Originally posted by FMF
If you have trouble understanding what I am talking about, it's OK by me.

I know what you are saying, or attempting to say, you expect others to buy your
assumptions without evidence, that's fine, if you believe the advertising.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It might be apposite to mention at this point that the JW's interpretation is at odds with mainstream christianity.

http://www.forananswer.org/Mark/Mk10_18.htm

We just like to be different 🙂

Originally posted by JS357
I agree with this reading, as being logical for the believer to accept. The line does not contradict the man's calling him good, it says being good is exclusive to God, which leaves the believer no option, if he believes Jesus is good, but to believe Jesus is God.

This is irrespective of whether the line was ever spoken, just as we can interpret Hamlet's soliloquy without debating that.

this is clearly erroneous, goodness is a quality that the adherent is to cultivate as a
fruitage of Gods spirit, Galatians 5:22,23 following this logic, if you say that I am good
or capable of exhibiting goodness, then i must also be God. There is not a single
instance in the whole passage which has even a semblance of an iota with reference to
Christ alleged deity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Jesus said nobody is good except God, if Jesus meant that he himself was God, then would have accepted the fact, but he takes issue with being termed , Good teacher as anyone can discern from the passage, it has nothing to do with his alleged deity or anything else not explicitly stated in the passage. The man comes to him asking what he needs to DO ...[text shortened]... e is nothing in the passage to even remotely assume that it was an inquiry into Christ's deity.

There is nothing in the passage to say it is remotely connected with anything - in fact the whole premise of your OP invites conjecture and opinion which is good and why I bothered to comment.

You of course are coming from the pre-concieved opinion of your organisation's corporate dogma and therefore as usual, you are not open to the opinions of others here - as your blunt reply to me indicates.

Originally posted by divegeester
There is nothing in the passage to say it remotely connected with anything - in fact the whole premise of your OP invites conjecture and opinion which is good and why I bothered to comment.

You of course are coming from the pre-concieved opinion of your organisation's corportate dogma and therefore are as usual, you are not open to the opinions of others here - as you blunt reply indicates.

More cheap comments. Why do you expect us to believe what you say without
evidence, there is none in the passage to substantiate your claims, otherwise you
would have produced it, so either do so or stop expecting people to accept what you
say simply because you said it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I know what you are saying, or attempting to say, you expect others to buy your
assumptions without evidence, that's fine, if you believe the advertising.

It's just an observation - and an entirely uncontroversial one, I'd say - that "goodness" or the striving to be "good" is at the core of pretty much all religions. If you dispute this, just come out and say so. I do not need nor want "others" to "buy" anything.

Originally posted by JS357
I agree with this reading, as being logical for the believer to accept. The line does not contradict the man's calling him good, it says being good is exclusive to God, which leaves the believer no option, if he believes Jesus is good, but to believe Jesus is God.

I agree. I think jaywill's rather to-the-point take on it has been the most persuasive contribution so far.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is clearly erroneous, goodness is a quality that the adherent is to cultivate as a
fruitage of Gods spirit, Galatians 5:22,23 following this logic, if you say that I am good
or capable of exhibiting goodness, then i must also be God. There is not a single
instance in the whole passage which has even a semblance of an iota with reference to
Christ alleged deity.

There is not a single instance in the whole passage which has even a semblance of an iota with reference to Christ alleged deity.

Believe what you will. Of course I lack belief that Jesus was divine, or at least (with a nod to the East) I lack belief that Jesus was any more divine than anyone else.

With respect to your claim, I am reminded of the "reasonable person" concept in law. "...the "reasonable person" is a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

We can assume JW's as a community believe that believing Jesus is God "poses a threat...to the public" but there are at least as many people in this relevant Forum community who believe the opposite of that. I personally don't feel threatened by either belief.

Originally posted by JS357

There is not a single instance in the whole passage which has even a semblance of an iota with reference to Christ alleged deity.

Believe what you will. Of course I lack belief that Jesus was divine, or at least (with a nod to the East) I lack belief that Jesus was any more divine than anyone else.

With respect to your claim, I am remind ho believe the opposite of that. I personally don't feel threatened by either belief.

There is not a single iota in the whole passage which speaks of Christ's deity, if so,
produce it, otherwise, you are attempting to impose an exegesis onto the passage
where no explicit details exist. This has nothing to do with Jehovahs witnesses, why
you people continually try to introduce it into the discussion i do not know.

Originally posted by FMF
It's just an observation - and an entirely uncontroversial one, I'd say - that "goodness" or the striving to be "good" is at the core of pretty much all religions. If you dispute this, just come out and say so. I do not need nor want "others" to "buy" anything.

so you still have no evidence, oh well, when you do, let it be known and we can
evaluate it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you still have no evidence, oh well, when you do, let it be known and we can
evaluate it.

It's just an observation. I am not trying to make you believe something different from what you already do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Mark 10:17-18) . . .And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell
upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do
to inherit everlasting life?”  Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is
good, except one, God.

How are we to understand Christs statement, 'Nobody is good, except one, God'.

first, we have to realize that it is a fiat declaration and therefore, meaningless. it has not been established that "nobody is good, except one, god."

Originally posted by FMF
It's just an observation. I am not trying to make you believe something different from what you already do.

again another irrelevancy, the subject is not whether you are trying to make me
believe anything, but rather whether you have any evidence to substantiate a claim
you have made, clearly you dont.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
first, we have to realize that it is a fiat declaration and therefore, meaningless. it has not been established that "nobody is good, except one, god."

another irrelevancy, the question is not whether its a fiat deceleration as you have
erroneously assumed, but what the author actually meant, dismissing it on some
rhetorical basis is simply a diversion, again you have provided no evidence to back up
your claim that it has not been established that no one is good.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another irrelevancy, the question is not whether its a fiat deceleration as you have
erroneously assumed, but what the author actually meant, dismissing it on some
rhetorical basis is simply a diversion, again you have provided no evidence to back up
your claim that it has not been established that no one is good.

...the question is not whether its a fiat deceleration as you have
erroneously assumed, but what the author actually meant...

Do you mean the issue is not what was said? Was what was said, not what was meant?