From: jgmiles@amber.utah.edu (John Gregory Miles)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Organization: University of Utah
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 03:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.231527.24204@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><adams.713452645@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>
>>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>>
>>>I'm not quite sure how this got past the censors of the early Church,
>>>but it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus did not regard
>>>himself as God, and actually rebuked an admirer for using language which
>>>might suggest that.
>>
>>No, it would seem to me that Jesus was asking the person to consider who he
>>was adressing.  In other words, the person had called Him 'good teacher'
>>and Jesus said noone by God is good.  He asked WHY the man called Him good.
>                      ^^ you mean 'but', right?
>
>>To me, that is asking a reason of the man for the statement.
>
>Excuse me, Steve, but you seem to be really stretching on this one.  Jesus
>asked the man why he called him 'good', then clarified his point by
>stating that ONLY god is good.  The _very_ strong implication being that
>the man shouldn't have called him 'good'.
>
>If someone you knew came up to you and said, "Good Steve, where are you
>going?" -- you reply, "Why do you call me Good?  Only god alone is
>Good."  Now several things are implied by this:
>
>1.  You are Good and are trying to deny it or confuse the person.
>2.  You are really Evil and are insulted by this accusation.
>3.  You are neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally evil but just
>    wish to avoid answering the question.
>4.  You are, in a backhand sort of way, trying to tell the person that you
>    are not god.
>5.  You are, in a backhand sort of way, trying to tell the person that you
>    are god.
>
>For you, Steve:
>Choice #1 is unreasonable since seems a "good" person wouldn't try to deny 
>it (lie) or deliberately confuse someone.
>Choice #2 is a reasonable interpretation for you, if true.
>Choice #3 is reasonable if you are afraid of exposing your destination.
>Choice #4 is a reasonable interpretation, and fairly clear.
>Choice #5 is an unreasonable interpretation of your words.
>
>For the traditional view of Jesus:
>Choice #1 is an unreasonable interpretation in that a "good" person 
>wouldn't try to deny it (lie) or deliberately confuse someone. 
>(although I admit god did it a lot)
>Choice #2 is an unreasonable interpretation given Jesus' accepted role.
>Choice #3 is an unreasonable interpretation since Jesus shouldn't have 
>been afraid to tell anyone where he was going and he should have 
>been 'sinless'.
>Choice #4 a is reasonable interpretation, and fairly clear.
>Choice #5 is an unreasonable interpretation of his words.
>
>Your comments?
>
>
>Gordon
>-- 


I think the proper interpretation of the verse is this:

Jesus did nothing of himself, but what the Father told (i.e., taught) him 
to do. [John 5:19-20; 8:28]  So in a very real sense, though Christ was
sinless and held the office of Godhood, it was not He, but God the Father,
that was good.  Jesus was trying to teach the questioner that the only way
for man to do good (including the Son of Man) is to receive inspiration
from the Almighty God and act on that inspiration.  Even though we may have
good intentions, they may end up resulting in "evil" (i.e., not good) if we
do not have all the information relating to a particular situation.  Christ,
too, advanced from grace to grace and knowledge to knowledge.  Sounds like
we need a church with a living prophet at the head so that we do not "wrest
the scriptures unto [our] own destruction." [2 Pet. 3:16]
---
John Miles
jgmiles@mines.utah.edu
----------------------