Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does not exist . There is no such verb form in English. When you use it in English you reveal your ignorance. Wiktionary is not an authoritative source . . . neither are your self-professed language skills. Deal with it!
Why do you call me good? no one is good except god alone."
While some have suggested that Christ's question contradicts the orthodox view that He was God incarnate, the opposite it actually the case (see Other Views Considered, below). Jesus is forcing the young ruler to face the implications of calling Jesus "good," not only with regard to Jesus' goodness, but also with regard to his own. The young ruler shows himself to be "good" by every human test - he is devoted to keeping the Law. His fellow Jews considered his wealth to be another measure of his goodness. However, Jesus' pointed question here and His command that the young ruler renounce his wealth and follow Him reveal that human standards of goodness are not God's.
Why callest thou me good? (Ti me legeis agathon). So Luke 18:19. Matthew 19:17 has it: "Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? "The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean "good" (agathos) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus
Further, Jesus elsewhere uses "Good" to refer to Himself: "I am the Good Shepherd" (John 10:11).
The easiest way to harmonize Mark 10:17-18 and John10:11 is to understand that Jesus is not refusing to accept the title "Good," but rather is questioning the young ruler's motives
It does not seem reasonable that Jesus would object to the title "Good" when applied to Teacher, but use it of Himself when applied to Shepherd
Last edited by Miss Shawn_2828; 11-19-2009 at 06:29 AM..
While some have suggested that Christ's question contradicts the orthodox view that He was God incarnate, the opposite it actually the case (see Other Views Considered, below). Jesus is forcing the young ruler to face the implications of calling Jesus "good," not only with regard to Jesus' goodness, but also with regard to his own. The young ruler shows himself to be "good" by every human test - he is devoted to keeping the Law. His fellow Jews considered his wealth to be another measure of his goodness. However, Jesus' pointed question here and His command that the young ruler renounce his wealth and follow Him reveal that human standards of goodness are not God's.
Why callest thou me good? (Ti me legeis agathon). So Luke 18:19. Matthew 19:17 has it: "Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? "The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean "good" (agathos) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus
Further, Jesus elsewhere uses "Good" to refer to Himself: "I am the Good Shepherd" (John 10:11).
The easiest way to harmonize Mark 10:17-18 and John10:11 is to understand that Jesus is not refusing to accept the title "Good," but rather is questioning the young ruler's motives
It does not seem reasonable that Jesus would object to the title "Good" when applied to Teacher, but use it of Himself when applied to Shepherd
Good is AGATHOS in Luke 18:19 when spoken of God.
John 10:11 has "Ideal" (KALOS) Shepherd.
I didn't ask you to evaluate the site, just the scriptures.
Your choice to discern it...and if you can't, then the Holy Spirit isn't residing in you until you ask Jesus to come into your heart and be your Lord.
So, your explanation is once again wrong. The scripture is saying that Jesus created all things, just like the scripture says.
Once again you don't address what I said. Simply putting the entire scripture there is not what I expected from someone so well versed in the original languages could tell me the difference between the two prepositions and their uses. But it seems that you just want me to take your word for it and not say Young's Translation which is the version I showed with the correct translation "in" rather than "by."
So let's try a different avenue so that you can understand. In verse 15 it is said that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Do you understand then that by simply understanding a firstborn is not the creator. Same thing with Eve as it is said she is the mother of all that is living but of course we know she is not the mother of Adam. So that if Jesus was a firstborn, who then birthed him? And how then did others exist before his birth if he created all?
The same word firstborn is also used here:
Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
So that Jesus is the firstborn not in the universe but the firstborn in the new covenant of the new heavens, new earth, new creation.
Then in looking at the verse in question:
Col. 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.
So it is the new creation that subsists in Christ.
You really go to far to suppose that Jesus is creator. You are taking scripture and adding to the OT by inference.
Will you answer this:
Was Jesus truly flesh and blood? or Spirit?
Quote:
It is funny that you still don't understand scripture. En Christ. You say that Jesus was not before He was begotten, yet you quote sctipture that shows en Him, before He was begotten, things were created.
When talking about Daniel 3:25, the a was added by the NIV only due to the Greeks having many gods. The oldest translations have Son of God and later was changed. The King at that time only new of pagan gods and didn't understand the truth God until the account in the fire.
bar-Elahin was in fact a pre-Incarnate manifestation of the Son of God, Yeshua the Messiah.
So you are stating that Nebuchadnezzar was REALLY saying that it is a manifestation of the son of God or Messiah when admittedly he did not believe in God let alone a son of God or Messiah?
Now that hardly makes sense.
Take a look at Daniel 2:47 The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."
Here we see that elah is the elah of elahin... Yet you say that elahin should be translated as God?
Notice that after seeing the three unscathedan 3:28
Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king's command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God.
Not only is the King here stating that the fourth man seen was an angel of God.. who he now believes in but we see that there is a difference between "any god" and "their own God" so that what you say is so obviously false! And you state that the original was singular and capitalized? Please at least be consistent before you try to state that I don't understand.
There is nothing in scripture that suggests that God is three. There are other religions that give a significance to three gods but there is nothing in the bible that says there are three parts to God.. there is one God...
As for not being able to understand it.. well that is just a bunch of bull. Many humans can have faith in an unseen God but that they cannot understand God?
It is written: Proverbs 2: 5-6
then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
For the Lord gives wisdom,
and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Then you see that it is not hidden and God gives the understanding and knowledge freely.
Luke 8:17 For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
If we were not able to understand God then we could never truly know him.. and if we can never truly know him then we can never be in communion with him.
1 John 4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
How then is this trinity of gods so unknowable? Do you make God out to be a mystery when it plainly states that one can indeed know God?
Yes we can know God. But we can not know him fully and completely at all. You know if you take take a single celled organism and compare that to the largest blue whale that does not even begin to come close to the difference between me and God. If you took this difference and multiplied it by the largest number in the universe it would still not come close. That is a very big problem that a lot of people have with their understanding of God. They think that everything about Him should conform to their puny human intellect and if they can't reconcile it they then think it can't be so. What pride and arrogence.
That is not what I asked you, and you can't provide the scripture.
You say that Jesus was not before He was begotten, well you are wrong.
I in fact did answer you... it is you who choose to ignore my response and questions. The fact is that Jesus by way of the definition of the word cannot exist before he was begotten. Yet you choose to ignore the scripture too..
What then do you make of this verse:
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
Quote:
John 8:58 Jesus
I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" ( ego eimi ) Jesus is saying He was before Abraham.
Now you say that He was not before He was begotten, once again a lie.
Yet we see in the passage that Jesus states he has seen Abraham.. so that they are confused. Jesus states that it is the salvation that Abraham wanted to see and Jesus is that deliverer of salvation. All you have to do is read the text. It is not that hard.
Quote:
Isaiah 43:10 God
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
John 13:19 Jesus
Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am ( ego emi) he.
So God is talking about being God... Jesus is talking about being the one God sent as is clear through chapter 13 of John.. Are you saying that Jesus is talking about himself as God? Yet in the next verse states that one who receives him (Jesus) receives the one who sent him (God).... You are taking portions of scripture and making them out to be what you want rather than reading it for edification.
Quote:
John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Jesus even says He was before Abraham.
Jesus was in the womb by the Spirit. The scripture shows this.
In Greek, the words recorded in are "'prin abraam genesthai ego eimi." Literally, this is "Before Abraham was existing, I am." "Ego eimi" is literally, "I am." This is the present tense. To say "I have been" is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, his would have been "aemane." But Jesus didn't use it here. He used the present tense, "ego eimi" which is "I am." The Jews even wanted to kill Jesus for His claim.
Anyway, you prove to deny scripture, so I am done with debating with someone who seems to have a hard time understanding scripture...
LOL there seems to be a misunderstanding because the same ego eimi is used by the blind man that was healed by Jesus when asked if it is he that was healed he replies.. I am he... So is the healed man also saying he is God? ego eimi is used commonly and yet you isolate only Jesus' words for you own purpose...
Well I guess you can choose to respond or not.. that is your right. I, however, do not believe it is my understanding that is lacking.. so again we will have to agree to disagree.
I didn't ask you to evaluate the site, just the scriptures.
Your choice to discern it...and if you can't, then the Holy Spirit isn't residing in you until you ask Jesus to come into your heart and be your Lord.
I will pray for you.
Isn't this easy for you then? Just proclaim that I cannot be filled with the spirit because I don't agree with you therefore if you say that I am not filled with the spirit then of course I cannot understand...
So you can disregard anything I say because you know what is in my heart.. and obviously by your own supposition I cannot have the spirit and deny Jesus is God... LOL
I think that you just made an argumentum ad hominem.. rather than discuss the facts presented.
If that is what makes it easier for you to continue in your error.. so be it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Entertaining.
an 3:28
