dzim77

First of all you have made an assertion that my second interpretation is invalid but have not backed it up with an explanation.

Let's look at the verse again in light of the context...

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


The man is asking Jesus what he must do to get eternal life...

Does Jesus say that he is not good? no.
Does Jesus say he is good? no.
Does Jesus say that he is not God? no.
Does Jesus say that he is God? no.
Does he say that only God is good? yes.
Does the text allow for the possibility that Jesus is not God? yes.
Does the text allow for the possibility that Jesus is God? yes.
Does he question the young man's motives for asking Jesus such a question? yes.

It is a valid possiblity that Jesus is - in a slightly ironic way- (as is typical of Jesus) testing the young man's motives and his thinking about who Jesus is, and why he would approach Jesus to ask such a question. Jesus goes on to prove to the young man that there is something he loves more than God... something he is unwilling to give up to follow Jesus - namely, his wealth. This young man came to Jesus full of confidence in his own goodness and righteousness... Jesus put him to the test and proved that the young man was not so 'good' after all, thus enforcing his original statement that, 'only God is good.'

Then Jesus points out that it is impossible for a rich man to be saved. Rich men were viewed to be 'the most blessed' in that culture, prompting the question "Who then can be saved?" Jesus responds, indicating that man cannot 'save himself' (by 'obeying the commandments') but that God is able to save.... this leaves us with the question: 'How then, does God save?'

dzim77

One aspect of the Trinity is that the three persons are distinct.

So, yes, Jesus is differentiating himself from God the Father. You could have cited Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane as a better example actually... he prayed all night to his Father.

This does not disprove the doctrine of the Trinity in any way... it merely points out another aspect of it.

By the way, I'm sure you know, but in the verse you quoted Jesus is actually quoting Psalm 22:1, " 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?" Thus, indicating that he is the fulfillment of the Messiah figure. At this point on the cross he is receiving the wrath of God for the sins of mankind. He is so alienated from his Father that he does not even call him Father, but instead, Eloi, 'My God'.

How would you interpret this one?...

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. John 14:6-11

Heidi Guedel

What PROVES the doctrine of the Trinity, anyway?

Heidi Guedel

Does anyone quote Jesus who was actually there to hear him?

Did Jesus write anything himself?

dzim77

The traditional view is that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, wrote the gospel of Matthew (containing the passage in question.) So, yes.


Not that we know of.

Amaleq13

No, I stated a conclusion (number 2 is not really an interpretation) and provided the basis (it ignores the actual text).

Only if you choose a proper translation that does not omit the word "good" prior to "teacher".

dzim77

In what way does it ignore the text? Please explain.

sure...

16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17And 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.
Matthew 19:16-17 KJV

Does Jesus say he is not good? NO - he asks the man why he called him good.
Does Jesus say he is good? NO
Does Jesus say he is not God? NO
Does Jesus say he is God? NO
Does Jesus question the man's motives in approaching him, calling him good, asking what good thing he should do? YES

My explanation for the rest of the passage is the same.

Amaleq13

Jesus is God and Jesus is different from God. Incoherency does allow one to hold all sorts of ludicrous positions.

I thought about it but decided to go with the shorter passage since they establish the same point. The notion of Jesus being God is foreign to the Synoptics and must be imported via incoherent, faith-based assertions.

Yes, it points out that it is rationally incoherent. It also points out that it must be imported into the text despite the plain meaning.

Johannine theology that requires faith to be read into the Synoptics.

Amaleq13

It ignores that Jesus' response to the man's use of "good" is a denial of its use and it ignores that Jesus' identification of God as the only one who can be called "good" only makes sense as a continuation of that denial.

You must completely ignore the plain meaning of the passage and import your personal beliefs to obtain your second "interpretation".

dzim77

I disagree. The interpretation that Jesus is not denying the man's use of the word 'good' but rather questioning his motive and thinking in using the word, in order to lead him to a deeper truth is a valid possibility given the plain meaning of the text... and it is supported by the rest of the passage.