Originally posted by Palynka
Nordlys, vistesd:
I have to say, that's a bit of a weak case (especially the supposed sins). First it is unclear if he's talking about sin. Matthew's quote is much more logical, as in the follow up the man says has been without sin as Jesus describes it. It would be weird to believe Jesus sinned more than this man.
It may not be a strong case, though I’m not sure what “sinning more than” has to do with it. “Sin,” in neither the Hebrew nor Greek words—nor in the original English meaning—does not
only that one does things that are immoral. It also means actual or potential failure, error, etc.
“Good” in these passages (
agathos) can mean satisfactory, beneficial, fitting, just, generous, as well as morally upright; it can also be used to mean “perfect,” though I don’t think it is translated thus in the NT.
teleios generally means perfect in the sense of complete or whole.
Now, if only God is
agathos, what does that mean here? And is Jesus deferring away from himself to God? Or is he saying something like, “Why are you calling me ‘good’ if only God is good? Do you recognize that I am God?” It is the latter understanding that, I think, would have to be used to support Jesus as the God-man—from these verses.
However, the standard Chalecedonian definition says that Jesus was also “fully human”—
The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
So, was Jesus always speaking out of his divinity (assuming trinitarianism)? Or did he sometimes speak from his humanity? And how do we sort that out?
Frankly, as you can probably tell, I am now getting too “mush-brained” to focus on it any further.