Who is Good? (Alternate Renderings)

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-15 07:04:14

I would go with b), which if correct would also mean that c) would be somewhat true. a) is just too much of a stretch IMO as the accounts (responses and outcome) are otherwise too identical.
It's interesting that the "Textus Receptus" (on which the KJV is based) includes "good" in direct relation to "teacher" or "master" in Matthew's account. It's perfectly possible that the full question that was being asked included both "good teacher" and "what good must I do". The question would make even more sense if the man included the word in both places. In other words "you are good so tell me what good I must do".
The response is perhaps more difficult. Was the rich man asking about what is good, or calling Jesus good? Well if the question was as suggested above then the answer would be - both. But which one did Jesus draw attention to? This is where I think option c) is unavoidable. And yet the next point that Jesus makes - "one there is that is good" - works perfectly well according to both trains of thought. There is no essential difference in meaning.
If Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew we also have to make allowance for translation, especially if Jesus spoke in Aramiac.
Mark = Words spoken in Aramaic -> Recorded in Koine Greek
Matthew = Words spoken in Aramaic -> Recorded in Hebrew -> Translated to Koine Greek
The fact that we cannot derive a different meaning from either account (at least I don't think so), means that God has accurately communicated His thoughts to us in both cases regardless of minor word differences.

Comment by vascagase on 2013-07-15 12:11:57

Meleti V. This is why Matt, Mark and Luke are referred to as synoptic Gospels. Google it....Apollos, so nice to see what lanquage Jesus probably spoke...But here is a thought, the word "talya" (servant) in Galileean Aramaic compared with Judean Aramaic "talya" (son) has different shades of meaning. Thats where they wanted to cast stones at Jesus for blaphesmy...You can find it in cal search lexicon Aramaic....

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-15 12:20:36

  Seems a little off-topic vascagese. No offense, but if we just wanted to Google stuff we wouldn't discuss things here. Maybe you could share your research or at least provide a scriptural reference for what you are talking about.

Comment by Robert on 2013-07-15 23:15:57

I agree with appollosOfalexandria. You have have to merge both accounts together to get the complete picture:
"And as he was going out on his way, look! a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him:: “Good Teacher, what good must I do in order to get everlasting life?” Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good; and why do you ask me about what is good? Nobody is good except one, God.”

Comment by vascagase on 2013-07-16 05:46:33

Greetings Apollos, I did not intend to get off-topic,,,.my bad!..... When you compare Matt. 19:16,17 and Mark 10:17.18 actually most of the verses of those chapters seems to be the same event. I used those verses a lot in the ministry to disprove the trinity...But when you mentioned Aramaic, that opens up a whole other way of understanding! Jesus was from Galilee and most historians agree that He was a Galilean Jew as was Peter, Matt 26:73.... The point is dialect.... Notice John 5:18, 10:36, 19:7...The word "son" or "servant" of God is talya Allaha in Aramaic, but misunderstood by the Pharisees in Judea. Galilean Aramaic talya Allaha simply means servant of God...Talya Allaha in Judean Aramaic can mean son, child, or lamb of God, talya translated in Koine it is... uiov...They accused Jesus of blaphesmy in Judea not in Galilee...This is just part of what I'm trying to explain.

Comment by A searcher for truth on 2013-07-17 07:07:27

As recorded in (Matthew 19:16, 17), When Jesus had made this statement I believe that he believed that relative to God's perfection (Good) he was not as perfect (not as good) and so he had made the statement that no one was good except, God.
No one was truly perfect as his Father was.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-17 13:36:58

  Hi Searcher
  If Jesus was without sin (Heb 4:15) and was the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3), then in what sense do you feel that he is less good than God?
  Apollos

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-07-17 14:04:09

    If I could interject my two cents, any comparison that involves Jehovah fails because he is infinite in all ways. You can compare the length of one finite line with another, but you cannot compare a finite line to an infinite one. They exist on two different scales.

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-17 14:35:52

Jesus is God's Son. He is subordinate to his Father (1 Cor 11:3). I get that.
But what does that have to do with goodness?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-17 14:45:18

  And to add to my comment ... if a comparison fails, then why is it given to us at all?
  Is it truly a comparison?
  Compare Matt 16:15-17. The question "why call me good when only God is good in the absolute sense?" could be along the same lines - to provoke thought among the audience as to his true identity and just what that entailed. No sinful human could be called "good", but the sinless Son of God could.

Comment by A searcher for truth on 2013-07-18 08:00:56

From my perspective there are degrees of perfection, with the Heavenly Father being at the top of the tree, or ladder in regards to perfection.
If the Heavenly Father is Goodness (Love) in himself, then all those who are generated from him would be inferior to the Heavenly Father's Love and perfection.
So Jesus as the Son of God is relative in perfection to that of his Heavenly Father.
Yes Jesus is perfect in a relative sense, but not in comparison to the perfection of his Heavenly father.
Adam and Eve may have been perfect as material beings, but not as perfect as Jesus, the Son of God.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-18 10:28:13

  You've prompted me to think about writing an article about perfection vs sinlessness and invite some comments on that topic.
  In the meantime I accept that Adam and Eve would have reached "perfection" (i.e. become complete as God intended) if they had not sinned, but that perfection would not have been the same as God's. So whilst I don't agree that Adam and Eve were perfect - they were merely sinless - your point still stands in principle.
  In a similar manner I agree that the Son of God, whilst being perfected through sufferings (Heb 2:10), is perfect in a different sense to his Father. Perfection can only be in accord with the role that you have in the universe, and is bounded by that.
  But here we are not talking about perfection, we are talking about goodness. To me one is either good in the absolute sense, or one is not. Humans can never be that, even in a sinless state. Adam and Eve demonstrated that only too well. The angels also fit this category as is demonstrated by the rebellion.
  Jesus however is a different case. As God's exact representation (not merely in his image), how can he be more good? If there is no potential to be more good than you already are in the sense that everything you do reflects exactly what God would do then how can you not be called "good" in the same sense?
  To me, the passage only makes sense, and harmonizes with other scriptures, if Jesus is drawing attention to his special role as the only one who DOES reflect the goodness of God.
  Apollos

  • Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-18 11:28:31

    Apollos, Did Jesus himself ever say that He is the exact representation of God? Or was it Paul who never met, ate, walked or seen Jesus..Pauls disputes with Jesus disciples reveals his opinions...The concept of Paul differs immensely with what Jesus taught.....Vascagase

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-18 12:15:37

      Firstly I accept the epistles of Paul as inspired. Secondly I don't see any contradiction between those letters and the writings of the apostles. Thirdly the apostle John also firmly confirms Jesus' unique status, and explains what being the divine Son of God truly means. Again, no conflict with Paul's writings at all.
      Who (or what) do you think Jesus was?

      • Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-18 13:37:17

        Firstly Cor 7:12. Not inspired.. Secondly Matt. 5:17-19. Contrast Galatians 3:10. Thirdly, yes Jesus does have a unique status, but no, He is not divine..... Jesus had a miraculous birth, Performed miracles e.g. raising the the dead, healing the leper,the blind ect. He was the Messiah sent only to the Israelites Matt 15:24, 10: 5,6 and will return and set things straight Matt. 7:21-23, and much more!

        • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-18 14:05:36

          Well, needless to say we are not on the same page. My foundation is rooted in the inspiration of the entire canon of scripture. 1 Cor 7:12 does not deny inspiration if Paul was writing under the guidance of the spirit. The fact that some revelations were directly from Jesus and some were not does not diminish the authority of the latter if given while influenced by holy spirit.
          There is no conflict between Matt 5 and Gal 3. Paul does not say that the law no longer has meaning, but simply that Christians are no longer under it. Jesus does not say that the law would remain in force, but simply that it's fulfillment would be through him.
          Yes, his ministry was to Israel, but he already identified that his sheep would ultimately include those outside of that fold (John 10:16)
          Do you deny the gospel and letters of John also, or is it just Paul?
          Apollos

        • Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-18 14:53:17

          Apollos, read carefully Matt 5:19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least commandments and teaches it to mankind to that effect will be called "least." in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. Back to Matt 19:17b, if though you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually....I truly believe and follow in what Jesus actually taught. As for Mark 16 :9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 well its obvious...interpolation? Inspired? or what? Please explain.

Comment by vascagase on 2013-07-18 11:04:46

Greetings A searcher for truth. when truth is hurled at falsehood, falsehood perishes. Lies by their very nature are bound to die...Meleti V. how can I start a new post?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-07-18 11:19:31

  You could email me the material. We'll review it and get back to you.

  • Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-18 11:31:34

    Thank You Meleti V. I don't have your email address

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-07-18 12:01:31

      Just click the Contact Us link at the top of the page

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-18 15:28:55

vascagase - thread getting too narrow, so will start again here.
Just as a general point, I believe it saves time in online discussion when a person gives both their argument and conclusion, rather than just commenting with leading questions that can sometimes seem vague. Nevertheless that is your prerogative.
Yes, we have some pieces of manuscript that are uncertain ... and we know what they are. The NWT and other translations have identified these explicitly. Let the reader use discernment.
However to use that to promote the idea that God's Word as a whole is unreliable, and that we can cherry pick what we choose to believe, is in my opinion an untenable - or at least disadvantaged - position.
Let me use some leading questions (although the point will not be obscured I hope).
1) Has God given us a written word?
2) Does he have the capability to preserve that word so that its essential meaning will be unadulterated?
3) If so, has he chosen to do so?
4) If he has not chosen to do so, then how does he communicate to us his purpose and what he expects from us?
5) If he has chosen to do so but has allowed an adulterated word to be handed down to us, then how does he expect the common man to determine what is truly His Word? Is God partial so that he expects us to individually separate the true texts from the false on a scholarly basis?

• Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-18 16:48:02

  1 Absolutely 2.Absolutely 3. Yes 4.He expects his creation (humans) to use there God given brain objectively making sure of all things and worship only Him, not any of His Creation. (how)? how far are we willing to go overcoming our indoctrinated ego. 5. Weather you know much or little, the journey of life continues...A big helper is found John 16:12-14..... Pray to God for guidance the way Jesus Prayed, Matt 26:39 as well as all the Prophets. May He guide us all......

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-07-18 17:03:19

    That seems clear enough. So from your point of view the spirit has revealed to you that the gospels are inspired, but the Pauline letter are not.
    And the OT?

    • Reply by vascagase on 2013-07-19 00:24:24

      Apollos, The Comforter/helper (paraclete) was discussed a bit on another post. The OT should be another post imo.But check out Isaiah 37 with 2nd Kings 19

Comment by Anne on 2018-05-15 12:31:38

Evidently, the man was using the words "Good Teacher" as a flattering title. Jesus modestly directed such glory to his heavenly Father, who is good in the supreme sense. (Proverbs 11:2) But Jesus was also affirming a profound truth. Jehovah alone is the standard for what is good. Only he has the sovereign right to determine what is good and what is bad. Adam and Eve, by rebelliously partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, sought to assume that right themselves. Unlike them, Jesus humbly leaves the setting of standards to his Father.
Moreover, Jesus knew that Jehovah is the source of all that is truly good. He is the Giver of "every good gift and every perfect present." (James 1:17)