn't say "grace" in any language in Lk 6:32...you simply choose to insist the use of the word "charis" was to convey that translation. You are wrong.
You can play dumbass all you want. You cannot defend your behavior as Christian...because it isn't. Flounder all you like. You've lost yet again. Act as if you're a man and move on.
The New Testament that we have, is in Greek, aside from a dozen Aramaic words and phrases scattered about. You know that. I hope.
Luke 6:32,33 is not in Aramaic. In Luke 6:32,33, Jesus is speaking in Greek. You know that. I hope.
Where he uses the Greek word for grace, twice: charis. As Young’s Literal Translation (a version Stan uses with approval) rightly translates:
“and -- if ye love those loving you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful love those loving them;
and if ye do good to those doing good to you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful do the same...”
As you now know because I taught you.
But you, knowing these things, decided you would cast doubt on the New Testament as we have it: "Then, one must also have the integrity to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew. What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?"
The question wasn’t for me. You posed the question to cast doubt on Luke 6:32,33. Because you cannot admit that you were wrong about the Jesus of the New Testament never mentioning grace.
Charis, Marshal, is the Greek word used in all the significant verses on grace that you acknowledge.
But you are so without grace, that you would keep a lie going for weeks, even from yourself. You do know that the Greek New Testament is not strong enough to be the sole authoritative pillar of faith. Human beings are required, complete with our whole selves, body and mind. Not God the Father, not God the Son, not God the Holy Spirit is contained or fully explained by a book. They are present to us and in us and move in divine guidance by our imperfect walk in love with them and each other.
You now know what the true task is: we as the Church must interpret - in the light of our own experience of faith - our English translations of Greek speaking interpreters of those who bore witness and first interpreted to the first Christians the life and ministry and passion of Jesus.
We do not have a literal, verbatim Word of God prior to multiple translations and generational interpretations of ancient documents written in Greek.
Now you know. But you dimly knew before. You are just a firm believer in lying self-deception.
“You don't look to Scripture for truth. You look to yourself and crap on Scripture”
Marshal, the fact that I spent a few formal years in biblical and theological study demonstrates that I do in fact seek truth in the Christian church and its sources of authoritative teaching. Which begins with scripture.
And the fact that I know about 1000 times what you know about it (cf: the many recent times times I’ve schooled you about what is in Greek and Hebrew scriptures) demonstrates that between you and me I am the one who has lived in full respect of Holy Scripture. You just have a book, which you don’t care to read very closely.
"Luke 6:32,33 is not in Aramaic. In Luke 6:32,33, Jesus is speaking in Greek. You know that."
No. He's NOT speaking "in Greek". He's speaking in, most likely, Aramaic and those words were translated into Greek by the gospel writer. You know that.
"Where he uses the Greek word for grace, twice: charis."
"He" did not. The writer did. The question is what was the Aramaic word and was the use of the word "charis" meant to translate an Aramaic word that means "grace" or one of the other words "charis" could be used to represent? I say the latter based on the far greater number of Biblical translations that do NOT translate the word into "grace". Again, it's a question of whether or not to go word-for-word or the best understanding of the meaning behind the words used. More to the point, does this verse stand as a legitimate argument against the premise that Christ didn't use the word "grace". He certainly wasn't speaking of "unmerited favor" in Lk 6:32, and that's the "grace" that set off this anal retentive argument of yours. Said another way, your happy dance at using this verse to "prove me wrong" is unjustified given the original premise.
"But you, knowing these things, decided you would cast doubt on the New Testament as we have it"
And you, knowing better, continue to pretend I doubt the NT, when you, having been told repeatedly, know it is YOU I doubt. (Actually, no doubt about it, I know you're full of crap)
"Charis, Marshal, is the Greek word used in all the significant verses on grace that you acknowledge."
Except for Lk 6:32. I don't see it as being used for "grace" in this verse. Not as we've been discussing the word "grace". "Credit" is a far better, more logical and sensible definition for "charis" here.
"But you are so without grace, that you would keep a lie going for weeks, even from yourself."
I'm sure you feel a desperate need to believe this. I've not lied here at all.
"Not God the Father, not God the Son, not God the Holy Spirit is contained or fully explained by a book."
This is what you like to say in order to rationalize your heresies.
"You now know what the true task is"
I've always known what the true task is. You, not so much.
"the fact that I spent a few formal years in biblical and theological study demonstrates that I do in fact seek truth in the Christian church and its sources of authoritative teaching."
If you truly sought truth, you would not hold so fast to your many heresies to which you claim, blasphemously, the Holy Spirit led you.
"And the fact that I know about 1000 times what you know about it (cf: the many recent times times I’ve schooled you about what is in Greek and Hebrew scriptures)"
I can copy/paste Greek words, too. Big deal. What credit is that to you?
"...demonstrates that between you and me I am the one who has lived in full respect of Holy Scripture."
Except for those heresies of yours.
"You just have a book, which you don’t care to read very closely."
Closely enough to know you're a heretic. Now about Mark 10:18...
1. “ He's NOT speaking "in Greek". He's speaking in, most likely, Aramaic and those words were translated into Greek by the gospel writer.”
A. You’ve once again made a claim that scripture is not what fundamentalists say it is - a verbatim record. The only way you can claim that Jesus didn’t speak Greek when the gospels clearly represent that he did is to make two modern historical-critical moves, which you did: 1. by the light of modern reason and modern historical-critical analysis we can infer evidence that gives us grounds to make better judgments than the texts (which are not historically concerned) regarding what actually happened, 2. we can say with confidence that the historical Jesus *probably spoke Aramaic but no one can be sure.
B. But you failed a third piece of knowledge: the Greek texts we have do not date back to the 1st century. So, at best we have copies, and copies make mistakes, or we have the understanding of Jesus held by different communities that existed in the 2nd through the 4th centuries and not that of the first church.
C. And, obviously, and to repeat, you have broken with the fundamentalist principle of what the NY is: a verbatim, historically accurate, record.
___
2. I, on the other hand, trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being humble in faith, accept what the life of the church, Christ’s body, has delivered to us as scripture: an early 4th century decision by various christian communities via their bishop’s leadership to collect certain Greek language texts and not others as bearing so much of the core concerns of the good news of Jesus Christ as to be authoritative and appropriate for worship and teaching.
Having faith in the living Trinity makes it easy to release a Judaizer’s worship of a book and instead let scripture live in the hearts of the faithful. “But what does it say?
“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart”
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim)”
So, for purposes of faith and theology, we acknowledge two things: there is record of actual events, but we have an interpreted scripture to interpret as beat as we collectively can for our times. By faith we must accept that god wants it no other way; god trusts us; god the Trinity guides us by the life if the Holy Spirit.
Easy peasy for mature Christians who aren’t fearfully anxious and need to stoop to brutality to preserve their own white peoples’ cultural values over against the marvelous diversity of god’s children.
And here is seasonally appropriate scripture attesting that children are not born sinful: they learn it.
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[e] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.”
"A. You’ve once again made a claim that scripture is not what fundamentalists say it is - a verbatim record."
Which fundies? I've never heard anyone say this as you've put it. Not that it would make a difference here.
"2. we can say with confidence that the historical Jesus *probably spoke Aramaic but no one can be sure."
An assumption on your part not necessarily widely held by actual scholars and theological historians. We can be confident He spoke in the common tongue of the land in which He lived and preached. It's called "logic".
"B. But you failed a third piece of knowledge: the Greek texts we have do not date back to the 1st century."
Most of Paul's letters were of that time, written in Greek. The same for the gospels as far as most scholars are concerned. That we have no manuscript which can be confirmed as coming from that period matters not.
"2. I, on the other hand, trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and being humble in faith..."
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's hilarious! You, "humble"! HAHAHAHAHA! And you don't "trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit". You use the notion to rationalize your heresies.
"Having faith in the living Trinity..."
You have no such faith. You have only your own arrogance and hubris. ...and your heresies.
"So, for purposes of faith and theology, we acknowledge two things: there is record of actual events, but we have an interpreted scripture to interpret as beat as we collectively can for our times."
You heretics "acknowledge" that, but actual Christians not so much. The record we have of actual events is Scripture. To "interpret as best we can for 'our times'" is to ignore what was intended in the times Scripture was written. You lefties do the same with the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence with the same desire to ignore that which is inconvenient. It's what you false priests do.
"Easy peasy for mature Christians..."
How would you know? You're no Christian. Your behavior and heretical beliefs belie your claim to be one. Your lies about me as a fearfully anxious white supremacist demonstrates "Christian" is just a mask for legitimizing your unChristian positions.
"And here is seasonally appropriate scripture attesting that children are not born sinful"
Wow! Prove me right immediately why don't you? This verse speaks of One, Unique individual...not all or even any of humankind.
Case closed.
Feodor: "we can say with confidence that the historical Jesus *probably spoke Aramaic but no one can be sure."
Marshal: “We can be confident He spoke in the common tongue of the land in which He lived and preached. It's called "logic".
You just wrote the same thing I did and tried to make it sound different. So, a lie.
Logic is a stepwise thought process using reason. Not certain proof.
You really are a liberal: you’re not certain that the word of god is a clear record. You acknowledge Greek speaking interpreters who may get it right or may get it wrong: “.. does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?" These are your words.
Again, you’d be better to admit you’re a liberal and trust the Holy Spirit in us that since that’s all we’ve got to go on, we are central to declaring the word of god, not a bound book.
Isaiah is not talking about Jesus, Marshal. God you’re dense. Isaiah is talking to Ahaz about a normal child living in their time of ancient Israel.
"You just wrote the same thing I did and tried to make it sound different. So, a lie."
Not at all. You said we can't be sure. I'm saying we are sure. The common folk spoke the common tongue. Jesus spoke to the common folk.
"Logic is a stepwise thought process using reason."
There is no logic where there is no proof, fact or truth.
"You really are a liberal"
Why the profanity?
"you’re not certain that the word of god is a clear record."
Uh...quite certain.
"You acknowledge Greek speaking interpreters who may get it right or may get it wrong"
Uh...pretty sure I was referring to YOUR understanding of the Greek...not the writers' understanding of the Aramaic. I've absolutely NO faith that you understand anything.
"does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?" These are your words."
My actual words referenced which understanding of charis accurately reflected the meaning. I'm pretty sure I explained this. I'm pretty sure it serves you to ignore the totality of my position if you can find one line you believe you can attack.
"Again, you’d be better to admit you’re a liberal..."
That would mean I admit to being as stupid as you are. That would also be a lie.
"... and trust the Holy Spirit in us..."
I don't see that the Holy Spirit is in you, given the many heresies to which you cling and promote.
".. that since that’s all we’ve got to go on, we are central to declaring the word of god, not a bound book."
The Word of God is found in that bound book you mock and discredit in favor of your blasphemous citation of the Holy Spirit to defend your heresies. Without that "bound book", you'd have no idea of any Holy Spirit, but would simply wallow in your moral corruption more openly and eagerly than you already do.
"Isaiah is not talking about Jesus, Marshal. God you’re dense. Isaiah is talking to Ahaz about a normal child living in their time of ancient Israel."
I have no idea what you're referencing with this bit. If I mentioned Isaiah somewhere, I don't recall and likely you're too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge why I may have.
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[e] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.”
Marshal: "Wow! Prove me right immediately why don't you? This verse speaks of One, Unique individual...not all or even any of humankind.”
Feodor: "Isaiah is not talking about Jesus, Marshal. God you’re dense. Isaiah is talking to Ahaz about a normal child living in their time of ancient Israel.”
Marshal: "I have no idea what you're referencing with this bit. If I mentioned Isaiah somewhere, I don't recall and likely you're too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge why I may have.”
You are one ignorant *christian when it comes to knowing Scripture.
Feodor: "we can say with confidence that the historical Jesus *probably spoke Aramaic but no one can be sure."
Marshal: “We can be confident He spoke in the common tongue of the land in which He lived and preached. It's called "logic".
Feodor: 'You just wrote the same thing I did and tried to make it sound different. So, a lie."
Marshal: "Not at all. You said we can't be sure. I'm saying we are sure"
News for Marshal: "It's called logic" isn't being sure. It's trusting reasoned deduction but it is not certainty. |
News for Marshal: "There is no logic where there is no proof, fact or truth." Newtonian physics is logical. But it "sure"ly does not work at the atomic level.
___
You've dedicated yourself to lying to yourself and all others:
1st lie.
Feodor: "you’re not certain that the word of god is a clear record."
Marshal: "Uh...quite certain."
You've lied to yourself that you didn't write this statement of uncertainty about Jesus' words, "What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" accurately represent His actual words?"
2nd lie.
Feodor: "You acknowledge Greek speaking interpreters who may get it right or may get it wrong"
Marshal: "pretty sure I was referring to YOUR understanding of the Greek...not the writers' understanding of the Aramaic."
You've lied to yourself that you didn't write this statement of undecideablity about the Greek translator's understanding of Jesus: "What then, is the actual words He used and does "charis" [the Greek's best translation of Jesus' words] accurately represent His actual words?" The question is yours, Marshal. You just questioned the translator's choice - charts - for translating Jesus' Aramaic.
___
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[e] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.”
Marshal: "Wow! Prove me right immediately why don't you? This verse speaks of One, Unique individual...not all or even any of humankind.”
Feodor: "Isaiah is not talking about Jesus, Marshal. God you’re dense. Isaiah is talking to Ahaz about a normal child living in their time of ancient Israel.”
Marshal: "I have no idea what you're referencing with this bit. If I mentioned Isaiah somewhere, I don't recall and likely you're too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge why I may have.”
You are one ignorant *christian when it comes to knowing Scripture.
Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever. That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience. I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity. A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.
You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.
As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ. And I am done with you.
I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ.
Post a Comment