Christians! If Jesus is NOT God, how do you explain Luke:18:19?

[Trailblazer]

Hi Trailblazer,

From my standpoint, if Jesus stated "Nobody is good but God alone" when in fact, Jesus was actually "good" then he told a little fib for the sake of appearing humble. So he told something that wasn't "fully" but only "partially" true, engaging in the practice of "false" humility. Had it been "true" humility, he would not have said God alone is Good, but simply "I'm not as good as God".

As you no doubt know, Jesus is not always that direct in speech and He leaves it up to the reader to figure out what He means... In this way Jesus tests His servants... Here is an example of indirect speech:

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Note how Jesus did not answer directly and say “No, I am not a king.” He just said what He was. He expected Pilate (and those reading the verse later) to figure out what He meant.

Earlier you mentioned Christ was a "perfect" reflection of God's attributes. Also, we know from scripture that Christ cannot do anything that he hasn't seen the father do:

Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19)

This would have important and rather devastating theological implications for Christianity, thing that can't simply be swept under a rug, as it now suggests the false humility (Only God is good, alone, when in actuality Jesus is good, "somewhat") comes not from a separate entity called Christ, but from the Almighty Himself.

I see no problem if Christ is just as good as God, but I do see a problem if he is not.

Of course Christ is just as good as God but Jesus does not share the full nature of God...

Here are some of God’s Attributes that are unique to God’s nature: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, All-powerful, Everywhere-present, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, and Immaterial.

Here are some of God’s Attributes that Jesus manifests: Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient.

Humans can manifest all the Attributes of Jesus, but no human will ever manifest them to the same degree as Jesus, because Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God and He was sinless. No human is either of those.

Arius believed Jesus was a creature separate from God and that there was a time when Christ was not. Today Arianism has come to mean any Christian Christology that adopts the view Jesus is not God; that is, they reject Christ's absolute Divinity.

I believe that Jesus was separate from God in the sense that He was not God, but Jesus was One with God in that He shared all God’s Attributes, except for the Attributes of God noted above that are unique to God.

There was a time when the body of Jesus did not exist but there was never a time when the soul of Jesus did not exist. Unlike an ordinary human being whose soul comes into existence at the very moment of conception, the soul of Jesus has always existed in the spiritual world.

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

In heaven, which I refer to as the spiritual world, the soul of Jesus was given the “capacity” to receive God’s revelation on earth and to communicate it to humanity in a way in which we can comprehend it. Since we are only human we can neither receive messages from God nor can we communicate God’s messages to humanity in a way that they can be understood by all. We just do not have that capacity. Only a Manifestation of God such as Jesus has that capacity.

And herein lies the problem. Was it good for Jesus to say God alone is good when Jesus himself was perfectly "manifesting" the exact same quality at the time, and what implication does this have for other attributes Jesus is "manifesting"?

It was good for Jesus to say that because Jesus expected his followers to figure out what that meant; that Jesus was humbling Himself before God and saying that God was greater than Him, like in this verse:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Don't get me wrong...If you believe Jesus was a great philosopher, theologian, or leader like Ghandi or Confucius, then it's a small matter…a barely noticeable lump hidden under a rug.

But for those of us who believe Jesus is “…the way, the truth and the life” it would have drastic consequences, as “the way” would involve some false humility, “the truth” would all be relative, and “the life” we can expect with him will entail a bit of both.

Of course, none of this is an issue if Jesus is God, but for now we're putting that notion aside.

Jesus can be“…the way, the truth and the life” and humble at the same time. The humility of Jesus was not false or pretentious. It was sincere. Humility has no effect upon the fact that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. Humility is just an aspect of personality Jesus displayed when He humbled Himself before God.

In His human station, Jesus humbled Himself before God but in His Divine Station He considered Himself equal to God, as good as God, but not the same as God in His nature, not God in the flesh.

 

[Oeste]

So, to Jesus, his creator is good in the sense that none are more good than him.

This is where I lose your reasoning.

Let's look at the NWT again:

18 And one of the rulers questioned him, saying: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”n 19 Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God. Luke 18: 18-19, NWT

You seem to read the same "superlative" INTO the text that @Deeje "saw" earlier. In other words: "...Nobody is MORE good except one, God." There is no "more". The verse is declarative. Nobody is good but the one who is God.

Jesus was the Word, or spokesperson for Jehovah. The mediator between us and Jehovah. So what Jesus was saying was don't make more of me than I am. Don't be detracted by my position and forget that I come here on behalf of God rather than myself. It was an act of humility and wisdom, but it certainly wasn't pretense.

I understand what you're saying but what I don't understand is how, if Jesus was good, can he then say only God is good alone. If Jesus made an ACTUAL COMPARISON I wouldn't have a problem with your analysis, but I find no comparison in the text. The comparison has to be INSERTED...I don't see where it flows out from the text.

If Jesus was good and then claimed only God was good alone, then he is not engaging in humility. He is engaging in a lie. If Jesus said "Why do you call me good, no one is as good as God alone" then he would have been engaging in humility. But there is absolutely no adverb in the verse:

as1
az,əz/
adverb

1. 1.
   used in comparisons to refer to the extent or degree of something.
   "hailstones as big as tennis balls"

A revised statement with "as" supports the Watchtower narrative since, from an Arian perspective, Jesus is not God.

But we can't go by what scripture doesn't say, only by what it does and I'm just not finding the adverb or superlative that gives me license to inject a comparison.

Of course Christ is just as good as God but Jesus does not share the full nature of God...

This is interesting, because you both believe Jesus is not God. Here Trailbrazer appears to insert a silent "as" to make the comparison where Jesus is just as good as God (at least where he and God share the same nature), whereas Rothchild uses a silent superlative to suggest Jesus is good, just not "very", "extremely", or "absolutely" good as God.

In effect, the Baha'i believe Jesus is as good as God where they share the same attributes, whereas the Watchtower believes Jesus is not as good as God when comparing the same attributes, both based on Luke 18:19, which tells us when it comes to being good, only God is good, alone.

Perhaps the real question comes in the form of the question posed by Jesus. In other words,
should "Why do you call me good?..." be reinterpreted to mean "Don't call me good..." because, in effect, that appears to be the real basis of your assertion.

When studying with Jehovah Witnesses, the question "Why do you call me ____?" was seen as a defensive statement by Jesus, rather than as an interrogatory.

In any event, I'd first like to discuss whether Jesus was claiming he is as good as God, not as good as God, or sometimes as good and not as good as God.

Jesus can be“…the way, the truth and the life” and humble at the same time. The humility of Jesus was not false or pretentious. It was sincere. Humility has no effect upon the fact that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life. Humility is just an aspect of personality Jesus displayed when He humbled Himself before God.

Herein lies the quandary. For the sake of discussion we've eliminated Jesus is God. You already have what you want. But now we must still exegete our text in a way that makes sense.

Jesus says he is "the truth". So when Jesus says "Nobody is good but God alone", was he speaking truth (that is, God alone is good, but I, Jesus, am not), speaking falsehood (God's not really good alone because I'm kind of good myself, I just can't say so because you and God won't think I'm humble), or simply misspeaking "No one is "as" good as God" (Jesus meant to compare himself to God so the good bible student always adds a silent "as" when they read this verse).

Rothchild, I appreciate you do not speak for the Watchtower, but since you use Watchtower study guides I consider your perspective and input valuable.Trailblazer is also adding insight into how the Baha'i interpret our cannon. As for me, I believe Jesus is the second person of the Triune God, but for the purposes of this thread I'm simply asking questions to see how scriptural texts might be resolved within an Arian Christology.

Of course, anyone wishing to add more to the discussion is welcome to do so.

 

[Oeste]

The feeling is mutual. We may not change each others POV but having a respectful and thoughtful dialogue is good enough.

It's better than that. It's downright fun. Where else can you get a Baha'i, Witness, Oneness Pentecostal and Mormon to engage you in conversation while pouring yourself a cup of coffee?

You need to appreciate I'm not an Arian anymore than I'm a Jehovah witness.

From my perspective (and I suspect, the vast majority of Christians) your Christology would be seen as Arian...that is, Christians who also deny Christ's deity as God.

As the Baha'is are strongly monotheistic we do think a coherent theology centred on Christ and the Bible would be better off without the trinity. However we don't see trinitarians as heretical, just misguided.

I was once Arian as yourself. I came to the Trinity kicking and screaming. It was the only doctrine that allowed me to resolve Christ's claims to deity without falling off a cliff into polytheism ("..a God") or having God talking to Himself (Modalism/Sabellianism).

Historically its a great example of how man allows his man made doctrine to become equal with the Word of God.

If we're talking Arianism, sure...but this was settled long ago at the Councils.

If you want to understand a Baha'i perspective on the trinity then understand that the words of Abdu'l-Baha for us would hold the same weight, if not greater than the apostles.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

Already read that some time ago when we first began to talk. I hadn't heard of the Baha'i previously.

As stated by another Luke 18:19 is about the humility of Christ.

Is this true humility, free of falsehood? If Jesus is not God, it literally means only God is good and Jesus is not. That's great for the Baha'i, but for the billions of other Christians who rely on the resurrection of Christ it's bad news. For starters, it means that the wrong guy was resurrected. You can't be bad and satisfy the Law.

Besides it highlights Christ's manner of teaching where he has us unraveling the mystery of His words.

That's why I chose this text. We'll also bring in other scriptural texts and see how they influence our understanding of this passage. For instance, why is Christ comparing himself to God when there is no one LIKE Him?

There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might. (Jeremiah 10:6)

Then he said, "Tomorrow." So he said, "May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God. (Exodus 8:10)

"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. (Exodus 9:14)

'O Lord GOD, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as Yours? (Deuteronomy 3:24)

​

Of course Christ is good, even though He appears to suggest He isn't.

So he was suggesting he wasn't in order to raise his prestige before the ruler and before God? That has significant spiritual ramifications. Remember, the Baha'i believe Jesus is a reflection of God's attributes, so we have Jesus claiming to be something that he's not.

Of course a man can be born again although he can not climb back into his mother's womb for a second time (John 3:1-7).

He is born "physically" through his mother, and born again "spiritually" through Christ. Both are true. If Jesus suggests he not good when he actually is, is Jesus being truthful? Perhaps Jesus was suggesting he was "physically" good but "spiritually" not or vice versa?

If you deny Jesus is God, then saying "Only God if physically good" makes no sense because God is Spirit. On the other hand, saying "Only God is spiritually good" makes Jesus a sinner, and the wrong person was resurrected for our sins.

I have never claimed that Jesus lacks an attribute such as Good, nor has anyone else here as far as I can see. Are you setting up a strawman?

Straw man - Wikipedia

Not at all. Jesus states only God is good, alone. He does not state "No one is as good as God". So by default, everyone, including Jesus is not good unless they also happen to be God.

I see no no straw man.

 

[Earthling]

This is interesting, because you both believe Jesus is not God.

What is God, a name or a title? It's a title.

Who is it applied to, in the Bible? Jehovah, Jesus, the angels, Satan, Moses, the judges of Israel, Dagon, Molech, and others.

What does the word mean? Anyone or anything that is considered mighty, or is venerated.

Who is the God of all Gods? The most significant God? Jehovah.

What does the term Lord mean? Someone with authority, usually granted by another.

Paul said there is one God, who is that? Jehovah. And one Lord, who is that? Jesus.

Who sent Jesus? Jehovah God.

At who's right hand did Jesus go? Jehovah God's.

Jesus said, not my will, but who's? Jehovah God's.

Jesus said why call me good, no one is good except who? Jehovah God.

Jesus was created by whom? Jehovah God

 

[Oeste]

Jesus said why call me good, no one is good except who? Jehovah God.

Which is the exact subject of this thread.

So when Jesus said "Why call me good?" should we restate it to mean "Don't call me good"?

Secondly, if only Jehovah God is good, and Jesus is not Jehovah, then by default Jesus is no good, or perhaps Jesus is good but Jesus wasn't being good at the time he made the statement.

Is this correct, or should we interject a silent comparative so that it reads "Why do you call me as good as Jehovah?".

The position Jesus is "no good" appears to be the position taken by Notaclue, but I'll ask him to elaborate more in a separate post.

 

[Oeste]

Goodness is an attribute of God. So is His Holiness, Righteousness, Justice, Impeccability, Love, etc.

So if Jesus is only relatively good, then Jesus is also relatively righteous, relatively just, relatively truthful, and relatively loving. There should be ample scripture to back this premise and thus offer our needed support of the Arian interpretation of Luke 18:19.

2Cor.5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

Rom.8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Scripture says God made Christ to be sin for us.

Interesting choice of scriptures, @Notaclue . Since God has "...made him to be sin for us" and since "...only God is good, alone" does this mean Jesus was no good because he has taken on our sin, or did he take on our sin and still remain good? And if he still remained good, how could he claim only God is good when he's not God?

Was he being truthful at Luke 18:18-19 or perhaps showing to the ruler a bit of mankind's sin he had taken on at the time?

 

[Notaclue]

Interesting choice of scriptures, @Notaclue . Since God has "...made him to be sin for us" and since "...only God is good, alone" does this mean Jesus was no good because he has taken on our sin, or did he take on our sin and still remain good? And if he still remained good, how could he claim only God is good when he's not God?

Was he being truthful at Luke 18:18-19 or perhaps showing to the ruler a bit of mankind's sin he had taken on at the time?

Mal.1:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


Heb.6:17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,


18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.


Two of the things that God cannot do,....Change and Lie.



Col.1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Rev.1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—



Do you really believe God was born from the dead?



Mal.1:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.



At what point in Jesus life do you think he was born from the dead?



one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
(Eph.4:6)


But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (1Kg.8:27)


But will God indeed dwell on the earth?

 

[dfnj]

This is my first authored thread on Religious Forums, and I'd like to start out on the Trinity and turn a frequent question back at our anti-Trinitarian friends.

Let's take a look at the verse in question:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. (Luke 18:19)

For our Arian/Unitarian friends this appears to be one of their favorite "proof-texts" against the Trinity, but for me it opens a quandary for them. In fact, it appear they argue some much against the Trinity that, IMO, they don't exactly see what they are arguing for.

As Christians we believe Christ died for our sins (except, apparently JW's, who believe he only died for Adam). But even here the quandary still remains.

If Jesus is saying he is no good, how did a no good Jesus die for your sins? How did he die for Adam's?

Is Jesus "kind of good", "sort of good", "pretty good", or just "not all that bad"?

If Jesus is not God and only God is good, then obviously Jesus wasn't good enough. And if Jesus wasn't good enough, then he couldn't have possibly died for your sins, Adam's sin, or even his own.

I'm interested in how non-Trinitarian Christians answer what appears to be a prized "proof text" theological dilemma.

Jesus was pretending he was a man purposely forgetting he was God while he was alive on Earth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's better than that. It's downright fun. Where else can you get a Baha'i, Witness, Oneness Pentecostal and Mormon to engage you in conversation while pouring yourself a cup of coffee?



From my perspective (and I suspect, the vast majority of Christians) your Christology would be seen as Arian...that is, Christians who also deny Christ's deity as God.



I was once Arian as yourself. I came to the Trinity kicking and screaming. It was the only doctrine that allowed me to resolve Christ's claims to deity without falling off a cliff into polytheism ("..a God") or having God talking to Himself (Modalism/Sabellianism).



If we're talking Arianism, sure...but this was settled long ago at the Councils.



Already read that some time ago when we first began to talk. I hadn't heard of the Baha'i previously.



Is this true humility, free of falsehood? If Jesus is not God, it literally means only God is good and Jesus is not. That's great for the Baha'i, but for the billions of other Christians who rely on the resurrection of Christ it's bad news. For starters, it means that the wrong guy was resurrected. You can't be bad and satisfy the Law.



That's why I chose this text. We'll also bring in other scriptural texts and see how they influence our understanding of this passage. For instance, why is Christ comparing himself to God when there is no one LIKE Him?

There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might. (Jeremiah 10:6)

Then he said, "Tomorrow." So he said, "May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God. (Exodus 8:10)

"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. (Exodus 9:14)

'O Lord GOD, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as Yours? (Deuteronomy 3:24)

​

So he was suggesting he wasn't in order to raise his prestige before the ruler and before God? That has significant spiritual ramifications. Remember, the Baha'i believe Jesus is a reflection of God's attributes, so we have Jesus claiming to be something that he's not.



He is born "physically" through his mother, and born again "spiritually" through Christ. Both are true. If Jesus suggests he not good when he actually is, is Jesus being truthful? Perhaps Jesus was suggesting he was "physically" good but "spiritually" not or vice versa?

If you deny Jesus is God, then saying "Only God if physically good" makes no sense because God is Spirit. On the other hand, saying "Only God is spiritually good" makes Jesus a sinner, and the wrong person was resurrected for our sins.



Not at all. Jesus states only God is good, alone. He does not state "No one is as good as God". So by default, everyone, including Jesus is not good unless they also happen to be God.

I see no no straw man.

It certainly is fantastic to converse with so many different faith adherents from all round the world.

You’re obviously happy with the outcome of those 4th century councils.

Was Jesus talking to Himself when He cried out on the cross, “Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me?”
Matthew 27:45-50

 

[Oeste]

18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.


Two of the things that God cannot do,....Change and Lie.

Thanks Notaclue, I appreciate the scriptural quotes but I'm not seeing how they answer the question. Here's my questions again:

Interesting choice of scriptures, @Notaclue . Since God has "...made him to be sin for us" and since "...only God is good, alone" does this mean Jesus was no good because he has taken on our sin, or did he take on our sin and still remain good? And if he still remained good, how could he claim only God is good when he's not God?

Was he being truthful at Luke 18:18-19 or perhaps showing to the ruler a bit of mankind's sin he had taken on at the time?

I just want to know where you are on the Arian (Jesus is not God) spectrum. Is Jesus good or not good? If he's good, why did he tell the ruler only God is good? Was he telling a good lie so that he might, as some have suggested, appear humble before men? If he's not good, how does a no good Jesus die for our sins?

Col.1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Rev.1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

Do you really believe God was born from the dead?

I’m not sure how we might use this scripture or your question to further our understanding of Luke 18:18-19. You’ll have to draw a few more dots for me; otherwise it looks like an attempt to sweep Luke 18:18-19 under the rug while I chase this verse down a rabbit hole.

 

[Oeste]

It certainly is fantastic to converse with so many different faith adherents from all round the world.

It is…some beliefs I’ve never heard of before. Some I have, but a lot of them come with a “twist”.

You’re obviously happy with the outcome of those 4th century councils.

It answers a lot of questions and had the church not stood up, then it would have been swept away along with paganism, drowning in a sea of useless heresies.

I use to study with JW’s (from time to time I’ll invite them in to study with me) but I could never get them to fully answer a question unless the question had already appeared at the bottom of one of their magazines or publications.

It doesn't appear too different here.

Was Jesus talking to Himself when He cried out on the cross, “Eli, Eli, why have you forsaken me?”
Matthew 27:45-50

No, because Jesus is talking to his Father. Remember, in Trinitarian theology Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus. In the Trinity, God does not create different "modes" or "avatars" on the fly to manifest His attributes. If He did, I would have to answer the question just asked in the affirmative.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It is…some beliefs I’ve never heard of before. Some I have, but a lot of them come with a “twist”.



It answers a lot of questions and had the church not stood up, then it would have been swept away along with paganism, drowning in a sea of useless heresies.

I use to study with JW’s (from time to time I’ll invite them in to study with me) but I could never get them to fully answer a question unless the question had already appeared at the bottom of one of their magazines or publications.

It doesn't appear too different here.

No, because Jesus is talking to his Father. Remember, in Trinitarian theology Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus. In the Trinity, God does not create different "modes" or "avatars" on the fly to manifest His attributes. If He did, I would have to answer the question just asked in the affirmative.

I see. The ‘Son’ God and the ‘Father’ God. Two seperate Gods. So what’s the rationale for claiming these very distinct entities are one and the same?

Having an emporer’s decree that tells us what to think with a threat of loss of life or liberty are powerful forces. Unity in coerced conformity rather than by choice. Eventually people gain their freedom though. You can’t stop people from thinking for themselves forever.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see. The ‘Son’ God and the ‘Father’ God. Two seperate Gods. So what’s the rationale for claiming these very distinct entities are one and the same?

Having an emporer’s decree that tells us what to think with a threat of loss of life or liberty are powerful forces. Unity in coerced conformity rather than by choice. Eventually people gain their freedom though. You can’t stop people from thinking for themselves forever.

Not my will but thy will be done also comes to mind.

Peace to all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is my first authored thread on Religious Forums, and I'd like to start out on the Trinity and turn a frequent question back at our anti-Trinitarian friends.

Let's take a look at the verse in question:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. (Luke 18:19)

This is to me an important message.

There is only One God and many world scriptures tell us of this One God. Jesus with this statement tells us that the Flesh is not God.

Jesus as Christ says, the Father and I are One.

Peace to all.

 

[Oeste]

I see. The ‘Son’ God and the ‘Father’ God. Two seperate Gods.

I’m not sure how you see two separate Gods when there is but one. The Son is God and the Father is God. There is one God. You and I are both human but that does not mean there are two humanities. You cannot add up humans into multiple humanities (mankinds), and you cannot add up God into multiple Gods. You can add persons in the Godhead just like persons in humanity. So there are billions of persons in mankind but only three in the Godhead.

What you are describing is not Trinitarianism but Binitarianism. It’s a view held by the World Churches of God but not one ever sanctioned, adopted, or appropriated by Trinitarians or the early church.

Tritheism is 3 persons, 3 Gods, Binitarianism is two persons two Gods, Trinitarianism is 3 persons one God, and Monarchianism (Arianism) is one person, one God. In Arianism you generally deny the deity of Christ or make him a lesser God (polytheism) in order to make room for the Father.

This is the flaw I see in Arianism that I don’t see in the Trinity. In order to reconcile Christ’s claims to deity, you either demote him to a nice man (like Ghandi) in which case he couldn’t possibly have died for our sins (which I suppose would be readily acceptable to Baha'i), or you make him another or lesser Deity, which means a firm embrace of polytheism.

The reason Christianity has stuck around this long is because of it's firm rejection of polytheism. Making Jesus a lesser or created God would have spelled a pagan victory over Christianity.

So what’s the rationale for claiming these very distinct entities are one and the same?

The same rationale that says we are distinct entities (hypostases) or persons, but of the same nature (human) and/or substance (human flesh). Of course there are differences. God is one in nature, power and will, but man is not. Also, on an individual, personal level, Man has a body, soul, and spirit but even these can be out of whack with one another, something that never happens with God.

Having an emporer’s decree that tells us what to think with a threat of loss of life or liberty are powerful forces.

Yet all the emperors could not stop Christianity from spreading like wildfire through the empire, nor could it stop, intimidate, or arrest the relentless march of Christian martyrs:

Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us.

So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire; or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship. Besides all these, others encountered other trials, which it is impossible to recount; for their manly endurance surpasses all description.

In these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ shone illustrious over the entire world...and the evidences of the truly divine and unspeakable power of our Saviour were made manifest through them. To mention each by name would be a long task, if not indeed impossible. HE VIII.12.10-11​

Emperors Constantine and Lucinius issued the edit of Milan, which stated, in part:

"that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best,"​

The notion, as taught to me by the Watchtower, that these Christians, who had endured so much through persecution, could now be "coerced" into adopting the Nicene Creed by an emperor who banished their persecution, recognized their religion , and allowed each to believe whatever they wanted is an idea I find incredulous.

Far from telling us what to think, threatening loss of life, or impinging Christian liberty, Constantine actually stopped persecution throughout the empire, even returning confiscated property and possessions to Christians.

Constantine was baptized just before his death by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Shortly after, those who had adopted the Nicene Creed were systematically purged from the church and would not return until decades later under Theodosius I.

Of course, this is far from thread theme and adds nothing to our discussion of Luke 18:18-19. Having eliminated Jesus as God I am still trying to figure out how Arians resolve the issues this dismissal brings to their Christology.

 

[Oeste]

Let's look at the Luke 18 again:

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


It’s been suggested, at least from our Arian (Jesus is not God) friends, that Jesus was simply comparing himself to God, pretending to be less worth than he actually was, so that he might appear humble before men (the ruler) and God.

Adopting this position has important theological ramifications for Christians today, for if Jesus was alleging he was worth less than he was to appear humble before man and God, should we not do the same?

For example, when we file our tax returns, rather than indicate our true worth and appear immodest or braggarts before the ruler (IRS), Christians who understate their true worth (like Jesus) will appear more humble. Only then could Christians “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (pay their taxes) in a way that is not pretentious.

If Christians declared their true worth they "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" in a most boastful way. Jesus did not boast about his true worth before the ruler and neither should we. We can confidently take away, from our reading of Luke 18:18-19, that it is okay to understate your true worth, but only if our intent is to appear humble in the process.

If I have not surmised this branch of the argument or its possible application properly, please let me know.

 

[Dawnofhope]

there is but one. The Son is God and the Father is God. There is one God. You and I are both human but that does not mean there are two humanities. You cannot add up humans into multiple humanities (mankinds), and you cannot add up God into multiple Gods. You can add persons in the Godhead just like persons in humanity. So there are billions of persons in mankind but only three in the Godhead.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. You and I are are humans, so the two of us are two humans (not humanities). If Bob came along then we have three humans. If Jesus is physically God incarnate and the Father is God, and they are two seperate entities as you have indicated then we have two Gods. Add in the Holy Spirit and we have three Gods, do we not?

What you are describing is not Trinitarianism but Binitarianism. It’s a view held by the World Churches of God but not one ever sanctioned, adopted, or appropriated by Trinitarians or the early church.

Tritheism is 3 persons, 3 Gods, Binitarianism is two persons two Gods, Trinitarianism is 3 persons one God, and Monarchianism (Arianism) is one person, one God. In Arianism you generally deny the deity of Christ or make him a lesser God (polytheism) in order to make room for the Father.

This reminds me of a Dr Seuss book called fox in socks.

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/AlexMcLane/fox-in-socks-1965-by-dr-seuss

I believe in One God and that belief is called monotheism. The Jews and Muslims also believe in monotheism too. The Christians claim to be monotheistic but the Trinity no matter how you explain it looks like polytheism.

This is the flaw I see in Arianism that I don’t see in the Trinity. In order to reconcile Christ’s claims to deity, you either demote him to a nice man (like Ghandi) in which case he couldn’t possibly have died for our sins (which I suppose would be readily acceptable to Baha'i), or you make him another or lesser Deity, which means a firm embrace of polytheism.

In regards salvation, the Christians appear to have further confused theology, that would be best addressed in another thread.

In regards the theme in question, Baha’is believe Jesus is a Manifestation of God. So too are Moses, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh. Manifestations are intermediaries between God and man. They reflect His light with great intensity. Through each one God reveals a message to humanity. That’s why we have the Torah, Gospel, Quran and more recently Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation. Yet none of the Manifestations of God are physically God incarnate. So when God speaks through Jesus and says ‘I and the Father are One’ that is the truth. If on the other hand Jesus was to claim to be a man just like us, that too is correct.

Salvation comes through having faith in the Manifestations of God and following their Teachings. The Jews believe in Moses and follow Him yet fail to recognise Christ and Muhammad. The Christians recognise both Moses and Christ but not Muhammad and so on. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all gone the distance. The Baha’i Faith is 174 years old with a community of 7 million believers worldwide so let’s see what emerges.

The reason Christianity has stuck around this long is because of it's firm rejection of polytheism. Making Jesus a lesser or created God would have spelled a pagan victory over Christianity.

I would argue the reason Christianity has stuck around so long is the same reason that Judaism and Islam have stuck around so long. All are based on founders who are Manifestations of God. Each religion was endured despite the outstanding bad behaviour of their followers not to mention confused man made theologies. Christianity has thrived in spite of the Nicene Creed, not because of it IMHO.

Each Faith has had their Apostles and martyrs that have watered the tree of faith and certitude.

The same rationale that says we are distinct entities (hypostases) or persons, but of the same nature (human) and/or substance (human flesh). Of course there are differences. God is one in nature, power and will, but man is not. Also, on an individual, personal level, Man has a body, soul, and spirit but even these can be out of whack with one another, something that never happens with God.

So the physical body of Christ which is flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is His Spirit that endures and animates our lives.

Yet all the emperors could not stop Christianity from spreading like wildfire through the empire, nor could it stop, intimidate, or arrest the relentless march of Christian martyrs:

The Baha’i Faith emerged out of intense persecution from the Muslims. An estimated 20,000 of our early brothers and sisters were mercilessly put to death as the Persian and Ottoman Empires did their utmost to eradicate us from the face of the earth. Yet we are now established in practically every land.

Emperors Constantine and Lucinius issued the edit of Milan, which stated, in part:

"that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best,"

It was through the grace of God that this edict relieved the suffering and persecution of the Christians.

The notion, as taught to me by the Watchtower, that these Christians, who had endured so much through persecution, could now be "coerced" into adopting the Nicene Creed by an emperor who banished their persecution, recognized their religion , and allowed each to believe whatever they wanted is an idea I find incredulous.

I am not a Jehovah’s Witness. Although I agree with many of their beliefs, most of which are shared by other Christians, we have significant differences. I have never had any inclination towards their peculiar brand of Christianity and can’t imagine I ever will.

Far from telling us what to think, threatening loss of life, or impinging Christian liberty, Constantine actually stopped persecution throughout the empire, even returning confiscated property and possessions to Christians.

Constantine was baptized just before his death by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Shortly after, those who had adopted the Nicene Creed were systematically purged from the church and would not return until decades later under Theodosius I.

It’s an interesting history for sure. I’m a Baha’i so of course simply believe in God, Christ, and the bible. I have no obligation or interest to believe in the Nicene Creed but respect my Christian brethren who choose to do so.

Of course, this is far from thread theme and adds nothing to our discussion of Luke 18:18-19. Having eliminated Jesus as God I am still trying to figure out how Arians resolve the issues this dismissal brings to their Christology.

You need to ask that question of Arians. Baha’is follow Baha’u’llah, not Arius. Once you stop trying to label others as Arians and assume they all place emphasis on that one verse, then you may have greater clarity of vision. Praise be to God that he guides us all regardless of our shortcomings.

 

[Oeste]

There is one God. You and I are both human but that does not mean there are two humanities. You cannot add up humans into multiple humanities (mankinds), and you cannot add up God into multiple Gods. You can add persons in the Godhead just like persons in humanity. So there are billions of persons in mankind but only three in the Godhead.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. You and I are are humans, so the two of us are two humans (not humanities).

I never said two humans are two humanities. Read above. There is one humanity.

If Bob came along then we have three humans. If Jesus is physically God incarnate and the Father is God, and they are two sepinerate entities as you have indicated then we have two Gods. Add in the Holy Spirit and we have three Gods, do we not?

We do not have a Trinity. There is nothing Triune about 3 separate Gods. You'll have Tritheism for days though.

This reminds me of a Dr Seuss book called fox in socks.

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/AlexMcLane/fox-in-socks-1965-by-dr-seuss

Most people don't take the time to understand the difference between Trinitarianism and Tritheism. The Church however must remain vigilant and cannot afford to conflate or confuse the two. When Tritheism attempted to enter the Church it was denounced as a heresy. There have been numerous other heresies that have popped up over the years like Docetism, Apollinarism, and Adoptionism.

I believe in One God and that belief is called monotheism. The Jews and Muslims also believe in monotheism too. The Christians claim to be monotheistic but the Trinity no matter how you explain it looks like polytheism.

Look in the mirror. You are triune. Do you see one or three Adrian's looking back?

In regards salvation, the Christians appear to have further confused theology, that would be best addressed in another thread.

In regards the theme in question, Baha’is believe Jesus is a Manifestation of God. So too are Moses, Muhammad, and Bahá’u’lláh.

I see an intermediary as one who brings reconciliation between God and man. With the exception of Jesus, these people were all sinners, so I’m not sure how they could intermediate for anyone. IMO, they would first need someone to intermediate for themselves.

Salvation comes through having faith in the Manifestations of God and following their Teachings.

Our Soteriologies are definitely different!

I would argue the reason Christianity has stuck around so long is the same reason that Judaism and Islam have stuck around so long. All are based on founders who are Manifestations of God. Each religion was endured despite the outstanding bad behaviour of their followers not to mention confused man made theologies.

My point is that Christianity would not have survived if heresies were ignored and polytheism allowed to thrive. Neither would Islam or Judaism.

Christianity has thrived in spite of the Nicene Creed, not because of it IMHO

The churches without it don't appear to have done so well. Where is Adoptionism now?

Of course, this is far from thread theme and adds nothing to our discussion of Luke 18:18-19. Having eliminated Jesus as God I am still trying to figure out how Arians resolve the issues this dismissal brings to their Christology.

You need to ask that question of Arians.

I already have.

Deeje suggested adding a silent superlative and Rothchild suggests inserting a non-existent adverb into scripture. Either approach leads to more questions than answers.

Baha’is follow Baha’u’llah, not Arius.

Christians follow Christ our name literally meaning "follower of Christ".

But I think we should be clear to the audience here…when the Baha’i say they don’t follow Arius that’s different from saying they’re not Arian in their Christology.

“…the principal theme of `Abdu'l-Bahá's authoritative references is not the nature of the teachings of Arius but the damage caused by his attempt to raise a following which divided the Church in defiance of the Covenant of Christ, and the ability of that Covenant to maintain the essential unity of the Church even in the face of so formidable an opponent. (Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Baha concerning Arius by/on behalf of Universal House of Justice 1998-03-17)​

In other words, the Baha’i disagree with Arius’ methods but that does not necessarily mean they disagree with Arian Christology.

So the physical body of Christ which is flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is His Spirit that endures and animates our lives.

Corruptible flesh cannot inherit the kingdom and Christ’s flesh was not corrupted. In any event I’m not sure how to ye this inin to Luke 18:18-19.

Once you stop trying to label others as Arians...

Or, once we stop trying to label Trinitarians as Trithiests...

...and assume they all place emphasis on that one verse,

I’ve never claimed “they all place emphasis on that one verse”. However I do claim this is one of the verses they emphasize. As such it should be a verse we examine.

IMO, Arians and Unitarians are primarily “proof-texters”. They jump from one verse to another, one topic to another much like a rabbit will jump from hole to hole.

This process makes scriptural analysis (exegesis) with them difficult. What I am doing now is providing a safe environment for our Arian friends. “Jesus is God” is no longer casting a shadow over the rabbit hole. The Trinity isn’t there. This should make it easier for us to shine a flashlight into the hole and see where some of these scriptural proof texts lead us.

And no, I’m not saying Orthodoxy doesn’t have their own holes. It’s just that when I shine a light at it I know it will lead somewhere…there is light at the other end, and not a dead end that goes nowhere.

...then you may have greater clarity of vision.

I'm not sure how I can get my vision more clear.

I've temporarily agreed to toss out the Trinity, I'm willing cede Jesus is NOT God, I'm even willing to add a few strokes of the pen and insert an "AS" where "AS" was never seen before, all to see things through our Arian friends eyes.

The problem as I see it is that I still cannot get a question, like the one posted at #56 answered.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Christians follow Christ our name literally meaning "follower of Christ".

But I think we should be clear to the audience here…when the Baha’i say they don’t follow Arius that’s different from saying they’re not Arian in their Christology.

“…the principal theme of `Abdu'l-Bahá's authoritative references is not the nature of the teachings of Arius but the damage caused by his attempt to raise a following which divided the Church in defiance of the Covenant of Christ, and the ability of that Covenant to maintain the essential unity of the Church even in the face of so formidable an opponent. (Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Baha concerning Arius by/on behalf of Universal House of Justice 1998-03-17)
In other words, the Baha’i disagree with Arius’ methods but that does not necessarily mean they disagree with Arian Christology.

I'm impressed you manage to find that letter. In the same letter we have:

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that it s divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. ("The Promised Day is Come")

https://bahai-library.com/uhj_tablet_abdulbaha_arius

In regards the Divinity of Christ Baha'u'llah has said:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-6.html

 

[arthurchappell]

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.[/I] (Luke 18:19)"

Good and bad or even evil are highly subjective expressions. Gandhi, Mandella, Martin Luther King, all considered good - Jess is trying to be humble in this quote and genuinely detaching himself from the divinity, possibly in alarm at the growing rumours of him being God, like Brian, he may not be wanting the kind of following he was recieving.

"If Jesus is saying he is no good, how did a no good Jesus die for your sins? How did he die for Adam's?"

lots of people sacrifice themselves for a cause they believe in, the Buddhist monks who burnt themselves alive in protest over Vietnam, even suicide bombers think they are dying for a noble cause but of course they are not. Dying for something you wish for is no guarantee it will happen.

"If Jesus is not God and only God is good, then obviously Jesus wasn't good enough. And if Jesus wasn't good enough, then he couldn't have possibly died for your sins, Adam's sin, or even his own."

I agree with this line - Jesus was clearly not good enough at what he hoped to achieve. He no more saved us from our own folly than I completed my best-selling opus novel and won the nobel prize for literature. He may have tried but if he did, he failed.