Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

"Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God." (Mark 10:18) You are right, if you don't believe Jesus is God, then the implication is that Jesus is not good. That is the point we are trying to make also. No created thing, in heaven or below, nothing but God is good. My Jesus is good, if He were not, he would be as good as anyone else, and that is what is behind much of the disbelief. Where we should believe 'Nobody is good, except one, God' Many things Jesus said are rhetorical, Jesus teaches with questions. And Jesus, and all the other writers almost always point back to what was already written.

[jriccitelli]

Sorry to have to post the whole text, so not to be accused of snipping:

You are the one that espouses trinitarianism. You believe in the doctrine, and I don't recall ever having read you to say you have any caveats regarding it. The doctrine states that all three persons are fully God, both individually as well as collectively; "co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire", according to the Orthodox definitions as I have been able to find. You and other trinitarians may profess Monotheism--I have no reason to doubt that in your heart you believe you are, and may be; however, when such professions rely upon doing violence to the manifest meaning of words, I have to take issue. (Ed)

Brenden, you noted: “Still, it's hard for me to see trinitarianism in Isaiah 59”. I said: “I don’t see Trinitarianism in this either, I see Monotheism” Brenden I was only referring to Isaiah chapter 59. Still there is no contrast or juxtaposition between Monotheism and Trinitarianism, there is a juxtaposition between Monotheism and Polytheism, and Trinitarianism and Polytheism (much like light and dark, good and bad). There is no juxtaposition between inches and feet: One foot/12 inches. One yard/3 feet. One God/3 persons.
There are no Trinitarian verses in the OT, there is no talk of such thing until Jesus starts speaking, then we ask ‘who’ is this speaking? Jesus is the one who equates Himself with God, He then opens His Word, and our mind, and we recognize who He is. There are the OT verses where we have plurality within God, as in the Genesis ‘Let us make man in our image’, and there are Theophanies/Christophanies also, but the incarnation “that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints” (Col 1:26) “and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things” (Eph 3:9)

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

You are illustrating my point about doing violence to the manifest meaning of words. One foot=12 inches; One yard=3feet. But does one of those feet =one yard? Yet this is precisely what trinitarianism espouses. Please tell me you don't design bridges. It is unfair to on the one hand to try and use reason to teach the trinity, and then hide behind "mystery" when things get a bit thick. Also, thank for at least admitting that a person would not read Jesus words about "good" and "God" to be saying he was God.

By the way, I think the verse you quoted from Colossians had to do with Christ in union with believers as being the "mystery" or "sacred secret", not the incarnation per se.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer and Dizerner,

Most commentators on that verse (most of which are trinitarian) will say that Jesus is not denying his deity in this passage. But they are at pains to say so. However, they also say that Jesus point was mainly to call the ruler out on a glib use of "good" since to the Jews the Law was the only good.

Regards, Brenden.

[darinhouston]

I have a different impression. I suspect that Jesus was giving the young fellow an opportunity to confess that Jesus was God. Jesus was good (sinless), no one is good but God, therefore...............

OK, I can appreciate you having that impression, and I'm not suggesting He wasn't "good," but what is it (contextually) that gives you that impression from the passage itself?

[Paidion]

I have a different impression. I suspect that Jesus was giving the young fellow an opportunity to confess that Jesus was God. Jesus was good (sinless), no one is good but God, therefore...............

Doesn't it seem a bit odd "that Jesus was giving the young fellow an opportunity to confess that Jesus was God," when nowhere in the records does Jesus ever even hint that He is God. Rather, He addresses the Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3) and affirms that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If He and the Father are one Individual, how can the Father be greater than He?

Jesus' main emphasis in identifying Himself, seems to be on the fact that He was the son of man. He refers to Himself as such in 82 verses.

[dizerner]

Some terms Christ used so that seeing they may not see, from the hardness of their hearts. I see the whole story as an illustration of salvation by works or grace, through faith or through the law. The young man came to Christ with the understanding that he could earn his way to heaven by being good enough. This is the central theme. The grace of God was appearing to all men in Christ, yet people still had the inclination to be justified by law, by good works. It is not wealth that keeps men from God, but the idolatry of wealth, the love of money, and when the man got serious and said "What am I lacking" Christ immediately pinpointed the number one idol of his heart.

But at that point, the point when we are exposed as sinners, it is not required of us to fix ourselves up in our power, but instead to look for a Savior. If we are trusting in Christ to save us, we cannot be trusting in ourselves, which would be serving two masters. As Paul says the job of the Law is not to justify, but to be a standard that is so rigid we finally realize we've broken it somewhere. Now how does all that tie into Christ's divinity? When Christ said a person had found salvation through his ministry, what he was saying was that the person's spirit was now trusting in him, they had eaten and drank of the Bread of Life. For Christ to be a perfect Savior, a perfect go-between from God to man, he can't have "fallen short of the glory of God" in any way. You had to view Christ as sufficient and see that Christ was indeed the Holiness you lacked.

Did that rich young ruler see that Christ was God's salvation, and not the Law? Did that rich young ruler see the Holiness in Christ and the holiness that he himself lacked? Seeing Christ's divinity is part of seeing him as a truly sufficient and perfect Savior, something that really can be the One true Door of Salvation, the One true Vine of Life, the One true Alpha and Omega who tasted death on every man's behalf, and rose again. It's faith in Christ's work that saves us and thereby gives us a life and power to do good deeds, and it is not faith in good deeds that brings us a new life.

To see Christ as Savior, is to see him as holy, to see him as holy is to see him as worthy, to see him as worthy is to see him for Who he truly is, the intercessor that God could not find in Isaiah, the Arm of the Lord that wasn't too short to save, the righteousness of God himself that he offers to sinful, unworthy people, who will receive the water of life freely, just as Revelation's imagery paralleled from Isaiah 55, to see him as the Salvation and Glory of God, which Isaiah clearly tells us God does not share, and hence to see him as the gift of God which has life in itself, and the only thing with life in itself, is Divine.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Rather, He addresses the Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3) and affirms that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If He and the Father are one Individual, how can the Father be greater than He?

The Father can be greater than He because Jesus "emptied Himself" and took on the form of a servant. He became the Son which He henceforth would be.

Jesus' main emphasis in identifying Himself, seems to be on the fact that He was the son of man. He refers to Himself as such in 82 verses.

Yes, because the greater danger was that He would be perceived as not human, incarnate, but would be seen as God, and not a man, as many have done.

[Homer]

Hi Darrin,

Homer wrote:
I have a different impression. I suspect that Jesus was giving the young fellow an opportunity to confess that Jesus was God. Jesus was good (sinless), no one is good but God, therefore...............

OK, I can appreciate you having that impression, and I'm not suggesting He wasn't "good," but what is it (contextually) that gives you that impression from the passage itself?

Here is the way I see it.

Luke 18:18-19 (NASB)

18. A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19. And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

The Greek agathos, translated "good" in this story, can mean good in various ways. A "good" tree bears "good" fruit. A teacher may be "good". A person may be a "good" employee. Now why would Jesus object to being called "good" in the ordinary sense? Why would Jesus correct the man on that? Earlier in Luke 6:45 Jesus said: "The good (agathos) man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good (agathos)" We are expected to be good. However, when used of God, God is essentially, absolutely, consummately good. Jesus was saying that no one is good, in that sense, but God. Did Jesus mean to exclude Himself from that category? He was sinless, the spotless lamb of God. Would it have been truthful to exclude Himself?

Perhaps Jesus did not expect the young ruler to get it, but rather those who would ponder His words after His resurrection.

What do you think?

[darinhouston]

Hi Darrin,

Homer wrote:
I have a different impression. I suspect that Jesus was giving the young fellow an opportunity to confess that Jesus was God. Jesus was good (sinless), no one is good but God, therefore...............

OK, I can appreciate you having that impression, and I'm not suggesting He wasn't "good," but what is it (contextually) that gives you that impression from the passage itself?

Here is the way I see it.

Luke 18:18-19 (NASB)

18. A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19. And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

The Greek agathos, translated "good" in this story, can mean good in various ways. A "good" tree bears "good" fruit. A teacher may be "good". A person may be a "good" employee. Now why would Jesus object to being called "good" in the ordinary sense? Why would Jesus correct the man on that? Earlier in Luke 6:45 Jesus said: "The good (agathos) man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good (agathos)" We are expected to be good. However, when used of God, God is essentially, absolutely, consummately good. Jesus was saying that no one is good, in that sense, but God. Did Jesus mean to exclude Himself from that category? He was sinless, the spotless lamb of God. Would it have been truthful to exclude Himself?

Perhaps Jesus did not expect the young ruler to get it, but rather those who would ponder His words after His resurrection.

What do you think?

So, basically, you're saying hindsight is what suggests the exegesis? Isn't that eisegesis?