None good but God

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:32 am

Matthew 19:16 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.

Question: If there are none good but God how can a not good being pay for my sins?

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:31 pm

Eloi wrote: Keeping theology out, as you wish:

Oranges are good, BUT don't eat oranges to avoid diarrhea, eat unripe guavas

I don't get it.

brianbbs67 · Post by **brianbbs67** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:18 am

The word we should look at is Good in the Koine.

Agathon/s(what ever form) means intrinsically good. Intrinsically is in an essential or natural way. What is good by nature.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/intrinsically

So, I agree with Jesus because man is not naturally good. God is that thing.

Only God is good. We have to choose to be. If one chooses to be enough times, it becomes almost reflexive but we still have to govern ourselves to stay that way. And even the best(most good) of us fail at one time or the other. God does not. All intrinsically good all the time. He is that which He will be.

tam · Post by **tam** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:27 am

Peace to you,

Wootah wrote:
tam wrote: May you have peace!

How can this verse support the trinity doctrine when IN this very verse, Christ (Jaheshua) differentiates between Himself and God?

"Why do you call me good? There are none good but God alone."

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Tam please answer the first question of the OP first.

If there are none good but God how can a not good being pay for my sins? - OP

A - If that Being is the Life. He (and His blood) need only have enough value to cover all other life. That is all that is required for Him to be able to give His life in exchange for our lives (for all the lives that Adam subjected to Death). His life does indeed have more than enough value to exchange for all the rest of life.

"Life for life".

B - It was only His flesh that was 'not good'. Christ could not claim to be good because of His flesh at that time (not to mention that He always glorified His Father, saying, "the Father is greater than I"). Remember, Christ came in the image of sinful man (Romans 8:3), and He would have inherited his flesh from His mother. Despite the RCC doctrine, Mary had sin (error) and death in her flesh. Christ overcame the flesh though - and did not sin. But His flesh - like the rest of mankind - had sin and death in it (or else He would not have died).

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:54 am

[Replying to post 43 by tam]

You're not allowing the text to stand. Jesus is not good according to Jesus.

How can a blemished lamb be used to pay for our sins?

tam · Post by **tam** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:03 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 43 by tam]

You're not allowing the text to stand. Jesus is not good according to Jesus.

How many texts stand without explanation of terms? Even you are equating 'not good' to 'blemished lamb'.

How can a blemished lamb be used to pay for our sins?

You tell me Wootah.

I am not the one saying that the Lamb is blemished.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:05 am

[Replying to post 42 by brianbbs67]

Since you agree Jesus is not good, how can a not good or blemished lamb pay for our sins?

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:18 am

[Replying to post 45 by tam]

Jesus said he is not good. How can a not good lamb pay for our sins?

tam · Post by **tam** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:21 am

Peace to you!

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 45 by tam]

Jesus said he is not good. How can a not good lamb pay for our sins?

You are repeating your question, but I am not the one who sees a problem (for the reasons previously stated).

So again.. you tell me.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:49 am

[Replying to post 47 by Wootah]

The explanation brian gave concerning "good" and its meaning is enough to alleviate the onus on Jesus being less good than God. Perhaps you could read it again.

Jesus never was blemished. He, as brian brought out, had to exert himself to some degree to remain good. He had to pray to God for help in accomplishing his role in God's will. He could have given up and done something against God's will. Because he did not go against God he was given an even higher place in the heavenly scheme of things.

"When he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death....For this very reason God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name....to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8,9 & 11)

There was always the chance that Jesus could cave in, but the fact that he did not made him worthy to offer a ransom sacrifice for the world of mankind.

God Almighty is intrinsically good. He cannot fail. He IS goodness and love. That is what Jesus was alluding to when he said that there is none good but God.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:14 pm

[Replying to post 49 by onewithhim]

I agree. That's why I cited these three texts in a comment before, in this own thread:

Heb. 2:10â€¯For it was fitting for the one for whose sake all things are and through whom all things are, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

... 5:8â€¯Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; 9â€¯and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10â€¯because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of MelÂ·chizÊ¹eÂ·dek.

... 7:28â€¯for the Law appoints men high priests having weakness, but the word of the sworn oath that came after the Law appoints a Son, who is perfected forever.

The Scriptures say Jesus was perfected when he was a human. They even say Jesus "learned obedience from the things he suffered" (Heb. 5:8) ... Then what? If Jesus is suppose to be as "good" as Jehovah and he was saying something different of what is clearly understood from Mark 10:18, why he still had to be perfected and learn obedience under sufferings? So was he good as God or wasn't he?

Jesus is still learning things:

John 5:20â€¯For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel.

So what is that we are trying to mean with the word "good"? A good teacher? A good person? A good sacrifice? ...

Are we meaning someone who has nothing to learn? ... nothing to perfect about himself? Absolutly not ... Then we were talking about GOD, the only One who is perfect in everything, and as Jesus said the only one who is really good. One thing is Jesus, for sure: a good apprentice of his Father.

John 5:19â€¯Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: â€œMost truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Tell me Wootah, does that make Jesus a "blemish lamb", not a good sacrifice to pay for our sins?

As I said before: that idea of Jesus being God the Son doesn't help to see the truth about Jesus, the Son of God.