Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[Verily]

I believe Jesus wanted the man to think about what he was saying, and who he was addressing. He called Jesus 'good'. Jesus said only God is good. Does that change what the man said? Does that change Who Jesus is? No. The man spoke well. Jesus is good, because Jesus is God.

Much love!

I think of Jesus as the example there, but another example might be Paul because its almost like it fits him, seeing him as a faithful man who was not proclaiming his own goodness and counted all such things that wer gain to him as dung.

Prov 20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?

1 Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

The former Pharisee is no where to be found there.

 

[Wrangler]

I've touched on this in another thread with @Wrangler, but it's worth repeating the syllogism here:

P1 Jesus is good;
P2 No one is good save God alone; therefore,
C Jesus is God.

I happen to believe that Jesus is indeed God (although elements of his divinity were set aside while he walked the planet incarnate), but I still don't think this particular syllogism is valid. The problem: there is more than one definition of "good."

Nice try. In the Scripture, Jesus denies being good. Ergo, P1 is certainly false per Jesus' own admission, coupled with his admission that our Father is the only true God. P2 is false based on the fact that humanity is not on the verge of extinction. So, it depends on the standard of good.

 

[RedFan]

Nice try. In the Scripture, Jesus denies being good. Ergo, P1 is certainly false per Jesus' own admission, coupled with his admission that our Father is the only true God. P2 is false based on the fact that humanity is not on the verge of extinction. So, it depends on the standard of good.

I don't see where Jesus denies being good, so you'll have to show me that one.

Anyway, the P1 issue is "WAS JESUS GOOD? Was he? Never mind whether or not he said so. WAS HE? Yes or no, @Wrangler?

 

[David in NJ]

God is not talking to Himself.

"Elohim" is plural...God and the angels( which an angel is a person in their supernatural body)

Genesis 1:26-27 God is revealing to us, His children.. "us and our" Including Himself(He and Us) .. revealing His plan to give each of us a flesh body... including HImself as the "HE HIM " (which is Jesus , which is God in a flesh body..)

the "them" is us, His children... He is revealing He is going to give each of us a flesh body.. male or female.

We have 2 bodies.. one celestial and one terrestrial.. one is of supernatural material(angel body or celestial body) and one is of flesh or terrestrial material..

One body is in Heaven, one on earth as we come thru this flesh age here on earth.

God's plan was to pay the price for our sins and He did that by giving Himself a flesh body and each of us a flesh body ... He died for our sins on that cross in a flesh body. God would not have anyone else die but Himself for our sins.

Lucifer and a group of angels(people in their celestial angel body) refused a flesh body and came to earth to seduce flesh women and create their race and pollute the bloodline of where Jesus would come through

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (God included Himself in that our flesh body would look like our celestial angel body.. just a flesh material


27) So God created man(flesh bodies) in his own image,(our flesh body looks the same image, male or female as our celestial body) in the image of God created "he him"(Jesus is God in a flesh body here on earth); male and female created he "them"( our flesh body is male or female just like our celestial angel body.)

God's plan of salvation.

Elohim is plural and does NOT include the angels.

 

[David in NJ]

I've touched on this in another thread with @Wrangler, but it's worth repeating the syllogism here:

P1 Jesus is good;
P2 No one is good save God alone; therefore,
C Jesus is God.

I happen to believe that Jesus is indeed God (although elements of his divinity were set aside while he walked the planet incarnate), but I still don't think this particular syllogism is valid. The problem: there is more than one definition of "good."

The problem: there is more than one definition of "good.

That is not the problem but the Fact of the Subject = JESUS gave us the definition of "Good".

Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

Therefore the syllogism is VALID and IRREVOCABLE TRUTH = "No one is Good but One = God"

JESUS, again and again, is giving DIRECT references to HIS BEING and pre-carnate Eternal Union with His Father

@RedFan - NEVER try appeasing falsehood for you will compromise the Truth for a lie

@amigo de christo @Johann @marks

 

[RedFan]

That is not the problem but the Fact of the Subject = JESUS gave us the definition of "Good".

Where did he define "good?"

 

[David in NJ]

Where did he define "good?"

Post 806 has be UPdated for you

Please review and then ask me again - SHALOM

 

[RedFan]

Post 806 has be UPdated for you

Please review and then ask me again - SHALOM

OK, I have re-read it. The question stands: I still see no definition of "good" in the quote.

 

[David in NJ]

OK, I have re-read it. The question stands: I still see no definition of "good" in the quote.

So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

Can you SEE now?

 

[RedFan]

So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God."

Can you SEE now?

Nope. I see him saying God is good, for sure. But a DEFINITION of "good?" It's not there.

It's like me saying "@Wrangler is intransigent." That statement doesn't DEFINE "intransigent."

 

[David in NJ]

Nope. I see him saying God is good, for sure. But a DEFINITION of "good?" It's not there.

It's like me saying "@Wrangler is intransigent." That statement doesn't DEFINE "intransigent."

Nope. I see him saying God is good, for sure. But a DEFINITION of "good?" It's not there.

Is your goodness good enough for God???

 

[RedFan]

Is your goodness good enough for God???

Likely not! What's your point?

 

[David in NJ]

Likely not! What's your point?

Whose goodness is good enough for God???

 

[RedFan]

Whose goodness is good enough for God???

Obviously Jesus's, and everyone whose sins are not counted against them by virtue of their faith in Him and His sacrifice.

 

[David in NJ]

Obviously Jesus's, and everyone whose sins are not counted against them by virtue of their faith in Him and His sacrifice.

You are getting closer to the truth but still missing the Bullseye.

 

[RedFan]

You are getting closer to the truth but still missing the Bullseye.

The Bullseye I am interested in is a "definition" of "Good" given by Jesus. Attributing goodness to God is NOT A DEFINITION! It's not. Surely you understand this.

Do I need to define "definition" for you?

 

[David in NJ]

The Bullseye I am interested in is a "definition" of "Good" given by Jesus. Attributing goodness to God is NOT A DEFINITION! It's not. Surely you understand this.

Do I need to define "definition" for you?

Attributing goodness to God is NOT A DEFINITION!

REALLY!!!

You are lacking understanding of the definition of TRUTH

Here it is = John 14:16
Jesus says to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, if not by Me.

 

[RedFan]

REALLY!!!

You are lacking understanding of the definition of TRUTH

Here it is = John 14:16
Jesus says to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, if not by Me.

How about the definition of Good" rather than of "Truth," please.

 

[David in NJ]

How about the definition of Good" rather than of "Truth," please.

They are mutually inclusive when speaking of God

There is no Higher Definition

 

[face2face]

Why are YOU claiming Jesus Didn’t accept that ?

Ah that's right you can't distinguish between the two.