What makes a Christian a good Christian?

[MobBoss]

No problem. Jesus meant that there is 'no individual thing that in itself is good' when he said there is 'no one good'. Not that there are 'no good people'. Do I believe it? Heck, I don't even care. But there is a different interpertation than the one you presented.

Nice try, but lets explore you allegation. The word used for 'none' in 'none is good' in ancient greek is Oudeis and here is the concordance interpretation of that word: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=3762&t=KJV

1) no one, nothing
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 236 AV — no man 94, nothing 68, none 27, no 24, any man 3, any 3, man 2, neither any man 2, misc 13

Please notice all the references to 'man' in there, so I stand behind my interpretation that 'none' does indeed refer to mankind.

Proof? No, nothing is provable in my view.

 

[LucyDuke]

Again, how would you interpret it? I have been asking this of several people and yet they all neglect to offer a valid, if alternate, interpretation.

Mobby, in the very post you are replying to, I offered an interpretation.

 

[JollyRoger]

Mobby, in the very post you are replying to, I offered an interpretation.

He said valid. Yours didn't match his, so it isn't valid.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobby, in the very post you are replying to, I offered an interpretation.

Ok. Lets check it out.

You said:

Good may not me what I'm asking about.

What does this mean?

There is more than one sense to the word good.

I think the root word to the greek in this case means 'honorable' or 'upright'. This is a statement, not an interpretation. In what sense do you think Jesus was using the word?

Perhaps the good Jesus is talking about is some sort of high-divine omnibenevolence.

Thats not really any different than my interpretation honestly. How is that any different that what I said? God, being perfect, is the only good. Man, being imperfect, fall short of good.

The good I'm talking about is "doing it right".

The root word is translated to mean upright or honorable. I dont think the indication here is in doing something well...as in 'good', although God does indeed do all things right. Because the context of the comment comes from someone commenting that Jesus himself is 'good'...a comment he himself denies in comparison to his father.

 

[scy12]

But you misquote him yourself. Jesus never said 'there must not be any rich'.....he said being rich makes it near impossible to lead a righteous life and enter heaven.

He said
ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 3:11 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
αποκριθεις δε ελεγεν αυτοις ο εχων δυο χιτωνας μεταδοτω τω μη εχοντι και ο εχων βρωματα ομοιως ποιειτω

Τhe one who has two xitons (type of clothes) to give the one to the other and likewise should the one who has food do.

He spoke against the process of one being rich by choosing not to share what he has in plenty that others do not.

His message against amassing wealth was stronger than any of the other messages you think he said. He didn't say Ο εχων πολλα μεταδοτω τω μη εχοντι ολιγα , The one who has much should give charity once a while to those he wish , he said ο εχων δυο χιτωνας μεταδοτω τω μη εχοντι .

Or do you deny this also ?

You could say that he is not against rich people who are willing to make amends but that whole "Devout life" thing is just missing the point when we have clear quotes which speak not about devout life but about what actions are acceptable.

Was King David wealthy? Absolutely. Was he devout? Absolutely. Again, you err in your interpretation. A wealthy man can indeed be devout, but the temptation that great wealth brings with it makes it a very difficult task indeed.

Did King David have two chitons and did not give to his neighbor one , and still remain wealthy ? Did he really archive to pass one from the needle's eye ?

Or is this devoutness totally unrelated to what i said and a convenient way to interpret what you want from what you say is the truth. ( I say it raises some interesting questions but atleast i am not misinterpreting it).

This devoutness seems really quite convenient when it does not make the tiresome task of being analyzed under if the one who is devout did what is being talk in there as devout. Giving his neigbor one chiton if he had two.

So as a rule the wealthy man more likely than not has sinned by not giving to the poor what he had to give.

I am not lying about it. I just possess a better understanding of it than you do. /shrug.

I can't see how. You are saying that being selfish is a sin but then when i give you an example when Jesus directly links up Selfishness with wealth due to wealth being amassed by not sharing you avoid the issue by calling King David as wise and devout. (Example : But he is a murderer ? No he actually is devout and good. ) Hypocritical and if one believed that , Bible was the source of truth , it seems you are not following it.

Which most times is good i guess only your morality when it differs from the Bible is not necessarilly better. You just took the bad parts of it.

Nice try, but lets explore you allegation. The word used for 'none' in 'none is good' in ancient greek is Oudeis and here is the concordance interpretation of that word: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=3762&t=KJV



Please notice all the references to 'man' in there, so I stand behind my interpretation that 'none' does indeed refer to mankind.

Oudeis indeed means None Human. You are correct. But you must be aware that while one word may have one meaning it may be used in a different context although i do not offer an opinion on this.

 

[JollyRoger]

God, being perfect, is the only good. Man, being imperfect, fall short of good.

Firstly, since when does perfect = good?

Secondly, if God is perfect, why has he had to revise his relationship with man at least three times (post-fruit sampling, post-Flood, birth of Son). Wouldn't a pefect entity get it right the first time?

 

[scy12]

Firstly, since when does perfect = good?

Secondly, if God is perfect, why has he had to revise his relationship with man at least three times (post-fruit sampling, post-Flood, birth of Son). Wouldn't a pefect entity get it right the first time?

Now stop , this this questions have already beaten MobBoss and others to death . Now we are investigating how honest he is at interpreting the Bible not why the thing he is supposedly following is contradictory.

 

[scy12]

ο δε είπεν αυτώ· τι με λέγεις αγαθόν; ουδείς αγαθός ει μη είς ο Θεός.» i found it. Agathos does mean good but also well intentioned and today it is also used to describe naive people although that is certainly not the meaning that is used.

Agathos can also mean Pure and untouched by evil , innocent . Can only think of good ,etc. One can be a good Christian and not be Pure , if Pure is applied as the meaning to the word Agathos .

Good is certainly not the word of choice for translating Agathos.

 

[MobBoss]

Did King David have two chitons and did not give to his neighbor one , and still remain wealthy ? Did he really archive to pass one from the needle's eye ?

I think its a safe bet that King David had more than just two chitons. A stretch, I know, but there ya go....

So as a rule the wealthy man more likely than not has sinned by not giving to the poor what he had to give.

Again, I am on the record about charitable giving here. This doesnt conflict with what I have said in this thread.

I can't see how. You are saying that being selfish is a sin but then when i give you an example when Jesus directly links up Selfishness with wealth due to wealth being amassed by not sharing you avoid the issue by calling King David as wise and devout. (Example : But he is a murderer ? No he actually is devout and good. ) Hypocritical and if one believed that , Bible was the source of truth , it seems you are not following it.

King David was indeed wealthy and still wise devout and is called as having a heart like Gods own heart. And because he was a man and thus imperfect he fell into sin and did indeed murder another. And paid for it, and repented of it.

The most wise man in the bible, Solomon, was also a man beyond fabulously wealthy. But it wasnt his wealth that led to his downfall - it was his choice to marry wives not of his religion.

Which most times is good i guess only your morality when it differs from the Bible is not necessarilly better. You just took the bad parts of it.

Again, you make many false allegations. My morality doesnt differ from the bible.

Oudeis indeed means None Human. You are correct. But you must be aware that while one word may have one meaning it may be used in a different context although i do not offer an opinion on this.

Thanks for the confirmation that I am indeed correct.

 

[scy12]

I think its a safe bet that King David had more than just two chitons. A stretch, I know, but there ya go....



Again, I am on the record about charitable giving here. This doesnt conflict with what I have said in this thread.



King David was indeed wealthy and still wise devout and is called as having a heart like Gods own heart. And because he was a man and thus imperfect he fell into sin and did indeed murder another. And paid for it, and repented of it.

The most wise man in the bible, Solomon, was also a man beyond fabulously wealthy. But it wasnt his wealth that led to his downfall - it was his choice to marry wives not of his religion.



Again, you make many false allegations. My morality doesnt differ from the bible.



Thanks for the confirmation that I am indeed correct.

I think its a safe bet that King David had more than just two chitons. A stretch, I know, but there ya go....:crazyeye

Then he is not devout for not giving his numerous (Which is worse than two because he waited more time being selfish and he had more to give which he did not need) Chitons to the ones who did not have one.

Again, I am on the record about charitable giving here. This doesnt conflict with what I have said in this thread.

Yes it does because you chose to throw a " But he is devout" on it to avoid the issue. And Jesus did not say about charity when you feel like it he said you should give anything more than is essential to others who need it more.

King David was indeed wealthy and still wise devout and is called as having a heart like Gods own heart. And because he was a man and thus imperfect he fell into sin and did indeed murder another. And paid for it, and repented of it.

The most wise man in the bible, Solomon, was also a man beyond fabulously wealthy. But it wasnt his wealth that led to his downfall - it was his choice to marry wives not of his religion.

Is he a sinner or devout then , make your choice ?

Again, you make many false allegations. My morality doesnt differ from the bible.

I have witnessed otherwise.

Thanks for the confirmation that I am indeed correct.

Well it obvious that Oudeis talks about None Human.

 

[CheScott]

Nice try, but lets explore you allegation. The word used for 'none' in 'none is good' in ancient greek is Oudeis and here is the concordance interpretation of that word: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=3762&t=KJV

Please notice all the references to 'man' in there, so I stand behind my interpretation that 'none' does indeed refer to mankind.

I choose to reject that on totally arbitrary grounds. You did not say to provide an alternate valid interpretation, nor am I obligated to alter my interpretation based on your standards of validity. You said to provide another interpretation.

So, 'nice try' right back at you.

Nothing can be proven, because nothing can be experienced outside of perception, which in itself is inherently flawed. Reality cannot be proven to exist because there is no method of experincing it objectively. We can only operate under the assumption that it does, because there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. That, in itself, does not constitute proof. If the only argument you can make here is to make faces at me, I will assume you concede my point.

 

[Perfection]

Thats not really any different than my interpretation honestly. How is that any different that what I said? God, being perfect, is the only good. Man, being imperfect, fall short of good.

Do you believe that the bible (including the old testament) provides a true account of God's words and actions?

If so then I assume that you should believe all of the courses of action that God took or advocated was the morally superior thing to do, correct?

 

[MobBoss]

I choose to reject that on totally arbitrary grounds. You did not say to provide an alternate valid interpretation, nor am I obligated to alter my interpretation based on your standards of validity. You said to provide another interpretation.

So, 'nice try' right back at you.

Ah...so your interpretation is about as valid as saying 'good means corncob'.

Thanks.

Nothing can be proven, because nothing can be experienced outside of perception, which in itself is inherently flawed.

I perceive you are full of crap.

Reality cannot be proven to exist because there is no method of experincing it objectively.

As Teddy Kennedy said 'now thats garbage'.

I will assume you concede my point.

Nope.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you believe that the bible (including the old testament) provides a true account of God's words and actions?

Not complete, but true, yes. In that what is described therein as to the best of the ability of those writing it all down.

If so then I assume that you should believe all of the courses of action that God took or advocated was the morally superior thing to do, correct?

Of course. But I dont expect Gods 'morality' to always be the same as mans 'morality'...but in choosing I would choose Gods morality over mans.

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course. But I dont expect Gods 'morality' to always be the same as mans 'morality'...but in choosing I would choose Gods morality over mans.

Who do you plan to smite first?

 

[CheScott]

Ah...so your interpretation is about as valid as saying 'good means corncob'.

Thanks.

You're quite welcome. If you desired something else, you should learn to be more specific. Further more, that is 'an' interpretation, not 'my' interpretation. You would do well to learn the difference, since I made it pretty clear before.

I perceive you are full of crap.

I'm sorry, did you have some sort of counter point, or would you prefer this degrade to the level of derogatory comments?

As Teddy Kennedy said 'now thats garbage'.

Did the self-espoused 'prophet of common sense' really just quote a politician in regard to philosophy?

Nope.

Great, perhaps you would be so good as to make a point, then?

 

[LucyDuke]

What does this mean?

It means I made a typo. The "me" should be "be".

I think the root word to the greek in this case means 'honorable' or 'upright'. This is a statement, not an interpretation. In what sense do you think Jesus was using the word?

Thats not really any different than my interpretation honestly. How is that any different that what I said? God, being perfect, is the only good. Man, being imperfect, fall short of good.

I know. I'm agreeing with you. What I've bolded is what you need to pay attention to.

The root word is translated to mean upright or honorable. I dont think the indication here is in doing something well...as in 'good', although God does indeed do all things right. Because the context of the comment comes from someone commenting that Jesus himself is 'good'...a comment he himself denies in comparison to his father.

I'll try to make my point again. The good Jesus was talking about in that passage is not the good that I'm (necessarily) talking about in the thread title. You're saying no Christians can be good Christians because you're only thinking of good in the sense that it was used in that passage. There are other ways to use the word good. I don't think cake is ever honorable or upright, but cake can be good. Just an example - there are more ways than that to use the word good. What I'm asking, in this thread, is what a Christian has to do to be the best Christian he can be. Not what it takes to be God.

There was a reason I capitalized and bolded the g. If you can't make any sense out of that, then you're not going to make any sense out of anything I'm saying here.

 

[MobBoss]

Then he is not devout for not giving his numerous (Which is worse than two because he waited more time being selfish and he had more to give which he did not need) Chitons to the ones who did not have one.

Now you are just talking crazy. You do know what the bible says about David, right?

Is he a sinner or devout then , make your choice ?

Its not 'a choice' its entirely possible to be both. No one except Jesus was without sin. Everyone sins. Being devout doesnt mean not having to deal with sin.

I have witnessed otherwise.

You havent witnessed anything. You dont know me. What you have done is misrepresented, misquoted and misread a lot of what I have posted on this forum. Thats it.

Well it obvious that Oudeis talks about None Human.

It refers to man. Ergo, there are no good men, and he included himself in that as well. Because all men have to deal with sin. God doesnt. His words. If you cant deal with that, /oh well.

 

[MobBoss]

Who do you plan to smite first?

The athiests.

I'm sorry, did you have some sort of counter point, or would you prefer this degrade to the level of derogatory comments?

Thats the sort of counter point you get when you offer nonsensical interpretation. Deal with it.

Did the self-espoused 'prophet of common sense' really just quote a politician in regard to philosophy?

In regard that nothing is real yes. Why should it bother you? Apparently you cant tell if my reply were real or not.

I'll try to make my point again. The good Jesus was talking about in that passage is not the good that I'm (necessarily) talking about in the thread title. You're saying no Christians can be good Christians because you're only thinking of good in the sense that it was used in that passage. There are other ways to use the word good. I don't think cake is ever honorable or upright, but cake can be good.

Well, cake can 'taste' good. But I dont think cake can 'be' good in the same manner a christian is a 'good' christian.

Or are you trying to say Christians taste good?

Just an example - there are more ways than that to use the word good. What I'm asking, in this thread, is what a Christian has to do to be the best Christian he can be. Not what it takes to be God.

Emulate Christ in all that you do and keep him in your heart and mind constantly.

 

[scy12]

Now you are just talking crazy. You do know what the bible says about David, right?



Its not 'a choice' its entirely possible to be both. No one except Jesus was without sin. Everyone sins. Being devout doesnt mean not having to deal with sin.



You havent witnessed anything. You dont know me. What you have done is misrepresented, misquoted and misread a lot of what I have posted on this forum. Thats it.



It refers to man. Ergo, there are no good men, and he included himself in that as well. Because all men have to deal with sin. God doesnt. His words. If you cant deal with that, /oh well.

Now you are just talking crazy. You do know what the bible says about David, right?



Its not 'a choice' its entirely possible to be both. No one except Jesus was without sin. Everyone sins. Being devout doesnt mean not having to deal with sin.

The thing is that i was attempting to question you on whether David Sinned due to being wealthy and selfish and unwilling to share and you avoided that subject. First he was devout then he became imperfect in your view.
Anyway.
I am not talking about whether Humans sin or are imperfect but about the specific sin of selfishness and how is related to wealth.

So to converse , stop avoiding the subject and tell me how do you interpret the " The one who has two chitons shall give one to the man who has none"

You havent witnessed anything. You dont know me. What you have done is misrepresented, misquoted and misread a lot of what I have posted on this forum. Thats it.

I don't have to misquote you MobBoss . But see what you say afterwards :

It refers to man. Ergo, there are no good men, and he included himself in that as well. Because all men have to deal with sin. God doesnt. His words. If you cant deal with that, /oh well.

What in earth are you talking about ? I did not disagree with you here , where does this inane comment come from ?