Turning the tables on the exclusivity argument

[Magdalenbrother]

Trinitarians like to play games. Winners can afford to play. They play with the Scriptures by mistranslating them or they distort the meaning of words, so that a familiar word like "son" no longer means a human being that is born after his father but a being who exists concurrently with his "father". Better still, in Heb 1,8, God the Father, on seeing his son, exclaims: O God !Through their interpretive prism, "son of Joseph" becomes "son of Mary", etc., etc. Irrationality creeps into the language and lexical leprechauns multiply between the lines.

Another favorite game is the "divine exclusivity game"(DEG) : Trinitarians feverishly search the Bible for an exclusive divine title or activity and then compare it with what is said of Jesus or the Messiah. If they overlap, they think that they have a proof that their Jesus is God. In fact, this game is almost an obligation for them since there is no single unambiguous statement in the whole NT that reads: "Jesus is God" or better: "I am God" (said by Jesus, of course!). Briefly, the "DEG" is a measure of their desperation. It is just pathetic...

But how good is this line of argument? I say that it is pretty bad. The claim that if an exclusive word or title is shared by someone else than God, then that person must necessarily be God is fallacious and simplistic. At the very least, the exclusivity argument is double-edged. Why? Because if something is seriously presented as a unique prerogative of divinity by a Biblical author, we naturally ought to believe it and stick to it! Therefore, if suddenly we discover that the same title is used to describe someone else, to do justice to the exclusivity claim of God, we must honestly conclude that the second beneficiary cannot bear the title in the same sense as God Himself. Yes, sir !

In fact, the NT authors saw this. They resolved the difficulty admirably by resorting to the Greek prepositions. For example, they forcefully made the case that Jesus was involved in the creation of the universe but they refrained from saying that he was the Creator like today's Christians. Not at all. What they said is that God creates all things through Jesus-Christ. In this way, they preserved the divinity of the Father while giving the man Jesus-Christ a unique position.

But let me today play a game too. I want to turn the tables on the exclusivity argument and its naive supporters. Let me use the Platonic peritropic argument (I too know some complicated words!).

Look, there are a number of things that appear to belong to God only. They are:
-power to remit sins
-immortality
-holiness
-power to command nature
-no genealogy
-sinlessness
-perfection

Aren't these divine privileges? They are!

Unfortunately, in the NT, all these privileges are granted to the Christians.

-power to remit sins: given to all the apostles by Jesus on his first apparition to the disciples in Jerusalem ("Jhn" 20, 22-23)
-immortality: do I need to give quotes here? Let me just remind everybody of Melchizedec (see Hebrews 7)
-holiness: Paul keeps calling his hearers agioi: holy ones
-power to command nature: Jesus tells his disciples to speak to mountains and sycamine trees and assures them that they will be obeyed.
-no geneology: Melchizedec (see also "Johannine" prologue)
-sinlessness: Melchizedec again since he is immortal ("death is the wages of sin") or first epistle of John ("whoever dwells in God does not sin")
-perfection: Jesus commanded all his hearers to be perfect like his Father

Conclusion: all Christians are God. Jesus is God and me too. Agree? You should, I have used your own methodoly to reach that conclusion!

Another way I can play the names game is to collect all the zoomorphic descriptions of Jesus and apply them to him in earnest. I mean with the same zeal as mainstream Christians apply divine titles to their Jesus.

Lamb of God: more than 20 verses, all of them unambiguous
Lion of Juda: one verse and unambiguous
Snake: one indirect verse in Jhn (the snake lifted up in the desert)
Vine: one verse and absolutely unambiguous
Green wood: one verse and unambiguous
Cornerstone, door, path, bread, wine, etc.

So, why don't ye say that Jesus has an ovine or feline nature? Is it because there is no scriptural basis for such a claim?

No, it is because it doesn't fit your particular agenda, which was set once and for all in the third century AD when people had already become terribly anthropocentric under the influence of Greek civilization. But if the Gospel had spread among the Guarani Indians of Brasil, who knows? Maybe they would have taken the Lamb stuff seriously and declared in a solemn oecumenical council in the jungle that Jesus is a Lamb/Man...! And they could have defended their position with the Bible. Yes sir, 25 verses in all! All of them crystal-clear !

So why don't you recognize the oviness of Jesus Christ, I pray?

Finally let me say this:

If indeed Jesus is revered it is because he is the representative of God on earth. Not because he is God. The Hebrews, you see, had a very broad concept of divinity. For example, they used the word ELOHIM to describe their judges (see BDB at the entry ELOHIM). Did they think that their judges were God? Not at all. But they called them God(s) because they-rightly or not-saw them as the channels of God's wisdom. For them God was not far away but shared his presence with human beings. Their God is the God of the Covenant.

So if Jesus is honored, revered, even adored, it is because he is full of God's power. Not because he is God. If you cannot grasp this-not too subtle- difference, you really need to eat a lot more fish at lunch.

Jesus said as much when he rebuked the man who called him "good".

Only one is good.

Jesus is good too but by God and through God and in God.

That is compleeeeetely different from "Jesus is good because he is God".

[themuzicman]

Your greek and your understanding of scripture is what is embarrassing for those who deny the trinity.

Jesus is specifically called God and specifically claims to be God multiple times in scripture.

Heb 1:8 is a clear example. You mistranslate the greek to mean that Jesus will be sitting on God forever and ever. How embarrassing is that?

Then, when shown context around Heb 1:8 that CLEARLY shows Jesus to be God, you run off to another thread. :bawl:

Michael

[Magdalenbrother]

In the mind of the speaker, the meaning of "God is your throne" was not ludicrous at all. It meant that the king's thone is established on God's power or established by Him for eternity.

[themuzicman]

You see, this is the kind of bad greek that gets you into trouble.

The implied "is" does not translate as "established". It is a state of being verb. Thus, if you're going to make a predicate out of it, then you have to say that God is THE Throne. Thrones are meant to be sat upon.

I realize that your theology is falling apart, but that's no reason to go on pushing a bad interpretation.

Michael

[Magdalenbrother]

The implied is can be rendered in various ways in a more polished English. I am a translator. You are not going to teach me my trade, are you?

[themuzicman]

Apparantly you need some teaching, because your translation from Greek is very bad.

Michael

[Magdalenbrother]

Me non pudet confiteri quid nescio.

[shunyadragon]

You see, this is the kind of bad greek that gets you into trouble.

The implied "is" does not translate as "established". It is a state of being verb. Thus, if you're going to make a predicate out of it, then you have to say that God is THE Throne. Thrones are meant to be sat upon.

I realize that your theology is falling apart, but that's no reason to go on pushing a bad interpretation.

MichaelIt started in Rome when they did creative bookkeeping with the Bible ~1700 years ago and has gone down hill since.

[Dee Dee Warren]

It started in Rome when they did creative bookkeeping with the Bible ~1700 years ago and has gone down hill since.
Your rhetoric is sure to turn many off, but anyways


-no geneology: Melchizedec (see also "Johannine" prologue)

Do you really think the Bible is teaching that he had no REAL geneology?

If you do, there is no reason to read anything else that you write.

[7thangel]

Do you really think the Bible is teaching that he had no REAL geneology?
KJV Hebrews 7:1-4
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils


If you do, there is no reason to read anything else that you write.
Non-sequitor?

[VFarris01]

I apologize in advance for any formatting problems.


Trinitarians like to play games. Winners can afford to play. They play with the Scriptures by mistranslating them or they distort the meaning of words, so that a familiar word like "son" no longer means a human being that is born after his father but a being who exists concurrently with his "father". Better still, in Heb 1,8, God the Father, on seeing his son, exclaims: O God !Through their interpretive prism, "son of Joseph" becomes "son of Mary", etc., etc. Irrationality creeps into the language and lexical leprechauns multiply between the lines.

MB, my friend, the one playing games is you. Indeed, Evil is within you to “distort the meaning of words.” As usual you take a single verse out of context to distort the real meaning. Read all of it this time.


(1) God, having spoken in former times in fragmentary and varied fashion to our forefathers by the prophets, (2) has in these last days spoken to us by a Son whom He appointed to be the heir of everything and through whom He also made the universe. (3) He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of His being, and He holds everything together by His powerful word. (Compare John 1:1-3, VF01) After He had provided a cleansing from sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Highest Majesty (4) and became as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is better than theirs. (5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son. Today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? (6) And again, when He brings His firstborn into the world, He says, "Let all God's angels worship Him." (7) Now about the angels He says, "He makes His angels winds, and His servants flames of fire." (8) But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a righteous scepter.

Means something entirely different now, does it not?


Another favorite game is the "divine exclusivity game"(DEG) : Trinitarians feverishly search the Bible for an exclusive divine title or activity and then compare it with what is said of Jesus or the Messiah. If they overlap, they think that they have a proof that their Jesus is God. In fact, this game is almost an obligation for them since there is no single unambiguous statement in the whole NT that reads: "Jesus is God" or better: "I am God" (said by Jesus, of course!). Briefly, the "DEG" is a measure of their desperation. It is just pathetic...

Not so dog breath.

(1) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He existed in the beginning with God. (3) Through Him all things were made, and apart from Him nothing was made that has been made. (Compare Hebrews 1:1-3, VF01) (4) In Him was life, and that life brought light to humanity. (5) And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.

MB, you are just pathetic...


But how good is this line of argument? I say that it is pretty bad. The claim that if an exclusive word or title is shared by someone else than God, then that person must necessarily be God is fallacious and simplistic. At the very least, the exclusivity argument is double-edged. Why? Because if something is seriously presented as a unique prerogative of divinity by a Biblical author, we naturally ought to believe it and stick to it! Therefore, if suddenly we discover that the same title is used to describe someone else, to do justice to the exclusivity claim of God, we must honestly conclude that the second beneficiary cannot bear the title in the same sense as God Himself. Yes, sir !

Let me say something nice about this paragraph… stoooooooopiiiidd!

The "line of argument" is pretty good. The title of "God" is shared by no one else in the Bible except "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit."


In fact, the NT authors saw this. They resolved the difficulty admirably by resorting to the Greek prepositions. For example, they forcefully made the case that Jesus was involved in the creation of the universe but they refrained from saying that he was the Creator like today's Christians. Not at all. What they said is that God creates all things through Jesus-Christ. In this way, they preserved the divinity of the Father while giving the man Jesus-Christ a unique position.

Maybe you should look back at John 1:1 again, “(1) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He existed in the beginning with God. (3) Through Him (because of God, VF01) all things were made, and apart from Him nothing was made that has been made.” (ISV)


But let me today play a game too. I want to turn the tables on the exclusivity argument and its naive supporters. Let me use the Platonic peritropic argument (I too know some complicated words!).

Look, there are a number of things that appear to belong to God only. They are:

-power to remit sins
-immortality
-holiness
-power to command nature
-no genealogy
-sinlessness
-perfection

Aren't these divine privileges? They are!

Wrong answer again moose breath!

Read on...


Unfortunately, in the NT, all these privileges are granted to the Christians.

The key words here are "granted" and your previously used "appear."



-power to remit sins: given to all the apostles by Jesus on his first apparition to the disciples in Jerusalem ("Jhn" 20, 22-23)
A "power" granted to the Apostles only.


-immortality: do I need to give quotes here? Let me just remind everybody of Melchizedec (see Hebrews 7)

Let me just remind everybody we all are "immortal."


-holiness: Paul keeps calling his hearers agioi: holy ones.

God, to my knowledge, is nowhere the sole owner of holy."


-power to command nature: Jesus tells his disciples to speak to mountains and sycamine trees and assures them that they will be obeyed.

Matthew 17:20 does not say this does he?

(20) He told them, "Because of your lack of faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.


No, he sure does not!!!


-no geneology: Melchizedec (see also "Johannine" prologue)

-sinlessness: Melchizedec again since he is immortal ("death is the wages of sin") or first epistle of John ("whoever dwells in God does not sin")

Let us see what the ISBE says concerning Melchizadek shall we:



mel-kiz'e´-dek, and (the King James Version in the book of Hebrews) (מלכּי־צרק, malki-cedheḳ, "Tsedheq, or Tsidhiq is my king" (Gen 14:18 ff; Psa 110:4); Μελχισέδεκ, Melchise´dek (Heb 5:6, Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:1, Heb 7:10, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:15, Heb 7:17)): The name is explained in Heb 7:2 as "king of righteousness," with "-i" as the old genitive ending; but the correct explanation is no doubt the one given above; compare Adoni-zedek in Jos 10:1, where Septuagint with Jdg 1:5-7 has Adonibezek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (= Jerusalem) and "a priest unto 'El ‛Elyon" (Gen 14:18). He brought bread and wine to Abraham after the latter's victory over the kings, and also bestowed upon him the blessing of 'El ‛Elyon. Abraham gave him "a tenth of all," i.e. of the booty probably, unless it be of all his possessions. Gen14:22 identifies Yahweh with 'El ‛Elyon, the title of the Deity as worshipped at Jerusalem; and so Heb7:1 ff, following Septuagint of Gen14:18 ff, calls Melchizedek. "priest of God Most High," i.e. Yahweh.

The thought of a priest after the order of Melchizedek is taken up by the author of Hebrews.

He wanted to prove the claim of Christ to be called priest. It was impossible, even had he so wished, to consider Jesus as an Aaronic priest, for He was descended from the tribe of Judah and not from that of Levi (Heb 7:14). The words of Psa 110:4 are taken to refer to Him (Heb 5:5 f), and in Heb 7:5 ff the order of Melchizedek is held to be higher than that of Aaron, for the superiority of Melchizedek was acknowledged by Abraham (a) when he paid tithes to Melchizedek and (b) when he was blessed by Melchizedek, for "the less is blessed of the better." It might be added that Jesus can be considered a priest after the order of Melchizedek in virtue of His descent from David, if the latter be regarded as successor to Melchizedek But the author of He does not explicitly say this. Further, Aaron is only a "type" brought forward in He to show the more excellent glory of the work of Jesus, whereas Melchizedek is "made like unto the Son of God" (Heb 7:3), and Jesus is said to be "after the likeness of Melchizedek" (Heb 7:15). Heb 7:1 ff presents difficulties. Where did the author get the material for this description of Melchizedek? (1) Melchizedek is said to be "without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy"; and (2) he is described as "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"; he "abideth a priest continually." The answer is perhaps to be had among the Tell el-Amarna Letters, among which are at least 6, probably 8, letters from a king of Urusalim to Amenophis IV, king of Egypt, whose "slave" the former calls himself. Urusalim is to be identified with Jerusalem, and the letters belong to circa 1400 BC. The name of this king is given as Abd-Khiba (or Abd-hiba), though Hommel, quoted by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 14, note 7, reads Chiba. Zimmer, in ZA, 1891, 246, says that it can be read Abditaba, and so Sayce (HDB, III, 335b) calls him ‛Ebhedh tobh. The king tells his Egyptian overlord, "Neither my father nor my mother set me in this place: the mighty arm of the king (or, according to Sayce, "the arm of the mighty king") established me in my father's house" (Letter 102 in Berlin collection, ll. 9-13; also number 103, ll. 25-28; number 104, ll. 13-15; see, further, H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna; Knudtzon, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, IV, 101 ff, 279 ff, cited by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 8, note 1).

It thus becomes clear that possibly tradition identified Melchizedek with Abd-Khiba. At any rate the idea that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy" can easily be explained if the words of Abd-Khiba concerning himself can have been also attributed to Melchizedek. The words meant originally that he acknowledged that he did not come to the throne because he had a claim on it through descent; he owed it to appointment. But Jewish interpretation explained them as implying that he had no father or mother. Psa 110:4 had spoken of the king there as being "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," and this seems to have been taken to involve the perpetuity of Melchizedek also as priest. Melchizedek was then thought of as "having neither beginning of days" = "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and again as not having "end of life" = "abideth a priest continually." Hence, he is "made like unto the son of God," having neither beginning of days nor end of life. We get another New Testament example of Jewish interpretation in Gal 4:21 ff. We have no actual proof that Melchizedek is identical with Abd-Khiba; possibly the reference to the former as being "without father," etc., is not to be explained as above. But why should Melchizedek, and he alone, of all the Old Testament characters be thought of in this way?


-perfection: Jesus commanded all his hearers to be perfect like his Father.

Jesus commanding us to be "perfect" is a far cry from us being "perfect."


Conclusion: all Christians are God. Jesus is God and me too. Agree? You should, I have used your own methodoly to reach that conclusion!

Conclusion: MB is full of himself, as usual.

I will try to finish this tomorrow...

[Jaltus]

As soon as MB figures out what a pesharim is, I might bother responding to this thread.

[VFarris01]

Another way I can play the names game is to collect all the zoomorphic descriptions of Jesus and apply them to him in earnest. I mean with the same zeal as mainstream Christians apply divine titles to their Jesus.


Lamb of God: more than 20 verses, all of them unambiguous

I find 11 verses, John 1:29, John 1:36, Revelations 5:6, 6:9, 7:17, 4:10, 15:3, 19:9, 21:23, 22:1, and 22:3, clearly identifing Jesus and God as one.

Lion of Juda: one verse and unambiguousRevelations 5:5, King of the Jews.

Snake: one indirect verse in Jhn (the snake lifted up in the desert)

John 3:14-15 ISV (14) Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up (die on the cross, VF01), (15) so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.


Vine: one verse and absolutely unambiguous

John 15:1-5

Green wood: one verse and unambiguous

Luke 23:31

Cornerstone, door, path, bread, wine, etc.

These names are used metaphorically (I know big words too). Everyone but you seems to understand this concept.


So, why don't ye say that Jesus has an ovine or feline nature? Is it because there is no scriptural basis for such a claim?

No, it is because it doesn't fit your particular agenda, which was set once and for all in the third century AD when people had already become terribly anthropocentric under the influence of Greek civilization. But if the Gospel had spread among the Guarani Indians of Brasil, who knows? Maybe they would have taken the Lamb stuff seriously and declared in a solemn oecumenical council in the jungle that Jesus is a Lamb/Man...! And they could have defended their position with the Bible. Yes sir, 25 verses in all! All of them crystal-clear !

So why don't you recognize the oviness of Jesus Christ, I pray?

Insufferable horse hockey!!!


Finally let me say this:

If indeed Jesus is revered it is because he is the representative of God on earth. Not because he is God. The Hebrews, you see, had a very broad concept of divinity. For example, they used the word ELOHIM to describe their judges (see BDB at the entry ELOHIM). Did they think that their judges were God? Not at all. But they called them God(s) because they-rightly or not-saw them as the channels of God's wisdom. For them God was not far away but shared his presence with human beings. Their God is the God of the Covenant.

Strike three!!!



Your total lack of understanding of the Bible and Jewish culture is... pathetic.


So if Jesus is honored, revered, even adored, it is because he is full of God's power. Not because he is God. If you cannot grasp this-not too subtle- difference, you really need to eat a lot more fish at lunch.

Jesus is honored, revered, even adored, because He is God. If you cannot grasp this not-too-subtle concept, you really need to check yourself into a mental health facility.


Jesus said as much when he rebuked the man who called him "good".

Only one is good.

Jesus is good too but by God and through God and in God.

That is compleeeeetely different from "Jesus is good because he is God".



You need a better translation than the King James…



(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.



(16) Just then a man came up to Jesus and said, "Teacher, what good deed should I do to have eternal life?" (17) Jesus said to him, "Why ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you want to get into that life, you must keep the commandments."



(16) And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? (17) Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.



(16) And lo, one coming up said to him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have life eternal? (17) And he said to him, What askest thou me concerning goodness? one is good. But if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments.



The young man is asking, “what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” To which Jesus answers, “if thou wilt enter into life, (the good thing you must do is, VF01) keep the commandments.”

[Magdalenbrother]

These names are used metaphorically (I know big words too). Everyone but you seems to understand this concept.

And I say that when God is used to describe Jesus it is a metaphor too. Give me a solid criterion for distinguishing between the two !!!

Concerning Matthew 19:17

There are maybe 100 different versions of this passage in various ancient manuscripts of the 3 Synoptic gospels, plus the Diatessaronic versions, and various patristic citations...

TI ME LEGEIS AGATHON is found in the Byzantine manuscripts and in the earliest extant manuscripts. The translation is: "why do you call me good ?"

EVIDENCE: C K W Delta f13 28 33 565 1010 1241 Byz Lect two lat syr(p,h) cop(south) some cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn

Some manuscripts (mainly from "Geezus is God" Alexandria) have

TI ME EROTAS PERI TOU AGATHOU which is translated as "why do you ask me about the good ? "

EVIDENCE: S B D L Theta f1 700 892text two lat syr(s) some syr(pal)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV

Now which variant shall we choose? The answer is pretty straightforward: the one used by the KJV, which relies on the Byzantine manuscripts.

Why?

Because:

In the RSV translation, Jesus' reply sounds completely incoherent:

And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?

And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

According to the RSV Matthew, Jesus is addressed as simply "teacher", and the man further asks: " What good deed must I do in order to obtain salvation ?" But, in reply, he gets an objection from Jesus, and the objection seems unreasonable and incoherent. After all, the man didn't really ask Jesus about the meaning of good in the abstract sense, but rather about what needs to be done to be saved -- two different things. So why the objection?


The Western and Alexandrian reading, "Why askest thou Me concerning the good", has a curiously unbiblical ring. It does not savor of God but of men. It smacks of the philosophy -- or pseudo-philosophy -- which was common among the Hellenized gentiles, but was probably little known in the strictly Jewish circles in which these words are represented as having been spoken. In short, the Western and Alexandrian
reading, "Why askest thou Me concerning the good", reminds us strongly of the interminable discussions of the philosophers concerning the summum bonum (the highest good). How could Jesus have reproved the young man for inviting Him to such a discussion, when it was clear that the youth had in no wise done this, but had come to Him concerning an entirely different matter, namely, the obtaining of eternal life?



It is clear to me that the Alexandrian scribes, who were eager to delete a passage that clearly showed that Jesus didn't consider himself God, fiddled with the scriptures. But they apparently didn't realize that the modification made Jesus' reply nonsensical.



Finally, note that Mark and Luke have TI ME LEGEIS AGATHON.

[VFarris01]

Overuled!!!!!

Why callest thou me good? - Or, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. This important reading is found in BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, latter Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionysius Areop., Antiochus, Novatian, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisive to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, None is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, εις ειν ο αγαθος. There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of διδασκαλε αγαθε, good teacher, διδασκαλε only is read by BDL, one other, one Evangelistarium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hilary. The whole passage therefore may be read thus: O teacher! what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good. (Or he who is good is one). But If thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the commandments. This passage, as it stood in the common editions, has been considered by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. A very learned person, in his note on this place, thus concludes concerning it: "Therefore our Savior cannot be God: and the notion of, I know not what, a trinity in unity, Three Gods in One, is here proved beyond all controversy, by the unequivocal declaration of Jesus Christ Himself, to be Erroneous and Impossible." Not so. One of the greatest critics in Europe, not at all partial to the Godhead of Christ, has admitted the above readings into his text, on evidence which he judged to be unexceptionable. If they be the true readings, they destroy the whole doctrine built on this text; and indeed the utmost that the enemies of the trinitarian doctrine can now expect from their formidable opponents, concerning this text, is to leave it neuter (alone, VF01).

Why callest thou me good? - Why do you give to me a title that belongs only to God? You suppose me to be only a man, yet you give me an appellation that belongs only to God.
It is improper to use titles in this manner. As you Jews use them they are unmeaning; and though the title may apply to me, yet, you did not intend to use it in the sense in which it is proper, as denoting infinite perfection or divinity; but you intended to use it as a complimentary or a flattering title, applied to me as if I were a mere man - a title which belongs only to God. The intentions, the habit of using mere titles, and applying as a compliment terms belonging only to God, is wrong. Christ did not intend here to disclaim divinity, or to say anything about his own character, but simply to reprove the intention and habit of the young man - a most severe reproof of a foolish habit of compliment and flattery, and seeking pompous titles.

why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord's view is, by his own language; and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity. Some copies read, "why dost thou ask me concerning good". And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires.

[Magdalenbrother]

Moot !

[VFarris01]

Moot !Cannot refute it so you thumb your nose at it.

[Ron Macy]

Magdalenbrother,




Trinitarians feverishly search the Bible for an exclusive divine title or activity and then compare it with what is said of Jesus or the Messiah. If they overlap, they think that they have a proof that their Jesus is God.


I agree with this thought. It is an effort to prove trinity through circumstantial evidence because direct, explicit definitions of trinity are not found in the scripture. What I found amusing was an argument against this “similarity” argument from an ardent trinitarian. OldShepherd made the following comment in discussion with me. I had quoted several scholars who discussed the influence of Greek philosophy on the early church fathers. Anyone can read the history of the comment for themselves.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=572062&postcount=41



Similarity does not prove derivation! There is a creature in Australia that has webbed feet like a duck, it swims in water like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck. It haas a bill like a duck. But it is not a duck, not even a fowl of any kind, it is a marsupial, a Platypus. All its similarities with a duck does not prove it is derived from a duck.


Just because the same titles are applied to both God and Jesus doesn’t make them equal or even the same being.
Just because Jesus forgives sins (the authority for which was given to Him by God) it does not make Jesus God.
All the similarities Jesus has with God does not prove Jesus is God.

Ron

[stargazers]

Cannot refute it so you thumb your nose at it.

When the meaning of a verse is plain, you don't need arguments. You just let the words speak for themselves. "Why do you call me good? Only One is God" shows that Jesus didn't want to be treated like a god. You don't need tortuous explanations filling a whole page.

When I see someone hiding behind huge quotes from some "authority", I know they have a serious problem with the passage under discussion.

[7thangel]

Cannot refute it so you thumb your nose at it.
Not only does Magdalenbrother's explanation makes sense, he also noted Luke and Mark which is already irrefutable, I guess.

[Magdalenbrother]

Have you noticed the tendency of Trinitarians to exclude people who hold different views from their threads ?

We now have two such threads on this board, including one by a poster who is a notorious Trinitarian crusader who shamelessly desecrates all the non Geezus is God posts with his sneers and jeers. The other was started by an offended Anselmian virgin who hates "artificial" interpretations.

I think that these people want to comfortably soak in their own holy Jordan of ideas, protected from any interference. A sure sign of weakness and arrogance (the two are really the same). They also want you to believe that their threads are different, too holy to be stained by the stinking vomit of "heretics".

The problem is that if everyone were to do the same here, the discussion would soon come to an end or would languish desperately. This board is supposed to be open to all theists. Posters shouldn't have the right to exclude others from their posts on the basis of so-called orthodoxy.

Who is an Orthodox after all, huh ?

[VFarris01]

Suggested reading:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-McKenzie.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.com/harmon17.html

[Dee Dee Warren]

MB - rants go to the Locker Room and blasphemous altering of the name of Christ are not tolerated.

VFarris - argument by weblink is against decorum

[VFarris01]

For further information regarding my position:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-McKenzie.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.com/harmon17.html

[Dee Dee Warren]

Directly disobeying a Moderator directive is inappropriate. Do not do that again.

[7thangel]

Have you noticed the tendency of Trinitarians to exclude people who hold different views from their threads ?
I was actually surprised to read that. Such behaviour of excluding heretics is critical to the verity of them who are suppose to be chosen to defend the word of God. Also, aren't we, generally, suppose to proselyte?


We now have two such threads on this board, including one by a poster who is a notorious Trinitarian crusader who shamelessly desecrates * edited by a moderator * posts with his sneers and jeers. The other was started by an offended Anselmian virgin who hates "artificial" interpretations.
I know how you feel. But I still trust that most, if not all, of the moderators are open-minded. I am hoping that they will continue to invite everyone to come into one table and talk without hesitations. It is good and understandable that every Christian should defend their faith, thus they sure will, or should, understand you when you do your supposed obligation as you claim a true Christian and teacher of truth.


I think that these people want to comfortably soak in their own holy Jordan of ideas, protected from any interference. A sure sign of weakness and arrogance (the two are really the same). They also want you to believe that their threads are different, too holy to be stained by the stinking vomit of "heretics".
Actually, most of preachers I knew openly encourage their members to listen only to them, or to those whom they approve that speaks of the same convictions they have. I often consider them that they are not confident of their faith, meaning they lack pure understanding of their faith.


The problem is that if everyone were to do the same here, the discussion would soon come to an end or would languish desperately. This board is supposed to be open to all theists. Posters shouldn't have the right to exclude others from their posts on the basis of so-called orthodoxy.
Indeed!


Who is an Orthodox after all, huh ?
That exactly is the purpose of debating. Though we take opposing sides our goal is to know the truth not mere knowing of everyone' opinions.

I am hoping that they will give consideration of your rants. I hope they should understand you for doing such, while they also do it themselves for the sake of the truth. Unfortunately, some of us really do not know what is truth.

[Magdalenbrother]

I propose that in the future every non Tinitarian who starts a thread mention that:

WARNING: this is a thread open to everybody, whether trinitarian or non trinitarian. No matter how weird, iconoclastic, labyrinthine or silly your comment is, we welcome it as part of our discussion to find out the living truth about God and his anointed son. We only hope that for the sake of a lucid discussion, you will refrain from offensive remarks and will observe the rules of elementary courtesy, striving to consider your interlocutor as just as intelligent and high-minded as yourself. Amen !

[Chavoux]

Moot !
Dear Magdalenbrother

I have always read this passage fairly straightforward as Jesus asking the rich young man: "Why do you call me good?" = "You do realize that you are aknowledging Me as God?" (since: "There is none good, but God"). He never said that He was not good or that the young man was wrong to call Him good... he just explained to him what it actually implied if he called Him good.

Cheers
Chavoux