Conclusion of this threadNovember 27 2005 at 2:47 PM
Response to Prove that the goodness of the only true God is different from Christ!
Why would CSDR asked me now to prove that the goodness of the only true God is different from Christ? Simply because he couldnt belie anymore the following truth.
1. The problem with CSDR's personal interpretation of Christ's statement is there were biblical personalities who were testified as good but of course CSDR will refuse to acknowledge them as his Gods.
So let's use CSDR's basis, "calling me good = calling me God".
Mar 6:20 Herod was afraid of John because he knew that John was a GOOD and HOLY man, and so he kept him safe. He liked to listen to him, even though he became greatly disturbed every time he heard him.
John the bapstist was GOOD and HOLY but does that mean he is God? Of course not.
So the interpretation of CSDR "Christ was simply asking the young man whether he understood the IMPLICATION of calling him (Christ) good was calling him God since no one is good except God" is not the true meaning of Mark 10: 18 and has only resulted in creating more Gods and also it will result that Mark believed John is God.
On the other hand there is no need to explain Christ's statement for it is clear and can easily be understood by anybody who dont have comprehension problem.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked him. "No one is good except God alone."
2. Am i against Christ is good? NOPE. But my stand is clear, Christ's being good is different from that of God. Now if we believe CSDR that because Christ was called good he is therefore God for no one is good except God alone, then CSDR mus accept that John the Baptist is God as well for he is GOOD AND HOLY. Let's wait what will he reason out for this one. Maybe he will say John the baptist's being good and holy is DIFFERENT FROM that of God. If he will do that i will surely laugh my heart out.
3. Did CSDR answer the issue at hand? Nope. What is the issue? If a statement does not have do not, for CSDR it cannot be correction or rebuke or prohibition. For CSDR correction, rebuke or prohibition are only done by the expression do not. How shallow.
CSDR's alibi above all the more prove that even if "do not" is not mentioned it could also be rebuke and correction. In fact CSDR IGNORED the other proof, Romans 14: 10.
Thus CSDR's belief that rebuke, prohibition or correction can only be done by using "do not" IS ILLOGICAL AND UNBIBLICAL.
Lastly John the Baptist was TESTIFIED by MARK as GOOD AND HOLY. Is he God?
4. CSDR interpreted my statement based on his own understanding now that he was proven wrong he is accusing me of double talk. LIkewise CSDR supposed that the phrase "he was made holy" is MY OWN STATEMENT hahahahahha. It WAS CHRIST HIMSELF WHO SAID THAT THE FATHER MADE HIM HOLY. CSDR, are you accusing Christ of double talk? Hahahaha
CSDR do you mean Christ insinuated that he was unholy before he said he was made holy?
CSDR, do you mean Christ was ILLOGICAL and UNSOUND because he said "he was made holy" when he was already holy"
John 10: 36 "Do you say of him whom the Father made holy and sent into the world, Your words are evil; because I said, I am God's Son?"
What CSDR is asking has already been proven. Christ's being good or holy is not inherent in him. HE WAS ONLY MADE HOLY by the Father. On the other hand NOBODY MADE the Father good or holy.
That's the difference.
- MJ's No. 1 Statement: - csdr on Dec 8, 2005, 1:21 AM
- MJ's No. 2 Conclusion refuted! - csdr on Dec 8, 2005, 1:25 AM
- MJ's No. 3 Conclusion refuted! - csdr on Dec 8, 2005, 1:39 AM
- MJ's No. 4 Conclusion refuted! - csdr on Dec 8, 2005, 2:22 AM