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

[74x12]

That is true, but flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:50

Yes, but Jesus was glorified. That is His flesh was changed. He Himself was made a "life giving Spirit". (1 Corinthians 15:45)
So first He was flesh and blood.

 

[Oeste]

I'm not trinitarian but I do believe Jesus is God. You're right. Jesus was good and was looking for faith.

Exactly correct, 74x12. Jesus was good. He had to be if he came to save us. I am not modalist or Oneness, but the Arians claim Jesus is not good because only God is good and Jesus is not God.

If the young ruler saw that Jesus was good; then what else could he see?

Bingo! Jesus led his question with a “WHY”…Why do you call me good? He never said “Don’t call me good.” This ruler realized that Jesus was good…so what else do he realize if only God is good?

Jesus also called Himself the "Good Shepherd". (Granted it is a different Greek word than the one translated in Luke 18:19) But still, it's interesting that Jesus would call Himself "Good" at all if He is not God.

A quandary for our Arian friends who deny Jesus is God.

Especially in light of Psalms 23 which makes it pretty obvious that Jehovah is the real good Shepherd. Which opens up another quandary. If Jehovah is our Shepherd(Psalm 23) and whoever is the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep (John 10:11) then how is Jesus not Jehovah?

The discussion is early and there's no need to push from quandary to quagmire. Besides, I'm really interested in seeing where the Arians go with this first....

 

[Oeste]

Congratulations on your first OP.

Thank you, and always a pleasure to talk with you Adrian.

Its usually not helpful to weigh up one verse in isolation and Luke 18:19 alone doesn't make the strongest case of non-Trinitarians.

I agree, but it is a verse Arians quote a lot, and the explanation is, invariably. “only God is good”. Then they jump from verse to verse, proof-texting, as if they were rabbit holes. I see no holistic exegesis to such an approach, which is why I chose Luke 18:19 for a deeper dive.

However combined with other verses, Jesus being the physical incarnation of God can be reasonably discounted.


For example:


1 John 4:12

"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."


Mark 13:32

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIngs 8:27

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?

Malachi 3:6

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

These verses are easily explained from a modalistic or Trinitarian theology, but then both hold Jesus to be God in the flesh.

Since neither 1 John 4:12, Mark 13:32, 1 Kings 8:27, and Malachi 3:6 tell us to discount Luke 18:19 and its immediate context, Luke 18:19 remains something that Arian Christology, which denies Jesus is God, still needs to explain.

So biblical scripture could imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

It could but I’m not seeing how it does, but I figure Luke 18:19 is a good place to start.

I believe it makes more sense to consider Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

I don't see how. We certainly can't do it by claiming Jesus is a perfect image or reflection of Gods’ divine attributes on one hand, then claiming he lacks an attribute like Good on the other.

Philo an Hellenized Jew who live near the time of Christ used the word logos in this manner.

God talks to his audience in a way they can understand, so I agree it’s important to consider culture, history, language and grammar when we exegete text. However I also believe scripture to be inspired, so I see the New Testament as “God-breathed” rather than "Greek influenced".

 

[Oeste]

Congratulations on posting your first thread. This is a very important topic.

Thank you, Trailblazer, and thank you for joining the discussion!

It seems to me that the plain meaning of that verse is that Jesus is not as good as God. I certainly do not think it means that Jesus is not good, but rather Jesus is saying that relative to God I am as nothing, thus not good... That is Jesus’ way of humbling Himself before God.

By your own explanation, Jesus is “thus not good”, so I’m not sure how a “thus not good” Jesus died for our sins. Also I don’t think being as nothing to God makes us “not good”. All of creation is as nothing to God, and therefore was not good as soon as it was made. Yet we see God describing his creation as "good" in Genesis.

Jesus had more than one station. In one station Jesus spoke as God, with the Voice of God; in another station Jesus spoke as a Messenger of God, and in a third station Jesus spoke as a Servant of God, a state of utter servitude. In this state, Jesus considered Himself as utterly effaced and non-existent compared to God. That would explain why Jesus said “"No one is good--except God alone.”

Let's accept your assertion that Jesus is no good because he considers himself "...as utterly effaced and non-existent compared to God." What if he didn’t consider himself "...utterly effaced and non-existent to God"? Would he be good then?

And if he's no good regardless of how he considers himself, how does Jesus' consideration of himself matter?

Jesus was good, as good as God, because Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God.

If Jesus here, is “as good as God” but earlier, as you stated “thus not good”, I see us left with a theological inconsistency.

As such, Jesus perfectly manifested the Attributes of God, so Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

This produces another quandary. Here you state “Jesus perfectly manifested the Attributes of God”. Goodness is an attribute of God, yet according to Arians, Jesus is not God. So obviously Jesus cannot manifest good. This begs the question: Why do Arians believe Jesus is incapable or only partially capable of "manifesting" this one particular attribute?

If Jesus is God, you already know Jesus has this attribute. But if you’re an Arian, you must first acknowledge Jesus isn’t good somehow at your front door, then claim he somehow is as you slide on over to the back.

I really see no other way to explain Luke 18:19. Jesus is good because only God is good and Jesus is God.

As a Messenger of God, what Jesus was “sent” by God with a message to reveal to humanity and what Jesus revealed was identical with the Will of God Himself. …However, as a Servant of God, Jesus subjugated Himself to God and testified that there is no other God but God.

Just to be clear, at Luke 18:19 we're dealing with Jesus as Teacher. Let's look at the verse again, slight different rendition:

18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.

Even so, Jesus is not saying he's not as good as God teaching because there is no implicit comparison in the text. We would have to read the comparison into the text in order to come out with one.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

I don't know of any major religion that claims Jesus arrived in his fully glorified state and while this verse might come up in an overall discussion of the Trinity, I'm not sure how this ties in with Luke 18:19.

It's late!

 

[Earthling]

One correction. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus died for our sins.

Jesus saying only God is good was a display of humility we should all strive to imitate. It's the way Jesus thought. Not my will, but yours. His focus was on the Father, Jehovah, who had sent him.

 

[Earthling]

Human puppet? Do you believe that Jesus was in a shamanic trance?

No, and no.

 

[Oeste]

Yeshua didn't die for people's sins, we made him into a sin offering (Isaiah 53:10); we've then been cut off for doing so (Zechariah 11), and God will destroy those who say he died for them (Revelation 16:6)...

Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they went in the way of Cain (killed their brother), and ran riotously in the error of Balaam (said God required sacrifice (Micah 6:5-8)) for hire, and perished in Korah's rebellion (stood against God).

We've been systematically lied to by the Pharisees John, Paul, and Simon, and people don't have the wisdom to recognize the contradictions.

Tho Yeshua was an avatar of the Lord, the Most High is the only thing pure, as it is the Source of reality; anything down here is automatically corruptible, as here is near Hell.

In my opinion.

Thank you Wizanda! You state this is your opinion. Is this the published opinion of your church as well?

Also, you state Yeshua was an avatar of the Lord Most High but only the Lord Most High is pure.
How does anything on earth corrupt the avatar of God? Is it unable to remain pure on its own or through the power of God, or are you saying the avatar was never pure to begin with once?

 

[Trailblazer]

Please read "Daniel & The Revelation" by Uriah Smith: http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/daniel-revelation.pdf

May the Spirit of Truth lead us all into a perfect understanding.

Yes, that’s what the Spirit of Truth did.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: It seems to me that the plain meaning of that verse is that Jesus is not as good as God. I certainly do not think it means that Jesus is not good, but rather Jesus is saying that relative to God I am as nothing, thus not good... That is Jesus’ way of humbling Himself before God.

Oeste said: By your own explanation, Jesus is “thus not good”, so I’m not sure how a “thus not good” Jesus died for our sins. Also I don’t think being as nothing to God makes us “not good”. All of creation is as nothing to God, and therefore was not good as soon as it was made. Yet we see God describing his creation as "good" in Genesis.

Sorry, I worded that badly. I should have left “thus not good” off of the end of the sentence. The point is that relative to God, Jesus considered Himself as nothing, because God is so great. But Jesus only said this when He was speaking from the Station of a Servant of God. Jesus also spoke as God, with the Voice of God, so in that station He was just as good as God because He was identical to God (although I do not believe He was God in the flesh).

Trailblazer said: Jesus had more than one station. In one station Jesus spoke as God,with the Voice of God; in another station Jesus spoke as a Messenger of God, and in a third station Jesus spoke as a Servant of God, a state of utter servitude. In this state, Jesus considered Himself as utterly effaced and non-existent compared to God. That would explain why Jesus said “"No one is good--except God alone.”

Oeste said: Let's accept your assertion that Jesus is no good because he considers himself "...as utterly effaced and non-existent compared to God." What if he didn’t consider himself "...utterly effaced and non-existent to God"? Would he be good then?

And if he's no good regardless of how he considers himself, how does Jesus' consideration of himself matter?

I hope I explained that above. Jesus is good, but relative to God Jesus did not consider Himself good, since God is so great. Jesus was humble, but being humble does not change the goodness of Jesus; in fact, it is good to be humble.

Trailblazer said: Jesus was good, as good as God, because Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God.

Oeste said: If Jesus here, is “as good as God” but earlier, as you stated “thus not good”, I see us left with a theological inconsistency.

Please forget I ever said “thus not good.” I was probably in a bit of a rush when I wrote that.

Trailblazer said: As such, Jesus perfectly manifested the Attributes of God, so Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

Oeste said: This produces another quandary. Here you state “Jesus perfectly manifested the Attributes of God”. Goodness is an attribute of God, yet according to Arians, Jesus is not God. So obviously Jesus cannot manifest good. This begs the question: Why do Arians believe Jesus is incapable or only partially capable of "manifesting" this one particular attribute?

I do not know what Arians believe (or why they believe it) but I will explain what I believe. Jesus does not have to be God in order to manifest the Attributes of God. In fact, to say that Jesus manifested the Attributes of God means that Jesus was not God, because if Jesus was God then Jesus would not have to manifest the Attributes of God. Rather, Jesus would possess the Attributes of God.

Manifest: display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate.https://www.google.com/search

Jesus perfectly manifested the Attributes of God. Good is an Attribute of God, so Jesus manifested good (as well as all the other Attributes, including but not limited to Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient).

If Jesus is God, you already know Jesus has this attribute. But if you’re an Arian, you must first acknowledge Jesus isn’t good somehow at your front door, then claim he somehow is as you slide on over to the back.

Of course, if Jesus is God, then Jesus has this Attribute of good. But Jesus does not have to be God in order to have this Attribute of good, because as a perfect mirror image of God, Jesus can manifest good. Indeed, all humans can manifest God’s Attributes, such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient. The difference between Jesus and other humans is that Jesus perfectly manifests these Attributes; all we can do is strive to be like Jesus, but we can never be as good as Jesus.

Oeste said: I really see no other way to explain Luke 18:19. Jesus is good because only God is good and Jesus is God.

The other way to explain it is as I said; Jesus perfectly manifested good because Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God’s Attribute of good.

However, Jesus was not God because there are some Attributes that Only God Has, including Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, All-powerful, Everywhere-present, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Immaterial. No human can have those Attributes, not even Jesus.

Trailblazer said: As a Messenger of God, what Jesus was “sent” by God with a message to reveal to humanity and what Jesus revealed was identical with the Will of God Himself. …However, as a Servant of God, Jesus subjugated Himself to God and testified that there is no other God but God.

Oeste said: Just to be clear, at Luke 18:19 we're dealing with Jesus as Teacher. Let's look at the verse again, slight different rendition:

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.

So as a Good Teacher God whom sent, Jesus had a message to reveal to humanity. In that sense Jesus was a Messenger, a Messenger who came to teach humanity something. Here are some things Jesus came to teach:

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Oeste said: Even so, Jesus is not saying he's not as good as God teaching because there is no implicit comparison in the text. We would have to read the comparison into the text in order to come out with one.

No, Jesus is not saying that, but how could an immaterial God teach us anything? God had to manifest Himself in the form of the man Jesus, and Jesus did the teaching for God.

Trailblazer said: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Oeste said: I don't know of any major religion that claims Jesus arrived in his fully glorified state and while this verse might come up in an overall discussion of the Trinity, I'm not sure how this ties in with Luke 18:19.

It's late!

No, it is not really related... I kind of went off on a tangent.

 

[Oeste]

As Christians we believe Christ died for our sins (except, apparently JW's, who believe he only died for Adam).

Nothing like starting off a discussion with a false premise. How can you get this so wrong when you must have talked about this with JW's to make this assumption? Perhaps you misunderstood them....or perhaps you didn't really listen to them?

Sorry, no false premise here Deeje! I've talked and studied with JW's and understand Watchtower articles very well. Haven’t you been with them for forty something years? If so, how is it you do not?

Jesus' life was given as a ransom (the sum paid to release a captive) in exchange for many...not just one.

Adam died for his own sin, but what he passed onto his children was an inheritance that none of them wanted but which none of them could avoid....sin and death. The only way to ransom those now in captivity to sin and death was to pay the price. Adam lost perfect sinless life for all of his children, and only a sinless life given in exchange, could cancel the debt.

Okay…If you don't mind, a sidebar.

What you are describing is called original, ancestral, or “Adamic” sin. It is Adam’s sin of disobedience that is passed on to his offspring. Adamic sin is the only sin Witnesses believe Jesus’s sacrificed his life for.

Adam's original sin allowed his now sinful nature to be passed on to his children. Sinful nature is our predisposition to sin. It includes our tendencies, desires, and dispositions that now dwell in the human heart. It is something to which we all are born.

But the original sin of disobedience, which gives us our sin nature, is not the only sin we have. Once we had a sin nature, we found plenty of new, personal sins we could engage in. These are sins, like murder, that Adam never engaged in.

There are personal sins that the Christian church recognizes, like adultery, envy, lust, fornication, pride and greed. There are also sins that appear exclusive to the Watchtower, like singing “Happy Birthday”, celebrating Christmas, or publically disagreeing with a Watchtower publications like this one:

Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom,” one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6) By voluntarily sacrificing his life, this “last Adam” could pay the wage for the sin of the “first man Adam.” - The Watchtower, February 15, 1991, p.13​

Jesus was a perfect human just like Adam....He could therefore sacrifice his perfect human life to pay for Adam’s sin. What Does God Require of Us?, 1996, p.7​

Jesus, whom the Bible calls “the last Adam,” had a perfect human life, and he never sinned. (1 Corinthians 15:45) In a sense, Jesus stepped into Adam’s place in order to save us. By sacrificing, or giving up, his perfect life in flawless obedience to God, Jesus paid the price for Adam’s sin. Jesus thus brought hope to Adam’s offspring.— What does the bible really teach?​

This is a completely different soteriology from the historic Christian church. In the historic church, Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to pay for all of mankind's sins, from those of Adam to those of today, both inherited and personal. In the Watchtower, Jesus' sacrifice pays for Adamic sin only because your personal sins, according to the Watchtower, are not paid for until you die:

Since Jesus said that the “hour” for this to happen “is now,” he could only mean those humans who were walking about on earth but who were under the condemnation of death due to imperfection and sinfulness inherited from Adam. From God’s standpoint all mankind in general are “dead”; they have no right to life and the “wages” that sin pays to them is death. (Rom. 6:23) Watchtower, 9/1/78, p. 18​

In Watchtower theology it is not Jesus who pays for all your sins. His death only pays for Adam’s sin, the sin mankind inherited. Your personal sins are paid for through death. In Watchtower theology there is not enough Jesus left over to pay for our personal sins because the Watchtower claims he is not “God-man” but the exact equal, or corresponding ransom, of Adam:

The man who could be the ransom had to be a perfect human of flesh and blood—the exact equal of Adam. (Romans 5:14) A spirit creature or a “God-man” would not balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom,” one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6)* By voluntarily sacrificing his life, this “last Adam” could pay the wage for the sin of the “first man Adam.”

End sidebar

 

[Oeste]

Is that what Jesus said? He basically balked at being called "good" in the superlative sense because he said only his Father can have that designation attributed to him.

Good in the “superlative” sense? Where do we find good in a “superlative sense”?? For that matter, where do we find the superlative???

Let’s look at the verse again Deeje. Just the verse, devoid of anything we might want, like, or feel we should read into the text. We’ll use the New World Translation:

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​

There is no superlative to “good” here. A superlative good would have “very”, “extraordinary”, “exceptionally” or something similar in front of it.

Had Jesus replied “Nobody is very good, except one, God” you would have an argument, but we can’t read into the text what isn’t there.

If Jesus was God, then his statement makes no sense. How can only God be good and Jesus say that he is not to be called good on that level?

That’s just it Deeje. It’s the entire point.

Jesus never said he was “not to be called good”.

That is something you’ve injected into the text. What he DID SAY is that was nobody is good except God alone.

He did not say “No one is very good but God alone” (superlative), nor did he say “No one is good but God, and to a lesser extent myself” (comparative). What he DID say is “nobody is good, but God alone”. This pretty much eliminates any “superlatives” and “relative comparisons”. They just don’t appear in the text.

If Jesus is God, then God is not good. How ridiculous!

I agree, but then that is Arian rationale, not mine.

If Jesus wasn't good enough then he can't be God.....I think your reasoning is rather skewed....sorry.

I'm not arguing Jesus cannot be God. I'm arguing he is! In fact, I'm arguing Jesus is good because Jesus is God.

So tell us. Was Jesus good or not? If he's good, then he had no business claiming only God alone is good, when he knew full well he was (kind of good and/or sort of good and/or not a bad bloke at all) depending upon your specific Arian POV.

If he's not good, or only relatively good, like Ghandi, then he couldn't have possibly died for our sins.

 

[Oeste]

One correction. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus died for our sins.

I respectfully disagree (see post 30). The Watchtower claims Jesus died for Adamic or original sin only. He was a "corresponding ransom" exactly equal to Adam, and the personal sins we commit are not covered by his death but are "paid for" when we die.

Jesus saying only God is good was a display of humility we should all strive to imitate. It's the way Jesus thought. Not my will, but yours. His focus was on the Father, Jehovah, who had sent him.

This opens another theological quandary as it appears to suggest it is okay for Christians to lie provided they do so with utmost humility. As such, I would like get your perspective (and others) to help exegete this text.


When Jesus said “No one is good, but God alone” was he telling the truth about “no one” and “alone” or was it a fib born of humility?

If Jesus did fib, are there other sins we can commit if we are humble about them, or does God not count it a sin if we are humble?

If Jesus did not fib, was Jesus suggesting there will be a measure of dishonesty in our answers if we are humble enough, or when one compares themselves to God?

If Jesus was being absolutely truthful, and God is good alone, then how can Jesus be good?

If Jesus was being relatively truthful, then how can we trust anything he says?

 

[Oeste]

So far, there appears to be two Arian positions depending on one's POV.

The first is that Jesus really meant it when he said “Only God is good, alone”. Unfortunately this implies Jesus is not good since Jesus is not God.

The second position appears to be Jesus was just kidding around when he said “No one is good but God alone”, because whenever Jesus takes the opportunity to compare himself to God he didn’t really mean “No one but God” and he certainly didn’t mean “No one but God alone”.

I’m not closed minded about this, I’m willing to entertain either notion as we dive deeper into Luke 18:19 and properly exegete this text. Perhaps now is the time to bring in other scripture to help us view this text correctly. Not scripture to strengthen our preconceived doctrinal biases mind you, but scripture to strengthen our understanding of Luke 18:19.

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.

 

[Deeje]

Sorry, no false premise here Deeje! I've talked and studied with JW's and understand Watchtower articles very well. Haven’t you been with them for forty something years? If so, how is it you do not?

You still have it wrong. Jesus died to pay for what Adam lost for his children....he also died to provide forgiveness for the sins committed by them BECAUSE of that inheritance.

In Watchtower theology it is not Jesus who pays for all your sins. His death only pays for Adam’s sin, the sin mankind inherited. Your personal sins are paid for through death.

Again, you have a distorted understanding of what we believe....more a case of not really listening, I think.

Paul's words to the Romans has significance.....

"5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:5-11 ESV)

Why are we no longer enslaved to sin? Because Jesus' sacrifice has paid the price for our release. That is what redemption means. But it never means that we can sin willfully and still expect forgiveness.

What did Ananias say to the newly converted Saul of Tarsus? "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16) That is referring to former sins. The ones we commit after our conversion are dealt with individually.

In Watchtower theology there is not enough Jesus left over to pay for our personal sins because the Watchtower claims he is not “God-man” but the exact equal, or corresponding ransom, of Adam:

You seem to be a self proclaimed expert on WT theology, (which is incorrect BTW...it is JW theology, just for the record) but you have never understood our position because apparently you never really listened when it was explained to you. How else could you get it so wrong? Perhaps the source of your information was the problem?

Jesus was never a "God-man"...please show me where it says this in scripture? Show me one scripture where Jesus ever claimed to be God....?

The man who could be the ransom had to be a perfect human of flesh and blood—the exact equal of Adam. (Romans 5:14) A spirit creature or a “God-man” would not balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom,” one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6)* By voluntarily sacrificing his life, this “last Adam” could pay the wage for the sin of the “first man Adam.”

What are those "wages" ?
" For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Acts 6:23)

What would be the point of God providing the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, if he did not make provision for the fact that Adam's children would need to be forgiven for the practice of sin that they inherited from him?

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago". (Acts 3:19-21)

Forgiveness can only be attained if there is genuine repentance. So if we sin willfully and deliberately after pledging our allegiance to Christ, and there is no repentance, there can be no forgiveness, as Paul said.....

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? " (Hebrews 10:26-29)

I think perhaps its time for some people to take their fingers out of their ears....and time to stop taking their information from outdated apostate websites.

 

[wizanda]

Is this the published opinion of your church as well?

Everyone I know worthy of being included in the Messianic Age agrees; which is our church.

Also, you state Yeshua was an avatar of the Lord Most High but only the Lord Most High is pure.

Specific terms in Hebrew, and to understand properly what is being said, we need to be aware of these:

El Elyon = God Most High
Yah-avah = Lord to Be
Yeh-oshua = Lord that Saves
Yeshua = Salvation
Elohim = Divine Beings

David saw the God Most (El Elyon) as something distinct to the Lord (Yahavah).

2 Samuel 22:14 & Psalms 18:13 Yahweh thundered from heaven 'and' The Most High uttered his voice. + Psalms 21:7 + Psalms 50:14 + Psalms 78:35 + Psalms 92:1

Yeshua is an avatar of the Lord (Yahavah), his father is the God Most High (El Elyon) (Luke 1:32).

How does anything on earth corrupt the avatar of God? Is it unable to remain pure on its own or through the power of God, or are you saying the avatar was never pure to begin with once?

Because earth is down near Hell, and thus everything gets corrupted down here; for example we walk down the street and we step in dog muck, as people don't clear up their own crap.

In my opinion.

 

[Earthling]

I respectfully disagree (see post 30). The Watchtower claims Jesus died for Adamic or original sin only. He was a "corresponding ransom" exactly equal to Adam, and the personal sins we commit are not covered by his death but are "paid for" when we die.

I'm really not comfortable speaking on behalf of the Watchtower, at least not without making it clear that I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I can give you my informed opinion on the subject but would have to dig up a considerable amount of material in order to present their own argument. Having said that, it is my opinion that they believe the same as me. Namely, that Jesus did die for the Adamic or "original sin" by paying the price of his blood, the only perfect sinless person who ever lived who could pay that price, since we all inherit sin from Adam. Adam can be likened to a man who commits a serious crime and is put to death for it. His children, though not having committed the crime suffer the consequences. The financial, emotional, psychological and social ramifications of their father's crime can be likened to our imperfection as a result of Adam's sin.

But Jesus did something else very important that is often overlooked. He demonstrated that Adam didn't have to sin. Therefore Jehovah's purpose for mankind has been demonstrated successfully to be possible. To live forever on paradise earth without sin, or death. That's why the meaning of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

This opens another theological quandary as it appears to suggest it is okay for Christians to lie provided they do so with utmost humility. As such, I would like get your perspective (and others) to help exegete this text.

When Jesus said “No one is good, but God alone” was he telling the truth about “no one” and “alone” or was it a fib born of humility?

If Jesus did fib, are there other sins we can commit if we are humble about them, or does God not count it a sin if we are humble?

If Jesus did not fib, was Jesus suggesting there will be a measure of dishonesty in our answers if we are humble enough, or when one compares themselves to God?

If Jesus was being absolutely truthful, and God is good alone, then how can Jesus be good?

If Jesus was being relatively truthful, then how can we trust anything he says?

Well . . . hmmmm. I can't connect the dots in some of those questions because they seem somewhat of a philosophical or metaphysical nature to me. Maybe I'm just not understanding the nature of the questions, but I can give you a simple answer.

Jesus existed in heaven in spirit form before coming here. I shouldn't have to provide scripture for that, they aren't obscure. He was created by Jehovah. All of the angels, men and creatures of earth were created by Jehovah with Jesus as master worker in that spiritual form.

So, to Jesus, his creator is good in the sense that none are more good than him. He was sent here by his creator on behalf of his creation so he was more good than the angels and us. We were created in Jehovah's image so we are more good than the animals.

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.

The entire issue is Jehovah's sovereignty. It's the most important issue in the universe, the very existence of it depends upon it. Jesus was practically saying, 'Hey, look, it's not about me. There's nothing, including myself without Jehovah.'

The term good is subjective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you, and always a pleasure to talk with you Adrian.

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

I agree, but it is a verse Arians quote a lot, and the explanation is, invariably. “only God is good”. Then they jump from verse to verse, proof-texting, as if they were rabbit holes. I see no holistic exegesis to such an approach, which is why I chose Luke 18:19 for a deeper dive.

You need to appreciate I'm not an Arian anymore than I'm a Jehovah witness. 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. Historically its a great example of how man allows his man made doctrine to become equal with the Word of God.

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

These verses are easily explained from a modalistic or Trinitarian theology, but then both hold Jesus to be God in the flesh.

Since neither 1 John 4:12, Mark 13:32, 1 Kings 8:27, and Malachi 3:6 tell us to discount Luke 18:19 and its immediate context, Luke 18:19 remains something that Arian Christology, which denies Jesus is God, still needs to explain.

It could but I’m not seeing how it does, but I figure Luke 18:19 is a good place to start.

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

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

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

I don't see how. We certainly can't do it by claiming Jesus is a perfect image or reflection of Gods’ divine attributes on one hand, then claiming he lacks an attribute like Good on the other.

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

God talks to his audience in a way they can understand, so I agree it’s important to consider culture, history, language and grammar when we exegete text. However I also believe scripture to be inspired, so I see the New Testament as “God-breathed” rather than "Greek influenced".

This may be dichotomous thinking where the NT has to be either inspired by the Holy Spirit or Greek influenced. It is clearly both.

 

[Oeste]

You still have it wrong. Jesus died to pay for what Adam lost for his children....he also died to provide forgiveness for the sins committed by them BECAUSE of that inheritance.

No, I have it right. What you’re missing is that inherited sin does not account for all of mankind’s sin. We’ve added plenty of sin to inherited sin since Adam.

Again, you have a distorted understanding of what we believe....more a case of not really listening, I think.

Why are we no longer enslaved to sin? Because Jesus' sacrifice has paid the price for our release. That is what redemption means.

We weren't talking about enslavement but forgiveness. Let's stay focused Deeje.

But it never means that we can sin willfully and still expect forgiveness.

We have all, without exception, willfully sinned. To learn from the Watchtower that Christ's work at Cavalry was insufficient to cover all our sins would certainly be sad news.

You seem to be a self proclaimed expert on WT theology, (which is incorrect BTW...it is JW theology, just for the record)

You appear to be quibbling for the sake of quibbling as there is nothing "incorrect" about the term "Watchtower" theology.

It is the Governing Board that gives “spiritual food” to your Organization Deeje, and not "Jehovah Witnesses" as a corporate or collective group. Also it’s not the recently formed (2001) “Christian Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses” but the “The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania” that owns copyright to JW.org and the vast majority of its publications.

"Watchtower" theology is perfectly appropriate as that Organization owns the copyright to your published theological works. "Governing Board" theology would also be fine since they now claim exclusive authorization to dispense “spiritual food”. "JW" theology would also be fine simply because most people can easily identify the theology being referred to.

but you have never understood our position because apparently you never really listened when it was explained to you. How else could you get it so wrong? Perhaps the source of your information was the problem?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I cited several Watchtower publications in my prior post. Which Watchtower quote are you claiming is incorrect, and why should we believe your posted, unsourced, private interpretation to be more correct than that of the Watchtower?

Jesus was never a "God-man"...please show me where it says this in scripture? Show me one scripture where Jesus ever claimed to be God....?

I quoted a WT publication Deeje!!! It had “God-man” in it. I mad an argument based on that quote. If you don’t like the WT using the term “God-man” in their publications you can write the Society and bring it to their attention.

What are those "wages" ?
" For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Acts 6:23)

Exactly! Now if you could explain your new found epiphany to the Watchtower and how they improperly rendered this text in the NWT, we might be off to the races,

Forgiveness can only be attained if there is genuine repentance.

So the “free gift” you cited earlier must first be earned?? Perhaps the verse should have read:

" For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord ("but only free to those who work to attain it")

But you're not telling us “…the rest of the story”, are you?:

“God requires that prospective subjects of his Kingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kingdom rule to others.” (Watchtower, 1/15/83 pgs 12-13).​

So now our “ free gift” from God of “eternal life in Christ” requires a little field work!

If our sins require additional work to be forgiven then our sins were not forgiven by the work of Christ. It really is that simple.

WT theology claims our Adamic sin were forgiven by the work of Christ, but our personal sins…like the middle finger you might have given when that idiot cut you off… are not. That not only requires repentance but a little extra field work because Jesus’ life and death was insufficient to cover it. And even then there is no guarantee of salvation in the Watchtower. It’s a “free gift” you must continuously “work out” through baptism, publication studies, meeting attendance and door to door ministry.

So while you publically roll your eyes and shout “Wrong, wrong, wrong!” at the front door, your works based argument just acknowledged my assertion as “Right, right, right!” through the back!

Look, these sidebars to thread theme are fun but there are only so many rabbit holes I can follow you down. Perhaps now we can get you back to thread theme and you can offer what everyone knows will be insightful commentary into Luke 18:18-19.

 

[Oeste]

Sorry, I worded that badly. I should have left “thus not good” off of the end of the sentence. The point is that relative to God, Jesus considered Himself as nothing, because God is so great. But Jesus only said this when He was speaking from the Station of a Servant of God. Jesus also spoke as God, with the Voice of God, so in that station He was just as good as God because He was identical to God (although I do not believe He was God in the flesh).

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".

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.

I do not know what Arians believe (or why they believe it) but I will explain what I believe.

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.

The other way to explain it is as I said; Jesus perfectly manifested good because Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God’s Attribute of good.

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"?

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.

 

[Notaclue]

So far, there appears to be two Arian positions depending on one's POV.

The first is that Jesus really meant it when he said “Only God is good, alone”. Unfortunately this implies Jesus is not good since Jesus is not God.
The second position appears to be Jesus was just kidding around when he said “No one is good but God alone”, because whenever Jesus takes the opportunity to compare himself to God he didn’t really mean “No one but God” and he certainly didn’t mean “No one but God alone”.

I’m not closed minded about this, I’m willing to entertain either notion as we dive deeper into Luke 18:19 and properly exegete this text. Perhaps now is the time to bring in other scripture to help us view this text correctly. Not scripture to strengthen our preconceived doctrinal biases mind you, but scripture to strengthen our understanding of Luke 18:19.

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.

Ps.51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

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:

Rom.7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Gal.5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.



Heb.9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


Scripture says God made Christ to be sin for us.