loudmouth2,

<<As a non-believer, with only a vague understanding of what Christians view as the three-way nature of God/Christ/HolySpirit, this puzzles me....

So ..... Jesus and God are, at least in this report, distinct, different beings ?

Or was the writer struggling to resolve the paradox that, while only God can be perfectly good, anybody else (even including Christ) was - by not being God - not quite as good ?>>

You have cited a passage such as Luke 18:19 (NIV), "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone", http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+18%3A19&version=NIVUK
This is from the parable of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30).

The Ruler addressed Jesus, 'Good Teacher' (v. 18) with the question: 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Thoughtful people ask this question of God even today.

What is the ultimate meaning of Jesus' answer: 'Why do you call me good?... No one is good--except God alone'. My understanding is that Jesus subtly urges the ruler to see that if Jesus is good and only God is good, then Jesus is God. Here Jesus establishes the standard of goodness is higher than that of the young ruler. God is the only who who is truly good.

This verse teaches part of a knowledge of the Godhead - the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Spirit of God. All three are persons who function in the Godhead.

Dear Ozpen,

Come on mate, he was quite clear when he said; "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" that he didn't have a sense of himself as God.

Further it strips the crucifixion narrative of much of its power to assume that he was.

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

We would go from "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." to 'For God so loved the world, as to give of himself that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.'

No, Jesus is not God and he would likely have considered such notions as blasphemous.

Armchair Critic,

<<Spencer I don't enjoy having to always correct you, but you always get everything wrong'.

So AC is the standard of what is right and wrong. That's an arrogant view of your own abilities.

Proverbs 12:15 sums up your approach to my posts: 'Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others'.

Foxy,

<<She [the late Prof Barbara Thiering] provides a radically different history of the life of Christ which sweeps away the miraculous and superstitious elements associated with the origins of Christianity.>>

You're a great fan of the late Aussie theologian, Barbara Thiering, and her Pesher Method of interpretation, that leads to some very unorthodox views of the Bible.

All was not well with Barbara. This reviewer stated:

"Dr Thiering has this one bad. To claim, as she did, that much of Christianity is false and misguided (including belief in the resurrection and divinity of Christ) and yet still call herself a ‘Christian’, shows the disease in an advanced stage. No longer able (or willing) to believe in a divine, resurrected Jesus, she is obliged to come up with an alternative explanation", http://thebriefing.com.au/1990/05/the-riddle-of-barbara-thiering/

.

Dear Runner,

.

You posted the following list of “atrocious and irrational” items :

1. something from nothing fantasy
2. creation without Creator
3. laws without a Lawmaker
4. moral laws without a moral Lawgiver
5. evolution fantasy
6. denial of man's corrupt nature (on display olo every day)
7. all belief systems equal
8. basic biology
9. design requiring a Designer
10. denial of truth while substituting lies
11. denial of absolute truth making all discussion invalid

That reminds me of the song Alfred Williams wrote in 1907 :

« A man without a woman is like a ship without a sail,
a boat without a rudder or a fish without a tail,
a man without a woman is like a wreck upon the sand,
there's only one thing worse in the universe
and that's a woman without a man. »

In philosophical terms, Runner, you are delving into the metaphysical interpretations on the nature of reality and their potential role in the origin and structure of the universe.

Which came first, one may ask, the chicken or the egg ?

1. How can there “be” such a thing as “nothing” ? If there is nothing, then it does not exist. And if it does not exist, it cannot pre-exist anything. “Something” must have come first, and “nothing” (non-existence) must have followed afterwards – as a result of the coming into existence of “something”.

"Nothing" is simply the limit of “something” – just as death is the limit of life.

6. As for “man’s corrupt nature”, there is no morality in nature – just whatever is most efficient for the survival of the species. Morality, “positive (man-made) law” and justice are human inventions designed to maintain harmonious relations within society.

11. Denying “absolute truth” does not invalidate discussion, it permits it. “Absolute truth” – had it existed – would invalidate all possible discussion.

Truth and reality are two different concepts – not to be confused. There is only one reality but as many truths as there are observers (witnesses).

Here is my definition of truth :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5636#156235

.

Dear Joe,

«Here is my definition of truth:»

Oh, how could I miss that fascinating discussion?! I wanted to comment but then discovered that the topic was closed in 2013. Let me just say for now that truth and information have practically nothing to do with each other.

Now your responses to Runner are also very interesting:

«How can there “be” such a thing as “nothing”?»

Well, in common speech, "nothing" simply means uninteresting/irrelevant. When you say "There is nothing in the room", that room still has plenty of air (or at least space), it may even have a bed, but that's not what you were looking for; or when you say "I'm left with nothing" you may mean that your bank-balance is 0 or negative, because for the purpose of that conversation, only money is relevant (so your cold, hunger and misery do not count, though they aren't truly "nothing").

«As for “man’s corrupt nature”, there is no morality in nature»

But there is morality beyond nature. Such inaccurate expressions of "divine nature" or "corrupt nature" actually refer to that portion of man that is beyond nature.

«“Absolute truth” – had it existed – would invalidate all possible discussion.»

Indeed. Absolute Truth cannot exist because that would have placed it in juxtaposition with other exiting things, rendering it relative rather than absolute! Truth is still Truth, but valid discussions are only about relative truths.

And yesterday you wrote:

«while only God can be perfectly good, anybody else (even including Christ) was - by not being God - not quite as good ?»

Only under the nonsensical assumption as if anyone or anything could exist outside God.
Since there is nothing but God, the above statement is true, yet empty.
Truly all is good, but this is of no practical value until you realise that all is God!