Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[1robin]

OK

Let's start with this;



Go ahead, prove your argumentum ad populum.

I have already anticipated your mistake. You must first prove even the claim exists to make a proof about the actual claim relevant. Until Islam even claims that al their followers become Muslims by an act of God it is not even relevant. If you do prove this, (Good luck) then and only then is are you equating two likes. I see you are trying to salvage a failure of an argument by pointing out the liability of my original claim. It will not work because that is not the argument you have been using. Your contention requires equality not proof. Once you either give up (and you should) your argument or prove it then I will get into whether my original claim was true (which was not the question you asked). Nice burden shifting. The issue is the basis for equating two unequal things not proof of my original premise. If you had demanded proof for my original premise that would have been valid instead of taking the irrational off ramp into futility which you actually did take.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I gave verse that put this into context above.

That is a prayer about our petition to God not about our ability to cross the infinite gulf that separates us. It also is probably only meant for those who have had that chasm bridged. However it would be true either way.

What separates us from God is his perfection and our imperfection. God would not be perfect if he approved of failure. Unless those other religions can either prove God is imperfect or we are then that is probably because they are not from a perfect God.

Even those very willing and even very moral like Nicodemus were told by Christ (the only perfect character in history and the only one resurrected so we should listen) that all his effort been for nothing. That he must be born again from ABOVE to even enter the kingdom of God. What human can make HIMSELF born from ABOVE? Only God can do this. The standard is not willingness it is perfection. Only God (not us) can make us legally perfect on the basis of faith in his son's actual perfection.

I can not prove this to you and no one could but it can you admit it is the more sophisticated, comprehensive, logical, and less human like (more God like) solution to the problem? Our claims about reaching heaven compared to any other faith's are like comparing Muhammad Alli's ability to box with a slow witted beaver's. Truth is exclusive. Only Christianity is as well.

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

This indicates that it is an active process. Unless you change, again it is man reaching towards God, as God has never truly removed Gods hand.

As I posted before Jesus does not Consider himself Good, only God is truly Good.

He then listed what the man had to do to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Though I guess for those who were Jewish the requirement was not as strict as it was for the gentiles?

 

[1robin]

Christ himself claimed to not be perfect let alone Good.

No he did not, that is a very common misunderstanding of a verse (which you did not seem to bother posting). When you do I will show what the misunderstanding is. Please post that verse or evidence to show what you claimed.

The Rich Young Ruler

17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”21Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”22But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

Yet we are told to be perfect.

This is not the verse mentioned above but is another very commonly misunderstood (or distorted verse). The other verses that establish the context point out that the man Christ was dealing with thought he was perfect based on his actions and merit. Christ many times deals with people in their misconceptions to make a point. He met the man where he was and destroyed him within his own context. He was basically saying so you think your perfect huh. Then if you are you should do X as well. He was pointing out the man's assumptions were wrong not that he was either perfect or ever could be. By his own standards Christ condemned him. Not that his standards were true. Countless verses are far more intellectual and sophisticated than most non-theist think they are. Most times the meanings are philosophically rigorous and complex. If you doubt me I will post all the major commentators that all arrive at he same conclusion throughout history (convergent confirmation is powerful evidence). You underestimate the sophistication of Bible verses and doctrine.

47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You are to be I suppose can also be worded as you have to be?

It seems that it is both a goal and destination.

Verses must be taken in the context of the overall narrative. For example this far more straight verse must be taken into account.

New Living Translation
If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.

No one is sinless and all are imperfect.

Even Paul who claimed to be going to heaven, wrote more about Christ than the others combined, and who was commissioned by Christ himself said this:

New International Version
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Was Paul not saved?
Was he not sinful as even he said he was chief?

Then your interpretation of those verse must be in error.

You seem sincere so I would recommend looking at long accepted commentaries on all verses used in argumentation before posting at least for context. Here are two very good links for that purpose and to find the original words used. Going from koine Greek (maybe the most descriptive language in history) to English is a minefield.
Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages
Blue Letter Bible - Home Page

 

[1robin]

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

This indicates that it is an active process. Unless you change, again it is man reaching towards God, as God has never truly removed Gods hand.

As I posted before Jesus does not Consider himself Good, only God is truly Good.

He then listed what the man had to do to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Though I guess for those who were Jewish the requirement was not as strict as it was for the gentiles?

Do not think for a moment I am suggesting that we should not change, strive to be moral, and Godly. There is much to be lost if we do not. However it is not the standard for salvation. The cost of disobedience is temporal or concerns the treasure we receive in heaven. It is not heaven its self once we are saved. It is Christ's merits and work that we are judged on concerning salvation and our works concerning rewards and suffering in this life.

If you were right then what does this verse mean?

New Living Translation
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.

Or this one?

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Ephesians 2:8 Forby grace you have been savedthroughfaith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASB: Lockman[/FONT]) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Greek: tegarcharitieste(2PPAI)sesosmenoi(RPPMPN)diapisteos;kaitoutoouk ex humon theou todoron;
Amplified: For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God; ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amplified Bible - Lockman[/FONT])
NLT: God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: It was nothing you could or did achieve - it was God's gift to you. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: For by the grace have you been saved in time past completely, through faith, with the result that your salvation persists through present time; and this [salvation] is not from you as a source; of God it is the gift, not from a source of works, (Eerdmans)
Young's Literal: for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,[/FONT]

Ephesians 2:8-9 Commentary

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I gave verse that put this into context above.

That is a prayer about our petition to God not about our ability to cross the infinite gulf that separates us. It also is probably only meant for those who have had that chasm bridged. However it would be true either way.

What separates us from God is his perfection and our imperfection. God would not be perfect if he approved of failure. Unless those other religions can either prove God is imperfect or we are then that is probably because they are not from a perfect God.

Even those very willing and even very moral like Nicodemus were told by Christ (the only perfect character in history and the only one resurrected so we should listen) that all his effort been for nothing. That he must be born again from ABOVE to even enter the kingdom of God. What human can make HIMSELF born from ABOVE? Only God can do this. The standard is not willingness it is perfection. Only God (not us) can make us legally perfect on the basis of faith in his son's actual perfection.

I can not prove this to you and no one could but it can you admit it is the more sophisticated, comprehensive, logical, and less human like (more God like) solution to the problem? Our claims about reaching heaven compared to any other faith's are like comparing Muhammad Alli's ability to box with a slow witted beaver's. Truth is exclusive. Only Christianity is as well.

No he did not, that is a very common misunderstanding of a verse (which you did not seem to bother posting). When you do I will show what the misunderstanding is. Please post that verse or evidence to show what you claimed.

This is not the verse mentioned above but is another very commonly misunderstood (or distorted verse). The other verses that establish the context point out that the man Christ was dealing with thought he was perfect based on his actions and merit. Christ many times deals with people in their misconceptions to make a point. He met the man where he was and destroyed him within his own context. He was basically saying so you think your perfect huh. Then if you are you should do X as well. He was pointing out the man's assumptions were wrong not that he was either perfect or ever could be. By his own standards Christ condemned him. Not that his standards were true. Countless verses are far more intellectual and sophisticated than most non-theist think they are. Most times the meanings are philosophically rigorous and complex. If you doubt me I will post all the major commentators that all arrive at he same conclusion throughout history (convergent confirmation is powerful evidence). You underestimate the sophistication of Bible verses and doctrine.

Verses must be taken in the context of the overall narrative. For example this far more straight verse must be taken into account.

New Living Translation
If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.

No one is sinless and all are imperfect.

Even Paul who claimed to be going to heaven, wrote more about Christ than the others combined, and who was commissioned by Christ himself said this:

New International Version
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Was Paul not saved?
Was he not sinful as even he said he was chief?

Then your interpretation of those verse must be in error.

You seem sincere so I would recommend looking at long accepted commentaries on all verses used in argumentation before posting at least for context. Here are two very good links for that purpose and to find the original words used. Going from koine Greek (maybe the most descriptive language in history) to English is a minefield.
Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages
Blue Letter Bible - Home Page

I did quote the verse.

I'll quote it again for you.

The Rich Young Ruler

17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”21Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”22But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

Jesus asks why the man is calling him good, at first we can view this as one of the moments were Jesus is waiting to see a persons response as when the woman asked him to heal her child despite her not being the tribe of Israel. Jesus refers to her and people like her as a dog but her response that even dogs can eat at the scraps is enough to get her her request.

However in this case Jesus continues and says "Only God is Good"

We are also told that Jesus felt a love for the young man, meaning that Jesus did not approach him the same way he had approached the man who he talked about with the Good Samaritan. It is common for people to get those two verses confused.

Yet in all these cases this is what Jesus expected him to do "first was keep the commandments" the next was "to give up all his possessions" The Young man chose not too.

Jesus then follows it up with how it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then a rich man to get into heaven.

It is the young man who asked how to attain eternal life when he was told what to do, he was sadden by it. Again it appears that Gods hand has already been reaching out, it is up to us to grasp it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How do you know he doensn't mean it literally?

Because of Romans 3:9-20.

And what exactly is literal perfection?

Literal perfection in this context means moral perfection by every sense of the definition of the word "perfect".

He says be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. Perhaps there is a translation that says "try to be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect?"

Once again, I admire your modesty. But let me ask you a question; do you believe that someone can live a morally PERFECT good life here on earth? Do you believe that this is possible?

 

[nash8]

Once again, I admire your modesty. But let me ask you a question; do you believe that someone can live a morally PERFECT good life here on earth? Do you believe that this is possible?

Do you?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Because of Romans 3:9-20.



Literal perfection in this context means moral perfection by every sense of the definition of the word "perfect".



Once again, I admire your modesty. But let me ask you a question; do you believe that someone can live a morally PERFECT good life here on earth? Do you believe that this is possible?

I won't lie I have issues when people use Paul's words to try to explain what Jesus said. Here we see Jesus saying he is not good but still asks that we be perfect as our father is perfect. To use another verse not from Jesus to attempt to understand it to me makes no sense. Jesus seemed pretty clear there.

It maybe possible we were certainly demanded to. But again to be morally perfect in front of God implies what? That you have never done any wrong? When God sought to destroy the world he spared Noah and his family because Noah was righteous. Yet we are told all sins are equal had Noah not sin?

 

[1robin]

I did quote the verse.

Yes you did. It was not in its usually isolation so I did not recognize it. Sorry.

I'll quote it again for you.

The Rich Young Ruler

17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’”20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”21Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”22But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

The debate can end right here if you wished it to. Jesus is saying that not only is no one perfect but God but that no one is even good. How can you therefore claim we are required to be perfect?

Jesus asks why the man is calling him good, at first we can view this as one of the moments were Jesus is waiting to see a persons response as when the woman asked him to heal her child despite her not being the tribe of Israel. Jesus refers to her and people like her as a dog but her response that even dogs can eat at the scraps is enough to get her her request.

That is very close. Razi Zacharias calls this making a person reveal their assumptions (or open up their assumptions). These verse are very very involved and I recommend using the links to research as much is going on here. Jesus was trying to get the man to recognize who he was talking to. The man called him good. Jesus was saying no one is good but God so by calling him good he was calling him God. Jesus is a master debater. I love wordsmiths like Lincoln and Chesterton but Jesus had the ability to use the words he was given to condemn the purpose they were employed in. Many of these instances the depth of intelligence required is beyond human. What is certain is Jesus was not claiming to be sinfull himself. I can see the confusion easily with this verse as it confused me until I decided to get to the bottom of it.

However in this case Jesus continues and says "Only God is Good"

Yes he said you have called me good and only God is good. Do you understand who you are speaking with. Jesus was lethal to bad arguments and as in this case misapprehensions and incomplete resolution.

We are also told that Jesus felt a love for the young man, meaning that Jesus did not approach him the same way he had approached the man who he talked about with the Good Samaritan. It is common for people to get those two verses confused.

I know of only one person God hated. Jesus even in a stinging rebuke loved who was addressing. The opposite of love is indifference. I never mentioned the Samaritan verses and they never occurred to me.

Yet in all these cases this is what Jesus expected him to do "first was keep the commandments" the next was "to give up all his possessions" The Young man chose not too.

Let me explain the sophistication of the argument here a little further.

1. Jesus was operating from the man's false assumptions.
2. He operated within the man's claim that he was righteous by his own merit to show him that based on merit he was not righteous as he had thought.
3. That leads many to claim Jesus would have lied in that case but not so.
4. It is true that we could get to heaven base on merit alone but only if our merit was perfect. The slightest flaw makes us ineligible and in need of Christ's perfect record to be legally applied to our life. He was not lying, but the man was. The man was not perfect as Jesus pointed out.
5. Jesus operated within the man's assumptions twice in just a few verses to show him they were wrong or incomplete.

Jesus then follows it up with how it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then a rich man to get into heaven.

That's a little different issue. It takes humility and recognized need to accept Christ's sacrifice and our actual status. Rich people usually are prideful, lack humility, and have most of their needs taken care of by money. That is why poor people are so often of faith. They have easily recognizable need, little reason for pride, and no reason to boast.

It is the young man who asked how to attain eternal life when he was told what to do, he was sadden by it. Again it appears that Gods hand has already been reaching out, it is up to us to grasp it.

Yes Christ said if you are going to rely on merit then you will fall short. Which is exactly what I have been saying and a primary doctrine of Christianity. Yes if perfect your merit deserves heaven. No one is perfect or ever will be and so cannot get there that way and must identify through being born again with the only perfect record in human history. Do you not see the comprehensive, intuitive, and logical sophistication of our salvation model yet? It never gets old or less impressive to me even after posting it a thousand times.

 

[1robin]

I won't lie I have issues when people use Paul's words to try to explain what Jesus said. Here we see Jesus saying he is not good but still asks that we be perfect as our father is perfect. To use another verse not from Jesus to attempt to understand it to me makes no sense. Jesus seemed pretty clear there.

It maybe possible we were certainly demanded to. But again to be morally perfect in front of God implies what? That you have never done any wrong? When God sought to destroy the world he spared Noah and his family because Noah was righteous. Yet we are told all sins are equal had Noah not sin?

Jesus chose Paul. In what way is his choice insufficient for you? BTW Paul wrote more of the NT than the rest all combined and prevailed in every disagreement they had. He was also approved by all of the other apostles. On what basis is he rejected?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you?

No, I don't.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes you did. It was not in its usually isolation so I did not recognize it. Sorry.

The debate can end right here if you wished it to. Jesus is saying that not only is no one perfect but God but that no one is even good. How can you therefore claim we are required to be perfect?


That is very close. Razi Zacharias calls this making a person reveal their assumptions (or open up their assumptions). These verse are very very involved and I recommend using the links to research as much is going on here. Jesus was trying to get the man to recognize who he was talking to. The man called him good. Jesus was saying no one is good but God so by calling him good he was calling him God. Jesus is a master debater. I love wordsmiths like Lincoln and Chesterton but Jesus had the ability to use the words he was given to condemn the purpose they were employed in. Many of these instances the depth of intelligence required is beyond human. What is certain is Jesus was not claiming to be sinfull himself. I can see the confusion easily with this verse as it confused me until I decided to get to the bottom of it.


Yes he said you have called me good and only God is good. Do you understand who you are speaking with. Jesus was lethal to bad arguments and as in this case misapprehensions and incomplete resolution.


I know of only one person God hated. Jesus even in a stinging rebuke loved who was addressing. The opposite of love is indifference. I never mentioned the Samaritan verses and they never occurred to me.

Let me explain the sophistication of the argument here a little further.

1. Jesus was operating from the man's false assumptions.
2. He operated within the man's claim that he was righteous by his own merit to show him that based on merit he was not righteous as he had thought.
3. That leads many to claim Jesus would have lied in that case but not so.
4. It is true that we could get to heaven base on merit alone but only if our merit was perfect. The slightest flaw makes us ineligible and in need of Christ's perfect record to be legally applied to our life. He was not lying, but the man was. The man was not perfect as Jesus pointed out.
5. Jesus operated within the man's assumptions twice in just a few verses to show him they were wrong or incomplete.

That's a little different issue. It takes humility and recognized need to accept Christ's sacrifice and our actual status. Rich people usually are prideful, lack humility, and have most of their needs taken care of by money. That is why poor people are so often of faith. They have easily recognizable need, little reason for pride, and no reason to boast.


Yes Christ said if you are going to rely on merit then you will fall short. Which is exactly what I have been saying and a primary doctrine of Christianity. Yes if perfect your merit deserves heaven. No one is perfect or ever will be and so cannot get there that way and must identify through being born again with the only perfect record in human history. Do you not see the comprehensive, intuitive, and logical sophistication of our salvation model yet? It never gets old or less impressive to me even after posting it a thousand times.

Jesus said why do you call me good only God is good. If you already come into with the assumption that Jesus is God and assert the Trinity then it stands that Jesus was only referring to his earthly body as not God.


That the mans assumptions were flawed. Jesus does not indicate that they were rather the verse indicates that one has to be fully willing to sacrifice for others. This fits well with the idea that he who humbles himself will be made great. In the case of all the commandments that the man had kept, he had done for his self. He did not murder, He did not dishonor his parents, he had not given false witness, or committed adultery. He had done all these things for himself, but what had he given to others? He had many possessions but they were precious to him. There is no indication that the man was required to be perfect, but the issue is found at the end of the verse. And he left sad because he had many possessions.

Jesus asked for the man to give all his possessions to others is important. Because he does not ask for him to throw them away, or to sacrifice them to himself, but to give them so that others may have. This is what the man could not do.

But this is just if we go into interpretation of what Jesus meant and it is obvious our view points differ and would probably never be reconciled.

Now I can see the point you made, that what Jesus asked the man to do was too much for the man and that is the struggle that we all have.

But it wasn't impossible, what was asked of him was not impossible but he was attached to his material world...he did not care for the orphans and the widows. So while he had kept the commandments in regards to himself he had not kept them in regards to loving others. It was the mans own decision not to cross the bridge. Eternal life was available to him, he choose not to cross the bridge.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Jesus chose Paul. In what way is his choice insufficient for you? BTW Paul wrote more of the NT than the rest all combined and prevailed in every disagreement they had. He was also approved by all of the other apostles. On what basis is he rejected?

I know how much he wrote I know how he "prevailed" in every disagreement, history is often written by the winners and the winner is usually those who have the most backing by others regardless if they are right or wrong.

I know that there was definitely issues between him and the other gospels.

My issues is that what he says does not fit with Jesus's assertion that he was not Good. Jesus recognized that he was in the flesh and thus open to the weakness of the flesh.

And while it would seem that Paul was good at pushing forward his views we don't know much of his attachment with the other Apostles besides Peter and James. We know that James did not have a positive attitude toward him and Peter being Peter stood in the middle. The rest of the 12 are not mentioned.

 

[nash8]

No, I don't.

Ahh, so Jesus wasn't without sin? Very nice sir.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I won't lie I have issues when people use Paul's words to try to explain what Jesus said. Here we see Jesus saying he is not good but still asks that we be perfect as our father is perfect. To use another verse not from Jesus to attempt to understand it to me makes no sense. Jesus seemed pretty clear there.

Lol. I can see where you are coming from, but lets do some critical thinking. I mean, here we have Jesus, who lived his whole life free from sin..so why wouldn't he be considered "good"? If Jesus lived a sinless life and was not "good", then what is good? I think we could take that scripture to mean "Why do you call me good? Only God is good...are you saying that I am God?" That is one explanation that has been given (as robin stated).

I would need someone to explain to me what it means to be "good", if living a morally perfect life isn't considered good. Until someone answers this question, I think it is rational to accept the explanation that was given.

It maybe possible we were certainly demanded to. But again to be morally perfect in front of God implies what?

Being morally perfect implies you ARE God.

That you have never done any wrong? When God sought to destroy the world he spared Noah and his family because Noah was righteous. Yet we are told all sins are equal had Noah not sin?

Being righteous does not entail perfection. Michael Jordan was considered a "great" basketball player, but that doesn't mean he didn't miss a few shots in his lifetime.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ahh, so Jesus wasn't without sin? Very nice sir.

Obviously I was excluding Jesus.

 

[1robin]

Jesus said why do you call me good only God is good. If you already come into with the assumption that Jesus is God and assert the Trinity then it stands that Jesus was only referring to his earthly body as not God.

That will not work either. Jesus body was not bad nor his soul. His body never sinned, his soul never sinned. There exists no basis for concluding that he was actually saying he was not good and that only God was. If it did why is this the only place that earth shaking information was revealed. Christ was the PERFECT sacrifice because he was perfect. Just as the sacrificial animals were to be perfect in Judaism how much more so was Christ the truly perfect sacrifice. If he had sinned all of Christianity is nonsense and the salvation billions have experienced does not exist. However either interpretation simply ends your claim that Christ or anyone suggested we could actually be perfect. If even he was not good on what basis are we to be perfect? That debate is over (so is the other) but I will discuss the other a bit more if you wish.

That the mans assumptions were flawed. Jesus does not indicate that they were rather the verse indicates that one has to be fully willing to sacrifice for others. This fits well with the idea that he who humbles himself will be made great. In the case of all the commandments that the man had kept, he had done for his self. He did not murder, He did not dishonor his parents, he had not given false witness, or committed adultery. He had done all these things for himself, but what had he given to others? He had many possessions but they were precious to him. There is no indication that the man was required to be perfect, but the issue is found at the end of the verse. And he left sad because he had many possessions.

So you are saying Jesus said he was not even good but that man must be perfect. That is an incoherent understanding and conflicts with about half the Bible.

Jesus asked for the man to give all his possessions to others is important. Because he does not ask for him to throw them away, or to sacrifice them to himself, but to give them so that others may have. This is what the man could not do.

So only if I give everything to charity then I may enter heaven. Did this man who did enter heaven do this?

New Living Translation
But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

He had no works. At the judgment everything he ever did was destroyed as unworthy. Yet he was saved. How has a man with not one single work done what you have claimed. BTW where have all the other verses I provided gone? Your interpretation must not conflict with other verse to work. Yours does with at least a dozen I have given so far and mine with none.

But this is just if we go into interpretation of what Jesus meant and it is obvious our view points differ and would probably never be reconciled.

You should not give a rip what my views are. You should only care what makes all scripture work as a complete and consistent narrative. Mine do. Yours destroy the very core of Christianity and conflict with hundreds of verses. I do not necessary mean you but only critics are satisfied with using things out of the narrative the fit in. Why would they? The have a goal in search of evidence. I am not saying that is your motivation but your tactics are similar.

Now I can see the point you made, that what Jesus asked the man to do was too much for the man and that is the struggle that we all have.

That was one point but it existed in a larger point. Jesus knew that man (I think most believe he was of a legal background)n thought he could debate Christ into confirming he was righteous based on personal merit. Jesus said you think your perfect huh, Then why are you not willing to do X. X could have any of a million things but he chose giving away possessions because the man was wealthy and Jesus knew where to hit to make the point that if he was relying on merit he like us all doomed.

But it wasn't impossible, what was asked of him was not impossible but he was attached to his material world

It was for him and Jesus knew it. The conversation ended there because the point being made was accomplished. If I had been there Christ would have said oh yeah then why are you not willing to never get angry or always go to Church. He would have found a suitable issue that who ever was talking to him would have found just too much because and showed anyone who had bee asking the merit will never get us there because no one is without failure.

...he did not care for the orphans and the widows. So while he had kept the commandments in regards to himself he had not kept them in regards to loving others. It was the mans own decision not to cross the bridge. Eternal life was available to him, he choose not to cross the bridge.

He had failed in all areas just as we all do. However Christ wanted to make a point within his own assumptions instead of simply saying no you haven't because of common ground issues and impact. I have been interested in debate for a long time and take my word for it Christ was lethal. He is almost always subtle but with care and patience layer upon layer of deeper and deeper meaning can soon be found beyond the often not correct surface reading.

There is another reason to believe your perfect requirement is not possible. No matter if someone thinks that anyone could reach perfection or not. No one could possibly believe anyone always was perfect and past sins from God's perspective are just a damning as current ones. Even if one could behave perfectly (which no one can) their record is still marred and far from the perfect standard needed. However when Christ's record is applied to our account it covers all sin so once again Christianity's salvation works and merit based salvation fails.

From another post: You mentioned righteousness. That term does not mean perfection. It means right standing with God. We are made righteous by faith.

 

[1robin]

Ahh, so Jesus wasn't without sin? Very nice sir.

That was one of the laziest and most obviously insincere arguments I have seen an atheist make is a while.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Lol. I can see where you are coming from, but lets do some critical thinking. I mean, here we have Jesus, who lived his whole life free from sin..so why wouldn't he be considered "good"? If Jesus lived a sinless life and was not "good", then what is good? I think we could take that scripture to mean "Why do you call me good? Only God is good...are you saying that I am God?" That is one explanation that has been given (as robin stated).

I would need someone to explain to me what it means to be "good", if living a morally perfect life isn't considered good. Until someone answers this question, I think it is rational to accept the explanation that was given.



Being morally perfect implies you ARE God.



Being righteous does not entail perfection. Michael Jordan was considered a "great" basketball player, but that doesn't mean he didn't miss a few shots in his lifetime.

Actually my bad.

Noah was Perfect or Blameless

9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Noah Pleases God

9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Though it does say his generation. So once in awhile one appears?

 

[Draka]

If it was true it would be good evidence. However Muslims do not become Muslims by making contact with any God. 99% of them do not even claim to have done so in my experience and I have asked many of them. A person becomes a Muslim by simply adopting an intellectual proposition. That can be done without it needing to be true. Tens of millions (probably hundreds) of Muslims are such simply because they were labeled Muslims at birth. Christianity alone among the major faiths offers and even demands that every single Christian experience God personally. Others do make offers but not to the majority. It is always some other person who is enlightened, or holy. In years of debate I have only had one Muslims, no Hindus, and no other faith claim to have experienced God when I asked. In short all Christians have met God through Christ. Very few others even claim it. In that all the difference of eternity resides. Same with miracles and prophecy. When a faith gets beyond what humans can produce all but Judaism and Christianity break down.

You obviously haven't met many people in your life. Many Christians are Christians simply because they are raised that way. No "experience with Deity" required. They just believe. It's called having faith for a reason. As for people of other faiths having experiences with Deity...you obviously haven't met many people or haven't bothered to learn much about them or take them seriously, because people of all kinds of faiths have all kinds of experiences with Deity, whether you like that idea or not. Yes, even Pagans.