Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

So... according to you, "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean the firstborn of all creation, but that Jesus has preeminence over all.

With that kind of "reasoning, then perhaps your statement "Jesus is God" does not mean that Jesus is God, but that Jesus has divine power.

Dwight - Do you mean the kind of reasoning that takes scripture in it's proper context? I know, that can be a problem for your theology.

[dwight92070]

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life" and "I have come down out of heaven"
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world"
Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep"
Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd"
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life"
Jesus said, "I am the way , the truth, and the life"
Jesus said, "I am the vine"
Jesus said, "I am (the Messiah)"

Are all of these statements just a coincidence, since God told Moses "I AM WHO I AM'? I don't think so, Once again, He was identifying Himself as the "I AM". Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I AM" has sent me to you.

[Paidion]

(Mark 10:18 NKJV) So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

Jesus words clearly indicate that He is not God, and that the Father alone is God. Can you accept the truth of the words of the divine Son?

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

(Mark 10:18 NKJV) So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

Jesus words clearly indicate that He is not God, and that the Father alone is God. Can you accept the truth of the words of the divine Son?

Jesus may just as well have been saying "No one is good but One, that is, God. I am good, therefore I am God." Otherwise Jesus is saying He is not good which would indicate He considered Himself a sinner.

[dwight92070]

Homer, I believe you are right, because we know from several places in the New Testament that Jesus was without sin - obviously meaning He was good. So, if He was good, then He was clearly saying that He was God. This is another example of scripture that is plain and clear, but Paidon sees it through his "Jesus is not God" glasses. It's a bias that distorts the truth of the Word of God. Of course, Darin will say that we see it through our "Jesus is God" glasses. On the contrary, an objective look at this passage makes it crystal clear what Jesus is saying. Then couple that with the Biblical fact that Jesus never sinned and you have the truth staring you in the face - Jesus is saying that He is God.

[dwight92070]

In fact, there are only 2 conclusions that this passage can have:

1. Jesus is not good (which contradicts scripture), and therefore, He is not God or
2. Jesus is good, and therefore, He is God

Obviously Jesus is speaking of an intrinsic "goodness" here, otherwise all who can be called "good" are God.

The only way there can be a 3rd option is to twist the meaning of words to get them to say something other than what they mean.

[darinhouston]

While Dwight thinks everything that agrees with his views are plain and simple and only those with unitarian blinders on could avoid the plain truth of such a claim of divinity, I find it interesting that all of the commentaries I grabbed off my shelf (older ones that aren't trying too hard) lacked any mention of such a claim. They each made completely different points about the verse that were directed to the context of the larger passage concerning discipleship and claims to goodness being enough to save you and one actually referring to Jesus' response as a rebuke. Of the commentaries I referred to online, half of them suggested this was a claim to divinity and the other half was mixed between it being a claim of divinity or ambiguous and being a mixed response. One leading commentary said it was wrong to see it as a claim to divinity for himself but noting the difference between his humanity and the Father who alone was good and that his rebuke was to take him back to scriptures to find truth. But, there is simply nothing in the context of the exchange to suggest he had his own divinity in mind (even if the contrary view that he is denying his divinity is also not clear).

I know Dwight could care less what commentators say, but what is clear is that if it was as clear as he says it is that this is what Jesus was trying to say, most if not all of them would simply state that and move on. It is at the very least not "crystal clear" to many leading orthodox commentators that this is what he had in mind.

[darinhouston]

Another interesting point is many translations of the Matthew parallel don't call Jesus "Good Teacher" but instead apply the question about "goodness" to the deeds the ruler was asking about. This makes Jesus' response make more sense in the context of the exchange. "Teacher, what good thing must I do?" Jesus saying, dude if you're wanting to talk about good, that's only relevant as to God -- no "thing" is going to make you good - focus instead on obeying the commands of God. "Doing things" will never make you good. But, if you want to be saved, follow the commandments.... and so forth. Not quite as controversial.

I think if this was a clear divinity claim, it would have been more critical to Matthew and Mark that they at least both repeat the claim from the exchange. So, if Mark accurately reflects the words of Jesus, we can at least say that it wasn't that clear to Matthew that this is what he was saying or he would surely have mentioned it.

[darinhouston]

I found another interesting discussion about this Mark passage and it's worth mentioning. The idea was that the term "good" had nothing to do with moral goodness. Clearly Jesus couldn't have been saying there are none who are good in any moral sense of the word since there are many references in the NT to faithful and righteous people. Instead, the idea is that Jesus was reacting to a suggestion that it was his own teaching having independent authority beyond or outside of existing Scripture or the words of the Father. Elsewhere he made it clear that it was not his own words he was teaching but those of the Father which were given to him. His rebuke then was not saying anything at all about his moral goodness or his divinity but was simply redirecting the rich young ruler to Scripture as the starting place for the discussion.

I think I'll go back and listen to Steve's handling of this passage in his verse by verse teaching.

[darinhouston]

So, I listened to Steve's verse by verse treatment. Steve does at least note that it is not entirely clear why Jesus responds the way he does because it doesn't really follow the question or relate plainly to the further answer.

He does focus on the questioner's asking "WHY" he calls him good - he then goes on to suggest this had one of two possibilities - either he wasn't good or that he WAS GOD. But, as I listened to him, I think there is a third possibility consistent with the parallel passages that goes to some of the above discussion. It likewise focuses on the "why" -- still it's not that Jesus was denying he was good or suggesting he was God. Maybe it went something like this -

"Dude, before we talk about your question, let's start at the beginning and let me ask you what makes you say I'm good just so we are on the same page here. So, what is the basis for this assumption? You say I'm good, but you don't really understand -- let me tell you -- I am completely obedient to the word of God and everything it implies. He is the source and measure of all goodness, so let's turn to His commands - here they are, you know them. Follow them -- completely -- as I have. But, it is also the spirit of the commandments you must keep. Now that this is covered, there is one more thing (and since you can't do all these things perfectly, the most important thing) - he sent me as his Messiah and your Lord and so if you have eternal life, you will be loving others and will abandon all and follow me as your Lord."

Another interesting point Steve makes is that these commands all related not to the first tablet of commandments pertaining to how the ruler should relate to God, but to his fellow man.

Another unrelated point that spoke to me was Jesus' stated love for the man. Calvinists would say Jesus only loves the elect. This man could hardly be considered a shining example of the elect since he was unwilling to respond to Jesus' call. And yet Jesus specifically said he loved him.