Why did the man call Jesus "Good Teacher"?

[Clare73]

I have over two years in the Bible College. I have studied a lot of Hebrew and Greek. So you pretty much do not have a leg to stand on. Not that it really matters, if you want to waste your time on nonsense like this, then go right ahead and enjoy yourself.

Nonsense indeed!

 

[Diamond72]

Nonsense indeed!

Ok, so you admit you are promoting nonsense.

 

[Diamond72]

read the relevant texts cited.

What texts do you think I should read? I have read all of the Bible 7 times. How many times have you read the Bible?

 

[Berserk]

Jesus often spoke indirectly, to avoid being killed before his appointed time.

The implications of his statements; e.g., being the Son of God, or "before Abraham was, I AM," were that he was God, and the Jews understood exactly what he was saying (Mk 2:3-7, Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18 8:58-59).

The apostles claimed that he was God (Jn 1:1, 14, and Mt 3:3, Ro 10:9, 13, Heb 1:6, Lk 1:67-68, 76, where he is YHWH).

You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God." In none of the texts you cite does Jesus call Himself "God!" Rather, Jesus reserves the title "God" for "the Father" and admits that "My Father is greater than I (John 14:28)." So in a sense we are debating semantics. The serious issue raised by Mark 10:17-18 is what Jesus means by denying that He is "good" and the relevance of that denial for Jesus' need for a baptism of repentance.

In Luke 1:67-68 "the Lord God of Israel" is distinguished from "a savior" whom He sent and the label "Lord," In Luke 1:76 Romans 10:9, 13 need not express divinity. Hebrews 1:6 identifies Jesus as God's "firstborn," not as "God" and "God's angels" are not portrayed as Jesus' angels even if these angels are to worship Jesus. Jesus is the divine Logos, the rational self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability.

He came to fulfill all that was prophesied of the Messiah and to obey all God's laws so that he could meet the qualification of a perfect sacrifice without defect.

Uh, the OT never prophesies that Jesus would be baptized. And what you mean by "perfect?" What is your response to the texts I cite implying that Jesus needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like every human?

 

[Berserk]

What texts do you think I should read? I have read all of the Bible 7 times. How many times have you read the Bible?

Are you too lazy to follow a debate closely? The texts I recently specified in post # 18, of course.

Diamond 7: "I have over two years in the Bible College. I have studied a lot of Hebrew and Greek. So you pretty much do not have a leg to stand on."
Whoopie! And I have an MDiv from Princeton Seminary and a doctorate in New Testament and Judaism from Harvard (where I was a Teaching Fellow in New Testament and Classics). So please, let's just talk the issues.

 

[Diamond72]

Whoopie! And I have an MDiv from Princeton Seminary and a doctorate in New Testament and Judaism from Harvard (where I was a Teaching Fellow in New Testament and Classics). So please, let's just talk the issues.

Really and they teach you that nonsense there? I don't believe it. Of course the Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that we are to be taught by the Holy Spirit and not man. If the best universities teach nonsense like that, then all the more we need to be very careful.

The Gospel of Mark has 16 chapters, while the Gospel of Matthew has 28 chapters. So if Matthew copied from Mark as you seem to claim then he must have really embellished. Actually, your claim is absurd. To suggest that a disciple of Jesus learned from a child and not Jesus himself. Matthew traveled with Jesus. Mark only was sitting at the feet of Jesus when he was in Jerusalem.

There is an incident in the Book of Acts where Mark's departure during a missionary journey led to a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. This incident is often interpreted to imply a lack of maturity or commitment on Mark's part, from Paul's perspective at that time.

While Paul did not explicitly use the term "immature," his concern about Mark's previous actions during the mission trip and his decision not to take him on the subsequent journey imply a level of reservation regarding Mark's commitment or readiness for the rigors of their missionary work at that time.

Mark was there at the upper room to hear the teaching of Jesus and later on the teaching of Peter. So there is a lot of Peters teachings in Mark. What about the incident of Peter walking water? Mark was not even there, Matthew was. How absurd to say that Matthew who was an eyewitness copied from Mark who was not even there to witness the event.

Matthew 14:28-29 (NIV): "Lord, if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.' 'Come,' he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."

 

[Clare73]

Ok, so you admit you are promoting nonsense.

I am agreeing with your evaluation of @Berserk's post.

 

[Berserk]

Really and they teach you that nonsense there? I don't believe it. Of course the Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that we are to be taught by the Holy Spirit and not man. If the best universities teach nonsense like that, then all the more we need to be very careful.

2 years of Bible, and yet, you pontificate from ignorance without having read a single academic NT Introduction that deals with these subjexts in great detail.

The Gospel of Mark has 16 chapters, while the Gospel of Matthew has 28 chapters. So if Matthew copied from Mark as you seem to claim then he must have really embellished. Actually,

Hardly! Matthew has 2 other sources, Q (from the German "Quelle," meaning "source" and M. Q is a collection of sayings of Jesus used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark or John. Q is the version of a sayings of Jesus collection that circulated west of the Jordan and the Coptric Gospel of Thomas is the version of a sayings of Jesus collection that circulated in the east.

To suggest that a disciple of Jesus learned from a child and not Jesus himself. Matthew traveled with Jesus. Mark only was sitting at the feet of Jesus when he was in Jerusalem.

First. T scholars agree that Matthew never wrote the Gospel that bears his name.
Second, when you read Mark, you're reading Peter's catechetical notes (see below).

There is an incident in the Book of Acts where Mark's departure during a missionary journey led to a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. This incident is often interpreted to imply a lack of maturity or commitment on Mark's part, from Paul's perspective at that time.
While Paul did not explicitly use the term "immature," his concern about Mark's previous actions during the mission trip and his decision not to take him on the subsequent journey imply a level of reservation regarding Mark's commitment or readiness for the rigors of their missionary work at that time.

Barnabas was right to criticize Paul for his lack of empathy for young Mark's first dangerous missionary effort. Barnabas rightly separated from Paul and took Mark with him on a missionary tour of Cyprus (15:37-39), where Mark vindicated Barnabas siding with him against Paul. Imdeed, Paul in effect acknowledges his mistake when he later reunites with Mark and praises him, among nd others, as a source of comfort (Colossians 4:10-11). Mark later becomes Peter's interpreter and missionary companion in Rome, where Mark writes our first Gospel based on Peter's teaching materials (1 Peter 5:13)

Mark was there at the upper room to hear the teaching of Jesus and later on the teaching of Peter. So there is a lot of Peters teachings in Mark. What about the incident of Peter walking water? Mark was not even there, Matthew was. How absurd to say that Matthew who was an eyewitness copied from Mark who was not even there to witness the event.

Matthew 14:28-29 (NIV): "Lord, if it's you,' Peter replied, 'tell me to come to you on the water.' 'Come,' he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."

 

[Clare73]

You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God." In none of the texts you cite does Jesus call Himself "God!" Rather, Jesus reserves the title "God" for "the Father" and admits that "My Father is greater than I (John 14:28)."

Jesus spoke mostly from his humanity, not his divinity.
But sometimes, he gave indication of such: "Before Abraham was, I AM." (Jn 8:58)

So in a sense we are debating semantics. The serious issue raised by Mark 10:17-18 is what Jesus means by denying that He is "good" and the relevance of that denial for Jesus' need for a baptism of repentance.

Hogwash (the dirty hot water after scalding and shaving the hog at butchering).
Let's begin with reporting accurately.
Jesus did not deny that he is good. He stated that only God is good.
Therefore, the implication of the man's statement would be that Jesus is God.
That is what Jesus is pointing out, the implication of the man's statement.

Secondly, Jesus' baptism was not about his sin, it was about him identifying himself with man's sin and failure, and an example to his followers.
His baptism was not about his repentance, but indicated that he was consecrated to God and officially approved by him in the descent of the Holy Spirit (Mk 1:10) and the words of the Father (Mk 1:11, see Ps 2:7, Isa 42:1), and where John publicly announced the arrival of the Messiah and the beginning of his ministry.
Jesus' baptism had nothing to do with him repenting of sin.

 

[Clare73]

You just conceded my point: I'm denying neither the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ, just that He considered Himself "God" and not just "the Son of God."

I have never claimed that Jesus said, "I am God."
However, what he thought of himself is pretty clear in Jn 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Which we find demonstrated by his apostles; e.g., Jn 1:1, 14.

Uh, the OT never prophesies that Jesus would be baptized. And what you mean by "perfect?" What is your response to the texts I cite implying that Jesus needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like every human?

Addressed in my post #29, above.

 

[Diamond72]

2 years of Bible, and yet, you pontificate from ignorance

You are calling me ignorant? That looks like a violation of the rules to me. Is that what they teach you in those fancy schools?

 

[Berserk]

I have never claimed that Jesus said, "I am God."
However, what he thought of himself is pretty clear in Jn 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Which we find demonstrated by his apostles; e.g., Jn 1:1, 14.

Addressed in my post #29, above.

Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, " given the implication in Luke 2:45-52, Hebrews 4:15, and 5:8 that He needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like the rest of us. But neither you nor anyone else here has taken up the challenge and have instead ducked these texts.

(1) Luke 2:45-52: A 12-year-ol Jesus inexcusably deserts His family entourage in their journey back to Nazareth to return to Jerusalem. His egregious mistake is that He doesn't bother to notify Mary and Joseph about where He is going. As a result, Jesus is responsible for His parents' 3 days of anguish as they understandably fear that something dreadful has happened to their son and are forced to go back and launch a 3-day painful search for Him. Mary is right to scold her son:

"His mother said to Him: "Child, why have you treated us this way? Look, your father and I have been searching for you with great anxiety (2:48)!""

Jesus then compounds His inconsiderate behavior by displaying no empathy for His parents' anguish:

"Didn't you know I must be in my Father's house?"

Luke recognizes Jesus' immaturity here and muses: "Then He was obedient to His mother... and increased in wisdom and divine favor (2:51-52)."
How can Jesus "increase... in divine favor" unless He was previously less in divine favor? This story is a graphic illustration of why Jesus later felt the need for a baptism of repentance. So I ask again, "What do you mean by Jesus' "perfection?"
And I haven't even discussed Hebrews 4:15 and 5:8 yet.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Jesus was called "Good Teacher", because if the illustration is looked at as a whole. It can be seen that this is being used to show Jesus is God.

The ruler states
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher,

Jesus reply's
So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Jesus was called "Good Teacher"
No one is good but God
Jesus being called "Good Teacher" shows that the ruler recognized Jesus as God.

The Socratic method of teaching? Instead of lecturing at students, the Socratic teacher asks them questions to help them reason out the answer on their own.

Premise 1: Only God is good.
Premise 2: Jesus is good.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God.

 

[Diamond72]

Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, "

So no one can tell you what perfect means? No one has a dictionary. Perfect means MATURE and producing FRUIT. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it did not produce any fruit. Matthew 3:8 “Produce therefore fruit that is fitting of repentance.

Perfect outside of the Bible means well balanced. This is what plastic surgeons study to help people to be more perfect looking. This has to do with the regulation of DNA. The on-off regulation of DNA refers to the control of gene expression, determining when a particular gene is active (expressed) or inactive (not expressed). Gene expression is regulated by a complex interplay of various molecular mechanisms and factors.

In terms of God His character is defined by perfect love, justice, compassion, and righteousness. God sent the message to me at least 15 times that He is a God of absolute and perfect Justice. People think that it is not just for someone to burn in hell for all eternity. We may not understand any of that but God assures us that He Justice is perfect and precise. So we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Clare73]

Nope! I have twice challenged you and others here to explain the sense in which Jesus is "perfect, "

He is spiritually perfect, he never sinned against God, but always obeyed him.

given the implication in Luke 2:45-52,

Did Jesus not indicate he was doing his Father's will?
I note the distinction between Mary's "your father" (Joseph) and Jesus' "my Father" (God) in Lk 2:48-49.

Hebrews 4:15, and 5:8 that He needed to mature and learn by trial and error just like the rest of us.
But neither you nor anyone else here has taken up the challenge and have instead ducked these texts.

Your supposed "challenge" by Lk 2:45-52 is absurd.

Developing as a human person did not make him either naturally nor spiritually imperfect.
Two-year olds are not imperfect because they are not adults.

 

[Berserk]

So no one can tell you what perfect means? No one has a dictionary.

The NT was written in Greek not in King James English and there is no one-to one equivalent between the Greek "teleos" and its English equivalent.

Perfect means MATURE and producing FRUIT. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it did not produce any fruit. Matthew 3:8 “Produce therefore fruit that is fitting of repentance.

Uh, where in the NT do you find the word "perfect" used in connection with fruit-bearing? Does your concept of NT "perfection" allow Jesus to mature through a process of trial-and-error like every human and like Luke 2:45-52 illustrates?

 

[Berserk]

Did Jesus not indicate he was doing his Father's will?

Irrelevant to the key issue--that Jesus was inconsiderate to His parents by leaving the family entourage without permission and, worse, without telling His parents where he was going! Any parent would worry about possbile foul play.

I note the distinction between Mary's "your father" (Joseph) and Jesus' "my Father" (God) in Lk 2:48-49.
Your supposed "challenge" by Lk 2:45-52 is absurd.

So you actually believe that Jesus' pious motive for leaving Hs family unanounced excuses the 3 days of anguished search that He caused His parents?
Readers will notice that Clare also ducks Luke's conclusion from this incident that Jesus "grew in favor with God," a phrase that implies a prior period of less favor with God.

 

[Diamond72]

Uh, where in the NT do you find the word "perfect" used in connection with fruit-bearing?

The Bible often uses the metaphor of bearing fruit to illustrate spiritual growth, the evidence of faith, and the manifestation of Christian virtues.

In the context of the Bible, the term "perfect" can carry different meanings based on the original Greek or Hebrew words used and the context in which it appears. Here's a general definition and understanding of "perfect" as used in the Bible:

Perfect (adjective):

1. Complete or Whole: In some instances, "perfect" refers to being complete or whole, lacking nothing essential. It can signify a state of fullness or entirety.
2. Moral Integrity and Maturity: "Perfect" is often used to describe a high moral or spiritual standard, implying maturity and completeness in one's character, actions, or faith. It's about striving for moral excellence and the completeness of a virtuous life.
3. Blameless or Without Blemish: In the context of offerings and sacrifices, "perfect" can refer to being without blemish or defect, symbolizing purity and acceptability to God.
4. Fulfillment of Purpose: "Perfect" can also imply fulfilling one's intended purpose or reaching a state of completion according to God's plan.

In the New Testament, the Greek word often translated as "perfect" is "teleios" (τέλειος), which encompasses the ideas of maturity, completeness, and reaching a goal or purpose. It's used in various contexts to encourage believers to strive for spiritual maturity and to grow in faith and love.

In summary, "perfect" in the Bible often encompasses the notions of completeness, moral integrity, blamelessness, fulfilling one's purpose, and reaching a state of spiritual or moral maturity. The specific meaning can vary based on the particular verse and context in which it is used.

τέλειος, τελεία, τέλειον (τέλος), in classic Greek sometimes also τέλειος, τέλειον (cf. Winers Grammar, § 11,1), from Homer down, the Sept. several times for שָׁלֵם, תָּמִים, etc.; properly, brought to its end, finished; lacking nothing necessary to completeness; perfect: ἔργον, James 1:4; ἡ ἀγάπη, 1 John 4:18; ὁ νόμος, James 1:25; (δώρημα, James 1:17); τελειοτερα σκηνή, a more perfect (excellent) tabernacle, Hebrews 9:11; τό τέλειον, substantively, that which is perfect: consummate human integrity and virtue, Romans 12:2 (others take it here as an adjective belonging to θέλημα); the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven, 1 Corinthians 13:10; of men, full-grown, adult; of full age, mature (Aeschylus Ag. 1504; Plato, legg. 11, p. 929{c}): Hebrews 5:14; τέλειος ἀνήρ (Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 4f; 8, 7, 6; Philo de cherub. § 32; opposed to παιδίον νήπιον, Polybius 5, 29, 2; for other examples from other authors see Bleek, Brief a. d. Hebrew ii., 2, p. 133f), μέχρι ... εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, until we rise to the same level of knowledge which we ascribe to a full-grown man, until we can be likened to a full-grown man, Ephesians 4:13 (opposed to νήπιοι, 14); τέλειοι ταῖς φρεσί (opposed to παιδία and νηπιαζοντες ταῖς φρεσί), 1 Corinthians 14:20 (here A. V. men); absolutely, οἱ τέλειοι, the perfect, i. e. the more intelligent, ready to apprehend divine things, 1 Corinthians 2:6 (R. V. marginal reading full-grown) (opposed to νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ, ; in simple opposed to νήπιος, Philo de legg. alleg. i. § 30; for מֵבִין, opposed to μαντανων, 1 Chronicles 25:8; (cf. Lightfoot on Colossians 1:28; Philippians 3:15)); of mind and character, one who has reached the proper height of virtue and integrity: Matthew 5:48; Matthew 19:21; Philippians 3:15 (cf. Lightfoot as above); James 1:4; in an absolute sense, of God: Matthew 5:48; τέλειος ἀνήρ, James 3:2 (τέλειος δίκαιος, Sir. 44:17); as respects understanding and goodness, Colossians 4:12; τέλειος ἄνθρωπος ἐν Χριστῷ, Colossians 1:28 (cf. Lightfoot as the synonym above: see ὁλόκληρος, and Trench, § xxii.).

 

[Diamond72]

The NT was written in Greek not in King James English and there is no one-to one equivalent between the Greek "teleos" and its English equivalent.

I like to go back to see what Moses said. False teaching and doctrine can be exposed that way. Only Jesus can add to what we receive from Moses. The teachings of Jesus is often in RED letters. Most of His teaching can be found in the Sermon on the Mount.

Deuteronomy 18:15
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to him.

Numbers 12:8
With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Exodus 33 11
The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friendThe LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend

 

[Berserk]

(2) "Son though He was, He learned obedience through the things He suffered (Hebrews 5:8)."

Being fully human, Jesus struggled with obedience and needed suffering to help Him obey. In Gethsemane He even initially demanded that God release Him from His mission: "Remove this cup from me (Mark 14;36)!" But then, of course, He ultimately surrendered to God's will.

(3)"We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in every way just as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15)."

So like us. Jesus had to battle lust and learn by His mistakes through trial and error. Thus, it is understandable that He felt the need to receive a baptism of repentance. "Repentance"means a change of mind that brings remorse. How then could He be sinless? Sin must be understood as a condition of separation from God and nothing Jesus did or thought in His education process by trial and error separated Him from God.