Search results

Brother @Johann is way smarter than me, then, because I don't see the Torah speaking of Jesus as Messiah. The word מָשִׁיחַ ("mashiakh") is found four times in the Torah (Exodus 28:41. Exodus 40:15, Leviticus 4:3, Numbers 3:3), and each time it refers to the anointing of a priest.

Jesus is saying NEITHER that he is good NOR that he is not good here. So if this is what you trumpet as Jesus claiming to be God (= good), I have to put it in the "dumb" category.

YES! @David in NJ, you've just redeemed yourself from all of the dumb arguments you've advanced in favor the Son's divinity, and hit on the one that I accept wholeheartedly. Thank you! There is a bit of a disconnect between "He already existed in the form of God" and "God highly exalted Him...

Cute, but Elohim is actually mentioned 4 times in the first 4 verses -- so why not four instead of three? For that matter, Elohim is mentioned 2 times in the first 2 verses -- so why not two instead of three? Why are you gerrymandering our result by looking at the first three verses instead of...

I'm not seeing what you are seeing here. I'm seeing a plural noun (Elohim), which means two or more. You're seeing the same plural noun and declaring it means THREE. Not two. Not four. Not a hundred, But THREE. As you know, I am a Trinitarian. But I cannot distill the Trinity from...

Nonsense. Find me a verse where Jesus says He is perfect/good. For that matter, find me a verse where Jesus says He is NOT perfect/good. I'll take either one.

It doesn't answer my question at all: WHERE? Chapter and verse, please.

True, but it doesn't answer the question of whether Jesus said or didn't say he wasn't perfect/good.

How can anyone possibly answer that question? Did somebody track the 99.9999% of Jesus's words not repeated in the gospels? If so, let's get them to publish!!!!!

Sorry, I don't see it. Please tell me again.

OK, I think I have passed your entrance exam to be admitted into the Shrine of your wisdom. Now, kindly provide the proof you said I would receive regarding the early third century infection of Scriptural translations.

325 CE. It was "catholic" in the sense of being attended by bishops throughout Christendom, but certainly not "Roman" Catholic in any proper sense (over three hundred bishops attended, and only three legates of the absent Pope Sylvester were sent in his stead). What "nonsense" do you have in...

Let me add Exodus 20:2-3 to your list. “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Saying “I am the Lord thy God,” rather than “I am the only God” as one would to a monotheist indicates that the...

How about the definition of Good" rather than of "Truth," please.

The Bullseye I am interested in is a "definition" of "Good" given by Jesus. Attributing goodness to God is NOT A DEFINITION! It's not. Surely you understand this. Do I need to define "definition" for you? :oops:

Obviously Jesus's, and everyone whose sins are not counted against them by virtue of their faith in Him and His sacrifice.

I'd love to see your evidence. Please share. (I'll ignore the chronological contradiction of "corrupted our modern Bibles in the early 300s" because I know what you mean.) I'm thinking some of that evidence will taint the Eastern Orthodox more than the RCC, but let's see what you've got first.

Likely not! What's your point?

Nope. I see him saying God is good, for sure. But a DEFINITION of "good?" It's not there. It's like me saying "@Wrangler is intransigent." That statement doesn't DEFINE "intransigent."

I'm guessing even Catholics (I am not one) would agree with this. The RCC's interpretation of Scripture may not match yours, however.