Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

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.

Dwight - Here we see the contrast between Homer's post and Darin's several posts. Homer understands plain English and came to a logical conclusion, apparently without even referencing commentaries, unless he just chose to not mention that. I'm not against commentaries, (yes, I do use them) but often, the Word of God is just clear enough on it's own, that they are not necessary to understand a passage.
Homer's response demonstrates this passage is crystal clear. Darin's response demonstrates how he takes a crystal clear passage, then adds volumes of information from many sources, so that we're left with a cloudy, and vague message, at best. Darin takes the understandable and makes it unclear and confusing. He puts a stumbling block in front of people who want to understand the Bible.

[darinhouston]

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.

Dwight - Here we see the contrast between Homer's post and Darin's several posts. Homer understands plain English and came to a logical conclusion, apparently without even referencing commentaries, unless he just chose to not mention that. I'm not against commentaries, (yes, I do use them) but often, the Word of God is just clear enough on it's own, that they are not necessary to understand a passage.
Homer's response demonstrates this passage is crystal clear. Darin's response demonstrates how he takes a crystal clear passage, then adds volumes of information from many sources, so that we're left with a cloudy, and vague message, at best. Darin takes the understandable and makes it unclear and confusing. He puts a stumbling block in front of people who want to understand the Bible.

Do you seek clarity or truth?

Calvinists have very plain readings of their own proof-texts, but their "clarity" often obscures the truth or at least leads to misleading untruths. No one seriously considers this to be a plain and simple text - at the very best, it is somewhat obscure and requires assumptions and presumptions. Anyone who denies that isn't interested in truth, but simply contentment with simplicity or confirmation of their position. Since we don't know precisely what is meant in the passage, consulting the wisdom of others (including commentaries) is often necessary to come at a problematic verse from different angles. I could well have simply stated it is clear to me what it means and it means something else. But, honest inquiry demands more.

[darinhouston]

By the way, if I were committed to a contrary dogma and a unitarian perspective, I could much more easily have simply stated that "Yes it is clear - it is clear that Jesus is denying his divinity here. You Trinitarians are simply denying clear teaching." But, I do not think that's really the point of the passage either. Neither position seems to be in view, and so that leaves us to try and understand what is going on. This is often true when parallel accounts of hard statements differ.

Simply quoting controversial or "hard" passages and saying they're clear is not very helpful to a dialogue if you are wanting to discuss the issue and is not very persuasive if that is your purpose.

[Paidion]

Is there a clear reference to the Trinity in the New Testament? According to several versions, there is indeed!

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. (1 John 5:7,8 NKJV)

And the following versions translate it similarly:
AKJV, AV, Douay, JB2000, NKJV, Webster, and YLT (although YLT place the Trinity words in italics).

However, consider the following translation:
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (1 John 5:7,8 ESV)

Translating it similarly are the following versions:
ASV, BBE, Darby, Diaglot, EMTV, HCSB, LO, NAS95, NIV, RSV, and Wey

So how do we know which translations are correct? Actually, both are correct, considering the Greek manuscript that each translator used as his source.

The first translation is of Greek manuscripts that contain the words:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
These words are known as “The Johannine Comma”.

Here are some facts, which taken together make it almost impossible to maintain that The Johannine Comma was part of the original letter which we call “1st John”.

1. Out of the many hundreds of manuscripts which contain 1st John, there are only eight known Greek manuscripts which contain the passage.

2. Of the eight, four of them include it not as part of the text, but as a marginal note.
3. Seven of the eight date from the 15th to 18th centuries.

4. The other one is a variant reading of a 10th century manuscript.

5. During the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries, no Greek father quoted the passage in support of Trinitarianism. Was that because it did not exist at that time?

If the passage were original, how can it be explained that it was absent from the many hundreds of early Greek manuscripts, and not present in even one of them?

Further details about the Johannine Comma can be obtained from:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

[dwight92070]

Simply quoting controversial or "hard" passages and saying they're clear is not very helpful to a dialogue if you are wanting to discuss the issue and is not very persuasive if that is your purpose.

Dwight - I know, any passage that clearly reveals that Jesus is God, you consider controversial or "hard". Actually those passages are each just one more evidence showing us that Jesus is God. But you don't want to admit that, and you're disappointed because it's doesn't help having a dialogue. That's probably correct, because once you hear the truth, there's not much left to dialogue about.

Dwight: Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father"? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" John 14:8-10
If Jesus was not God, He very likely would tell Philip: "God is Spirit, so you can't see Him." But instead He basically told Philip: "Okay, you can see the Father - Look at Me." Very clear and simple. Do you want to see God, the Father? Look at Jesus and you'll be looking at God.

Dwight: O give ear, Shepherd of Israel, You who lead Joseph like a flock; You are enthroned above the cherubim, shine forth! Psalm 80:1 Who is this speaking about? Obviously God, who shepherds Israel. Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." We know that Jesus here is claiming to be Israel's shepherd. Wait, how can both God and Jesus claim to be Israel's shepherd? Oh wait, I know. Jesus is God.

Dwight: The Bible is filled with so many of these verses of evidence. Aren't you getting tired of explaining away all these clear and true verses?

[commonsense]

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.

Dwight, " A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things."
"A good tree bears good fruit."

I'm just curious as to how you interpret these statements.

"God is Spirit, so you can't see Him."

If the Spirit of God dwells in you, then He can be "seen" by the things that you say and do.
Genesis 41:38 "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?"
Pharaoh saw the Spirit of God in Joseph.

" We know that Jesus here is claiming to be Israel's shepherd.

Being Israel's shepherd doesn't mean you are God.

2 Samuel 5:2 " And the Lord said to you(David) "You shall shepherd My people Israel and be ruler over Israel."

Psalm 78:70-72 "He also chose David His servant and took him from the sheepfolds from following the ewes that had young. He brought him to shepherd Jacob, His people and Israel His inheritance. So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart and guided them by the skillfulness of his hands."

Isaiah 44:28 "Who says of Cyrus,"He is My shepherd and shall perform all My pleasures even saying to Jerusalem, " You shall be built." and to the temple," Your foundation shall be laid."

[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.

Dwight, " A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things."
"A good tree bears good fruit."

I'm just curious as to how you interpret these statements.

Dwight: When Jesus said that "No one is good except God alone", He was not ignoring that many men are good because they have been forgiven and cleansed of their sins and then walk in obedience to God. Obviously, as I said above, He was speaking of an intrinsic goodness, that is a goodness that is there because He had never sinned. He was basically saying to the rich man, "If you don't believe I'm God, then why do you call Me good?" Obviously, the rich man did not believe He was God, but just a good teacher, as he called Him.

"God is Spirit, so you can't see Him."

If the Spirit of God dwells in you, then He can be "seen" by the things that you say and do.
Genesis 41:38 "Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?"
Pharaoh saw the Spirit of God in Joseph.

Dwight: You are right, the Spirit of God can be "seen" in the things that we say and do. We know that the disciples "saw" the Spirit of God on Jesus, with all the things that He said and did. However, apparently that wasn't enough for Philip. He wanted to physically see the Father. Jesus told Him, "You're looking at Him."

" We know that Jesus here is claiming to be Israel's shepherd.

Being Israel's shepherd doesn't mean you are God.

Dwight - Again, you are right, but being Israel's Shepherd since the inception of the nation in Moses' time and even before during the Patriarchs (Genesis 48:15), all the way up to the time of Jesus' earthly life, and for all eternity (Revelation 7:17) DOES mean that He was God. David himself had a shepherd - He said the Lord is my shepherd. David's shepherding of Israel only lasted 40 years. The same was true of Cyrus. They were undershepherds temporarily. Jesus is the eternal shepherd. Jesus is called "the Shepherd and guardian of your souls, and the Chief Shepherd" by Peter. 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4 He was never just a temporary shepherd.

Dwight - Also, Jesus claimed that He was the eternal shepherd of Israel (Matthew 26:31), quoting from Zechariah 13:7. Again, the Old Testament tells us that there is only One ultimate Shepherd of Israel, that was God Himself. (Genesis 48:15; Psalms 80:1; Psalms 23:1, etc.) Jesus also alluded to that fact in John 10:16, where He says that He has "other sheep which are not of this fold", - the Gentiles who will hear His voice.

[darinhouston]

I really can't follow your quotes and responses Dwight in a way that facilitates dialogue. Please consider separate responses or when you are bringing up new topics to create a new topic for discussion.

[Paidion]

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:17,18 NAS95)

Jesus asks “Why do you call me good?” Then he says that only God is good.” He as much as says, “Only God is good. I am not God; so why do you call me good?”

If God were a Trinity, then Jesus would not have objected to being called "good". Rather, perhaps He would have said, “I'm glad you called me good. Only God is good, and thus you recognize me as God— as the second Person of the Trinity.”

[darinhouston]

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:17,18 NAS95)

Jesus asks “Why do you call me good?” Then he says that only God is good.” He as much as says, “Only God is good. I am not God; so why do you call me good?”

If God were a Trinity, then Jesus would not have objected to being called "good". Rather, perhaps He would have said, “I'm glad you called me good. Only God is good, and thus you recognize me as God— as the second Person of the Trinity.”

If we're back on Mark 10, and considering how many of these controversial and disputed passages pertaining to the Trinity have textual variants or manuscript difficulties (and especially when there is variance between parallel gospel accounts), I thought I'd check this one out... the article is making a conclusion I don't agree with (that Jesus was denying being morally good), but it is an interesting tidbit. I do think it changes the analysis if it specified the Father and not God, generally. It resolves the tension between the two main readings, does not negate either view, but drives us to one of the alternative interpretations which doesn't have his divinity in mind at all.

Currently this passage is found in the earliest extant NT manuscript containing the verse (which is א [Codex Sinaiticus] – dated only to the 4th century). However when this verse is quoted in 150 by Justin Martyr is has a different text: " εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς " ( " One is good, my Father in the heavens") Here Jesus is saying that only THE FATHER is good and not Jesus. You might think this is just an interpolation or an interpretation and not the actual text. But this Variant is independently attested by numerous other people.

For example Irenaeus in 172 also quotes this passage saying " Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθὲ, τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" ( "why do you call me good? A single one is good, The Father in the Heavens")

Origen also quotes this in 220s as saying " Καὶ τάχα τῇ αὑτοῦ δικαιοσύνῃ ὁ σωτὴρ εὐτρεπίζει τὰ πάντα καιροῖς ἐπιτηδείοις καὶ λόγῳ καὶ τάξει καὶ κολάσεσι καὶ τοῖς, ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω, πνευματικοῖς αὐτοῦ ἰατρικοῖς βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὸ χωρῆσαι ἐπὶ τέλει τὴν ἀγαθότητα τοῦ πατρός· ἥντινα νοήσας πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ λέγοντα «Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ» φησί· «Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός, ὁ πατήρ ( " ...Because he understood the Father's goodness, he says to the only man who addresses him as "good teacher": "Why do you call me 'good'? No one is good except one, God the Father.")

The Pseodo Clementines written in 260s also quotes this by saying " ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστὶν, ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖ " ( " Do not call me good, for the one that is good, the Father in the heavens")

Therefore with all these independent attestations it is clear that such a Variant existed ( There are even more attestations that i have not bothered to write but you can check out for yourselves such as Tatian diatessaron written in 172 etc) and that using the historical critical method of that earlier the variant the closer it is to the original so we can assume that the original passage said " only the father is good"