The definitions describing Christianity is rooted in stimulus/response. Action/reaction... leading to truth (true understanding). Jesus explained how truth is discerned...
"If you hear and obey... you will know the truth... and the truth will set you free."

The definitions used in Christianity are based in action and the documented history and current reality of those actions. Words alone, according to Paul, are useless. Paul was a highly trained lawyer and tactician in the use of words/ winning arguments.

Paul said:
" if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Jesus created logic. Jesus personally trained Paul, a masterful lawyer, in the ways of argument for God's case.

definition: faith minus works = dead faith = not faith

Paul argued:
" if Christ has not (*acted) been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

The definitions describing Christianity is rooted in stimulus/response. Action/reaction... leading to truth (true understanding).
Jesus explained how the definition of truth is discerned/ how to narrow it down to the gnats eyelash ...
"If you hear and obey... you will know the truth... and the truth will set you free."

The definitions used in Christianity are based in action and the documented history and current reality of those actions. Words alone, according to Paul, are useless. Paul was a highly trained lawyer and tactician in the use of words/ winning arguments.

Paul said:
" if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Paul concluded using legal terms:
"if there is no resurrection of the dead, (then) not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God,


I think that is exactly why Paul, the consummate wordsmith and lawyer said: "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Jesus explained how truth is discerned...
"If you hear and obey... you will know the truth... and the truth will set you free."
and Paul designed his strategy based on Jesus explanation:

4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.


Jesus defined the word 'Good' using the same strategy.

Mark 10:18

"Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Jesus defined good.
Jesus did not deny that he is good.

Good is God.
Therefore...

"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

I don't think his definition was all that unclear. He defined 'perfect' to mean "to lack nothing - e.g., virtue." Perhaps he should have asid "to lack nothing with respect one's nature." And someone may misunderstand that if they don't know what a nature is, but that's a matter of education, not a problem with his definition.


I think you are thinking in terms of moral goodness here, as if you are asking how it is we can show that God meets up to this standard of "good" that exists independently of God, as if He could be measured against it. (And that gets back into Obi's pointing out that 'ought' doesn't apply so well to God.) So now we're back at Euthyphro. Better to understand that "good" and "being" are interchangeable terms on a fundamental level, which is why evil is best understand as a privation (of being). God is good, then, because He is infinite being. Nothing He does (since what He does is what He is) lacks any being whatsoever, and therefore, what He does is perfectly good. When you see the connection between that and how we apply that to morality, the application really does become obvious. It's one of those things where once you see it, you can't unsee it.

I'm quoting the below from theJack's helpful book "Making Divine Simplicity Simple" (and I suggest you read it entirely)(DS is his abbreviation for Divine Simplicity, ie, God does not have any composition and cannot be divided):

We do not have to say that something is good because God says so,
nor do we have to say that something is good and therefore God
says so. Rather, we can say that God just is Good. Don’t read that as if I’m describing
God as being good, as if I’m comparing Him to some standard of goodness and saying,
“He measures up.” I mean that in the same sense I might say, “Triangles are three
sided figures,” “Bachelors are unmarried men.” When I say, “God is Good,” I am saying
that the very nature of God is Good. In somewhat convoluted English—or at least in
Jeopardy speak—I might say, “Good is what God is.” This means that God doesn’t
issue decrees about good and evil by looking at some standard outside Himself, nor
does it mean that God makes things good or evil by so decreeing it. Rather, God has (or
more technically, is) a particular nature, and like everything else, He acts in accordance
with it. Therefore, God decrees in accordance with His nature, with what He is. When
we say murder and lying are evil, we are saying that they are contrary to the nature of
God. When we say that generosity and honesty are good, we are saying that they are
consistent with God’s nature. God, then, just decrees Himself in creation.
96
That answer is fine as far as it goes, but it does have a minor problem. If we reject DS,
then we have to say that God is not identical with His nature, but rather, He has a
nature, just like you and I do. Just like you are limited by and act in accordance with
your nature, the same would be true of Him. But now we’re right back at the problem we
had just above. God is subject to something above Him—this “divine nature” that is not
God. That nature controls and directs Him. Even if that nature is good, it still follows that
God is subject to it. Therefore, He is not the first cause, not sovereign, and does not
exist in and of Himself. What, we would have to ask, is causing God to be subject to that
nature? We would literally be forced to ask the question, “What caused God?” Since
something can’t come from nothing, and since something can’t be dependent on
nothing, the only answer would have to be something above both God and His nature
(just as there is something above you and your nature, something that “brings you
together”). I assume you can see the absurdity in that.
But DS gives us a ready answer. God’s nature is not above Him. God is not subject to it.
God is not caused to be linked to it. God just is His nature. Good, then, is not a part of
God. It just is God. Morality is objective because God is, and God is good. That is,
morality is objective because Good has objective existence in and of itself.
As it happens, you can get very deep into the philosophy of good. Since God is
existence, and God is good, it becomes apparent that good is existence. And that
statement forms the basis of much classical thinking on the moral law and even the
natures of evil and sin.

Once cannot use the Bible to prove God's goodness to someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God.

One must use natural reason irrespective of religious tradition to prove His goodness....and this is 100% possible.

See my previous response. You cannot argue for God's goodness using the Bible and any of its characters since there are plenty of people who believe the Bible to be meaningless.

Must?

Per Vatican I, but I'm open to the fact that I might not understand what was dogmatically proclaimed.

Can, not must. One can believe it and know it by revelation.

Edited - I figured it out.

I'm not doing anything near what you stated above. Nor am I suggesting that you quote scripture to win an argument. Personal experience has shown that words alone dont work. Paul and Jesus described what does work and why. That is what I quoted from the Bible.

Paul lays out the whole argument and the solution in 1 Cor. That is the reason I quoted the Bible. The thought of quoting any of that to an unbeliever never entered my mind. It wouldnt make any sense to them.
Paul said:
1Cor2:
14 ... people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it.

------------------------
Jesus spoke in declarations. He simply stated facts and let the hearer deside. "Let those who have ears to hear... hear". He left the revelation of the truth that he spoke up to God's discretion through the Holy Spirit ... Whose job it is to ..." prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment."

The Sanhedrin/ pharacees, the ones that Jesus called whited sepulchers, voted to execute Jesus. Yet they clearly revealed that they knew for a fact that Jesus was sent from God . It was his acts that they could not deny. Nicodemus said so. Without God's Holy Spirit they could not do the right thing. They hated the right thing.
All 3 ( words/power/spirit) must work in concert. Paul figured that out and that strategy was his game plan moving forward.

------------------
I'm not suggesting that you quote the Bible. I'm suggesting that you observe the research that Paul did on the subject of discussion in the O/P
Paul did the research 2000 yrs ago and figured out what works and what doesnt.

From Acts...
... you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”


From 1Cor 2 ...
13When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths.f 14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit.

-----------------------------------------------
Paul, one of the top and most famous legal minds of his time... highly trained in the art of argument in order to win, and then trained by Jesus himself... stated that he found that words / arguments alone dont work when it comes to introducing the Gospel to unbelievers. In fact he stated in 1Cor2 that words alone cant work. They must be revealed through the power of God... confirmed in what I posted above.

-----------------------------------------------------

1Cor2:
1When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters,a I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan.b 2For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified. 3I came to you in weakness—timid and trembling. 4And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit. 5I did this so you would trust not in human wisdom but in the power of God.

6 Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom

If your point is that Paul is saying is essentially what many have been posting in this thread, then I suggest you simply say that and make a general reference to scripture. At casual glance much of what you first wrote appeared to be making the case of God's goodness using scripture. All the verses and commentary can be difficult to follow.

I am saying ...
There is no greater example in apologetics than the apostle Paul speaking at Mars Hill.
Paul evaluated/ realized that very few of his hearers responded.

So he changed his approach ...
1Cor2:
1When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters,a I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan. 2 For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified. 3I came to you in weakness—timid and trembling. 4And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit. 5I did this so you would trust not in human wisdom but in the power of God.

6 Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom (apologetics works a whole lot better 'after' someone is convinced) .

------One of Paul's most effective missionary journeys was completely unplanned/ impromptu ...and he never said a word to convince . He simply got bit by a highly venomous snake and didnt die.... and ended up winning the Island of Malta.

Then just say, "There's no greater example in apologetics than the apostle Paul speaking at Mars Hill...." and be done with it.

I have a little trouble following your point with all the scripture interlaced with commentary. I'm likely the only person, but just in case.....

I've been challenged so many times by people to support the simplest statements, Things that seem obvious to me... so that now, I back every point with Scripture.

How do I understand that "good" and "being" are interchangeable terms on a fundamental level? Is that a conclusion they come to in Euthyphro?

You have to define 'good' then. If anything that an all-powerful eternal God wants is good by definition, then the answer is obviously yes. If you know more about good and evil than God does, then you judge...there's no 'yes by definition.'

Turning to the true Christian Trinitarian God, I trust God and believe anything He does is good, even if I don't understand why. If you need to understand why, then you need to know what good is outside the dictates of God. I'm not there...so I have no suggestion for a definition.

What's your definition of 'good'? I need a reference.

But considering the possibility of a non-perfect (e.g., sometimes evil) all-powerful God...well, what's the use? Who cares if everything that such a God does is good?

-BHM

I'm sure you've been referred to Feser's material. I'll do so again.

No, this is not the conclusion in Euthyphro. In fact, there's really no conclusion in Euthyphro . . . just a problem! It's actually worth reading. Not too bad. You can read it in its entirety here or you can listen to it here if you prefer.

As far as your first question, best I can do here is give you is an example and hope you kind of see the connection. Imagine two eyes: one can see 20/20, the other is blind. Which is the "good" eye and which is the "bad" eye? Obviously, the one that can see is good, right? Okay, hold that thought. Imagine a good eye and a rock. The rock can't see, so is it blind? Is it a bad rock? Of course not. So the point is that it is the nature of an eye to see. It is not the nature of a rock.

In other words: an eye that can't see is missing something real. It is been deprived of something. We say that blindness is a privation, because the eye has been deprived of something (sight). The rock has not been deprived of something.

But if the eye lacks something, if it is missing something, then there is some way in which it lacks being. Something that should be in it is not. The seeing eye is good because the eye is not missing something; sight exists. And so the better it sees, the better it is. So then, we can ultimately say that the more something exists (in accordance with its nature), the better it is. Good and Being are, at bottom, the same thing. That's why God is perfectly good. He is unlimited Being, and therefore unlimited Good. He lacks nothing, therefore suffers not privations. He just Is Good.

Does that help at all?

While you weren't responding to me, thank you.

I am comforted that on some level I wasn't all that far off with my syllogisms.