Why did the man call Jesus "Good Teacher"?

[GDL]

(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.

There's no doubt that Jesus in His humanity grew from a child to a man and Heb5 is one of my favorite areas in the Text.

Do you see anywhere in the Text where Jesus struggled with obedience to God other than in Gethsemane before His crucifixion?

Are you saying, as it seems you are, that Jesus had to suffer to help Him obey in every point of obedience to God His Father? Can we not learn and pass a test with flying colors, as is said? Would a perfect instructor not teach perfectly so the son/student could pass the tests? Did Jesus show any sense of failure in the desert, or did He answer perfectly with the Word of God?

• Where do you see anything that says Jesus had to battle lust?
  • At 12 years old He was amazing the scholars with His wisdom. What is there to make us think as he grew into puberty that He didn't have a handle on lust with His mind controlling His body? As I recall, the youth of Israel are said to have memorized Proverbs by that age. We're told to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Should we think this is not how our Father raised our first-born brother and Lord (Isa50:4)?
  • Where do you read anything that says Jesus had to learn by trial and error?
• Where do see anything that says Jesus made mistakes?
  • When Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem and His parents were distressed/in pain, is there anything that says they, even though they did not understand what He told them, did not accept that it was God's will for Jesus to remain behind? Doesn't it look like Mary was learning more about her son whom she knew was conceived of the Spirit, which Joseph also knew? Where does it say Jesus repented for this? He repented for being about His Father's will?
• Sin must be understood [only] as separation from God? It's essentially defined for is in 1John as lawlessness and unrighteousness. So, you're telling us Jesus was lawless but not so much to separate Himself from God? Didn't He rhetorically ask the legal scholars if they could convict Him of sin? Where can you show us specifically in the Text that the Son of God - the God-Man in hypostatic union - ever sinned?
• When Jesus commands John to baptize Him and explains His command as being "proper (which can also carry the sense of being something being conspicuous to the senses) to pleroō all righteousness", you're saying Jesus needed to repent of sins? Again, where does the Text ever say Jesus sinned? Is there another possible meaning of "pleroō all righteousness"?

You do realize you're putting forth some novel theories to others who have been taught and trained from the Word of God differently than you, don't you? With respect, for now, degrees don't automatically confirm learning truth vs. error. I watched with interest a few decades ago how the Dr's. of Theology would renounce unbiblical teaching, so the unbiblical teachers began getting their own doctorates so credentials could be asserted against credentials. Also, not knowing your timeline, fresh degrees do not necessarily mean over time in the Text, you will not come to change some of your thinking. And one of the problems with learning in error whether it be from a college, a seminary, or just unlearned (learned in error) teachers, is that it can take a lot of time and work in the Text and likely humbly eating some large crows to get to Truth.

 

[Clare73]

Irrelevant to the key issue--that Jesus was inconsiderate to His parents

If you think consideration of anyone takes precedence over God's will, you are somewhat misinformed.

 

[Clare73]

There's no doubt that Jesus in His humanity grew from a child to a man and Heb5 is one of my favorite areas in the Text.

Do you see anywhere in the Text where Jesus struggled with obedience to God other than in Gethsemane before His crucifixion?

Are you saying, as it seems you are, that Jesus had to suffer to help Him obey in every point of obedience to God His Father? Can we not learn and pass a test with flying colors, as is said? Would a perfect instructor not teach perfectly so the son/student could pass the tests? Did Jesus show any sense of failure in the desert, or did He answer perfectly with the Word of God?

• Where do you see anything that says Jesus had to battle lust?
  • At 12 years old He was amazing the scholars with His wisdom. What is there to make us think as he grew into puberty that He didn't have a handle on lust with His mind controlling His body? As I recall, the youth of Israel are said to have memorized Proverbs by that age. We're told to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Should we think this is not how our Father raised our first-born brother and Lord (Isa50:4)?
  • Where do you read anything that says Jesus had to learn by trial and error?
• Where do see anything that says Jesus made mistakes?
  • When Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem and His parents were distressed/in pain, is there anything that says they, even though they did not understand what He told them, did not accept that it was God's will for Jesus to remain behind? Doesn't it look like Mary was learning more about her son whom she knew was conceived of the Spirit, which Joseph also knew? Where does it say Jesus repented for this? He repented for being about His Father's will?
• Sin must be understood [only] as separation from God? It's essentially defined for is in 1John as lawlessness and unrighteousness. So, you're telling us Jesus was lawless but not so much to separate Himself from God? Didn't He rhetorically ask the legal scholars if they could convict Him of sin? Where can you show us specifically in the Text that the Son of God - the God-Man in hypostatic union - ever sinned?
• When Jesus commands John to baptize Him and explains His command as being "proper (which can also carry the sense of being something being conspicuous to the senses) to pleroō all righteousness", you're saying Jesus needed to repent of sins? Again, where does the Text ever say Jesus sinned? Is there another possible meaning of "pleroō all righteousness"?

You do realize you're putting forth some novel theories to others who have been taught and trained from the Word of God differently than you, don't you? With respect, for now, degrees don't automatically confirm learning truth vs. error. I watched with interest a few decades ago how the Dr's. of Theology would renounce unbiblical teaching, so the unbiblical teachers began getting their own doctorates so credentials could be asserted against credentials. Also, not knowing your timeline, fresh degrees do not necessarily mean over time in the Text, you will not come to change some of your thinking.

And one of the problems with learning in error whether it be from a college, a seminary, or just unlearned (learned in error) teachers, is that it can take a lot of time and work in the Text and likely humbly eating some large crows to get to Truth.

But what a testimony it is to the intellectual honesty of a person who can eat large crows to get to the truth.

 

[Berserk]

If you think consideration of anyone takes precedence over God's will, you are somewhat misinformed.

Your comment locates you rigidly in among the throngs of those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time!
Jesus' grandiosity is no excuse for being unapologetic for causing His parents' 3-days of anguished searching.
No pious motive can excuse His failure to inform His parents about where He was going. God evidently agrees with this verdict because Luke infers from this incident that Jesus' needed to "grow in favor with God." Jesus probably knew that if He asked His parents for permission to go back to Jerusalem by Himself, they would rightly say No! What responsible parent would allow their 12-year-old child to wander around a big city by himself for several days without adult supervision or protection?

 

[GDL]

Your comment locates you rigidly in among the throngs of those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time!
Jesus' grandiosity is no excuse for being unapologetic for causing His parents' 3-days of anguished searching.
No pious motive can excuse His failure to inform His parents about where He was going. God evidently agrees with this verdict because Luke infers from this incident that Jesus' needed to "grow in favor with God." Jesus probably knew that if He asked His parents for permission to go back to Jerusalem by Himself, they would rightly say No! What responsible parent would allow their 12-year-old child to wander around a big city by himself for several days without adult supervision or protection?

This will be in addition to what @Clare73 may say.

It seems you have earned a higher degree (assuming you truly have) in eisegesis and speculation.

Jesus' ultimate responsible parent is God our Father. From what I can see from the Text, our Father was always quite pleased with His Son and we are very fortunate this is the case...

 

[Berserk]

It seems you have earned a higher degree (assuming you truly have) in eisegesis and speculation.

Jesus' ultimate responsible parent is God our Father. From what I can see from the Text, our Father was always quite pleased with His Son and we are very fortunate this is the case...

Now you are denying the full humanity of Jesus with all its limitations--a denial that would preclude the immaturity and vulnerability of a 12-year-old boy. And you tacitly assume that Jesus' adult mission exempts an immature 12-ear old from honoring His parents by asking their permission to do what no responsible parents would approve who care about the vulnerability of their young son, wandering with no provisions, alone in a big city. Worst of all, you ignore the ghastly inconsiderateness of Jesus' indifference to the anguish of His parents' 3-day search for their lost son, whom they rightly fear might have come into harm's way. But then, as a lifelong evangelical, I can affirm that evangelicals are not known for their respect and considerateness of other people's feelings.

And speaking of eisegesis, your comment about Jesus' favor with God betrays your failure to grasp the meaning of Luke's conclusion, "Jesus ... grew in favor with God." Young Jesus' act of inconsiderateness places Him as "in less" favor with God at the time. The word "increase" implies a prior period of "less!"

 

[Clare73]

Now you are denying the full humanity of Jesus with all its limitations

Actually, it is you who are denying the effect of being born sinless, and without sin his entire life.
It is you that is denying the effect of Mary's knowledge that her son was sired by Almighty God himself, a begotten Son of God (Lk 1:35),
which gave her immediate understanding and agreement with Jesus when she was informed by him.

your comment about Jesus' favor with God betrays your failure to grasp the meaning of Luke's conclusion, "Jesus ... grew in favor with God."

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

"He grew in wisdom and stature. . ." (he was not born with all human wisdom and knowledge, he matured as do all humans).

Young Jesus' act of inconsiderateness places Him as "in less" favor with God at the time. The word "increase" implies a prior period of "less!"

The word "increase" implies his favor grew as his maturity, wisdom and obedience grew.

What a distasteful low contra-Biblical view you have of the perfect begotten divine Son of God.

 

[Clare73]

This will be in addition to what @Clare73 may say.

It seems you have earned a higher degree (assuming you truly have) in eisegesis and speculation.

Jesus' ultimate responsible parent is God our Father. From what I can see from the Text, our Father was always quite pleased with His Son and we are very fortunate this is the case...

Feel free to jump in ahead of me anytime.

I will be happy to add whatever else I have to say.

 

[Berserk]

Actually, it is you who are denying the effect of being born sinless, and without sin his entire life.

First. your perspective implies that Jesus is not fully human and needs to learn by trial and error like everyone else.
Second, you confuse "sin" with mistakes and poor decisions and thus create a cartoon Jesus that feds the secular concept of a Jesus mtth.

It is you that is denying the effect of Mary's knowledge that her son was sired by Almighty God himself, a begotten Son of God (Lk 1:35),
which gave her immediate understanding and agreement with Jesus when she was informed by him.

Your oversimplified assumption here overlooks the opposition of Jesus' family--mother and brothers--to His messianic claims during His ministry.

The word "increase" implies his favor grew as his maturity, wisdom and obedience grew.

As always, you ignore the fact (1) that this remark expresses Luke's reaction to Jesus' inconsiderate treatment of His parents and (2) that AN IMMATURE Jesus NEEDED to grow "in favor with God."

What a distasteful low contra-Biblical view you have of the perfect begotten divine Son of God.

 

[Clare73]

First. your perspective implies that Jesus is not fully human and needs to learn by trial and error like everyone else.

Do not all fully human creatures have to learn by observation and assimilation as they grow?

Second, you confuse "sin" with mistakes and poor decisions and thus create a cartoon Jesus that feds the secular concept of a Jesus mtth.

Demonstration of your assertion?

Your oversimplified assumption here overlooks the opposition of Jesus' family--mother and brothers--to His messianic claims during His ministry.

Scripture for this assertion, please.

As always, you ignore the fact (1) that this remark expresses Luke's reaction to Jesus' inconsiderate treatment of His parents and (2)

Actually, your humanistic and contra-Biblical view expresses failure to appreciate the context of Mary's knowledge of Jesus as the begotten Son of God (Lk 1:35).

 

[GDL]

Now you are denying the full humanity of Jesus with all its limitations--a denial that would preclude the immaturity and vulnerability of a 12-year-old boy. And you tacitly assume that Jesus' adult mission exempts an immature 12-ear old from honoring His parents by asking their permission to do what no responsible parents would approve who care about the vulnerability of their young son, wandering with no provisions, alone in a big city. Worst of all, you ignore the ghastly inconsiderateness of Jesus' indifference to the anguish of His parents' 3-day search for their lost son, whom they rightly fear might have come into harm's way. But then, as a lifelong evangelical, I can affirm that evangelicals are not known for their respect and considerateness of other people's feelings.

You seem to be carrying some hostile baggage from having your feelings hurt and you seem not to like children. You also seem to want to focus on Jesus' humanity as if we're speaking of a normal human child sired ultimately by Adam.

I simply realize from the Text that we're dealing with the uniquely born God-Man, who by the age of 12 was amazing the Torah scholars of the day, and that as a sinless child He grew under the direct tutelage and protection of our Heavenly Father and would continue to learn how to remain sinless as He aged and faced more ways to sin. Yes, I'm considering that sinless means sinless and that birth in hypostatic union probably means some things you were not taught.

And speaking of eisegesis, your comment about Jesus' favor with God betrays your failure to grasp the meaning of Luke's conclusion, "Jesus ... grew in favor with God." Young Jesus' act of inconsiderateness places Him as "in less" favor with God at the time. The word "increase" implies a prior period of "less!"

I've noted how you are stuck on that phrase "grew" and are reading into it in ghastly ways (eisegesis) things like "ghastly inconsiderateness".

It's really not that unusual that a young child "was growing", but growing and becoming strong in wisdom as Jesus was (Luke2:40) I'd say is unusual since we see His amazing scholarly condition at 12 years old.

Then in Luke2:43 we're again reminded of His temporal youth when the Text speaks of Him as the boy/youth (pre-pubescent) Jesus.

In Luke2:47 all hearing Him were being amazed/astonished at His intelligence/understanding/content of His understanding and His answers. This doesn't sound quite normal, to me at least.

Then in Luke2:29 Jesus in answering His parents says a few interesting things:

• When He says to them 'have you (pl) not known" the verb tense is telling them that based upon something in the past they've known something about Him. So, what have they known about Him for about 12 years now?
• Jesus then uses a word that means "necessity" - it was of necessitythat Jesus be in the things of His FATHER.
  • This seems like a reminder to them of who Jesus really is.
  • Go back through Luke2 at minimum and see what was said about Him that His parents had heard. Couple this with His miraculous birth that they risked their lives to protect.
  • This can more easily be a matter of God the Father reminding Jesus parents who Jesus really is and whose Son He really is.
  • Your focus on a bad child is abnormal for a Bible student. Do you seriously think God our Father would have His Son disobey Torah? You should be retaining some overall context on who Jesus Christ is from conception.
• In Luke2:51 Jesus was being submissive/subordinate to them and Mary was keeping mentally in her heart all the words.
  • So, it seems there was time for Jesus to be doing what His FATHER wanted and there was time for Him to functioning as an obedient son. I think He did both and was without sin. I further think His parents were learning their position as well.
• In Luke2:52 it more literally says Jesus was progressing/advancing in wisdom and age/[physical] maturity.
  • I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of the translation of the last phrase yet. Because of the noun and the preposition used in relation to God and to men, I think there may be a more meaningful way to translate this. If you were truly trained and not predisposed to error, you could work on this in Truth.
  • One thing I know is that you have absolutely zero warrant to eisegete this verse to mean Jesus was a sinful child and this verse proves it. Rather, what it proves is that your interpretive abilities are not sound and that you have a foundational problem in your Theology and Christology.
  • Jesus was advancing from amazing people with His wisdom and content of His understanding at 12 years old. Is there any doubt why during His ministry no one - absolutely no one - could contend with Him in debate? Imagine what advancing from amazing people at 12 years old turned into. Or you might just read the Text without blinders.
  • The other word just tells us Jesus was maturing physically from pre-pubescence into young adulthood. What's unusual about this? Nothing. What's unusual is that God is in a growing human body and the spiritual maturation is apparently astounding.

What's with the screen name?

 

[Berserk]

Demonstration of your assertion?

(1) The "scandal" that envelops Jesus in Nazareth seems to include the opposition of His whole family:

"A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN AND IN HIS OWN HOUSE (Mark 6:4).".

This family opposition can be illustrated by various other Gospel references:

(2) Jesus' family think He is "out of His mind for not giving His audience a meal break. Clearly, their hostility goes beyond enforced fasting and includes their objections to Jesus' claims in His teaching:

"The crowd came together so that they could not even eat. When His family heard it, they went out to physically restrain Him; for they (His family!) were saying, "He is out of His mind (Mark 3:20-21)."

The 2nd "they" also refers to His family, since the family is so angry that they want to restrain Him.
The context (3:31-35) shows that the intended members of His hostile family include His mother and brothers.

(3) Shortly thereafter, His mother and brothers interrupt Jesus' teaching session in a crowded house and insist that He come out to talk to them.

"Then His mother and brothers came and, standing outside, THEY... CALLED HIM. A crowd as sitting around Him; and they said to Him: "Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for you." And He replied: "Who are my mother and brothers?... Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my mother and brother and sister (3:31-35)."

Jesus' stress on the greater importance of His spiritual family seems to express His annoyance ONLY BECAUSE of their interruption and their disrespectful view that He is out of His mind.

(4) Despite Elizabeth's earlier Spirit-inspired acclamation, "Blessed are you among women!" Jesus objects to a woman's acclamation that Mary is blessed. The word "rather" in Luke 11: 27-28 hints at the tension between Jesus and His mother:

"A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him: "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you@1" But He said, "Blessed RATHER are those who hear the Word of God and obey it (Luke 11:27-28)!""

(5) "For even His own brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5)."

A major catalyst for His family's conversion seems to have been the resurrection appearance to His brother James.

 

[Clare73]

(1) The "scandal" that envelops Jesus in Nazareth seems to include the opposition of His whole family:

My Bible reports no "scandal," only false accusations by his enemies, and nowhere is "opposition" of his family presented, only their concern for his welfare.

"A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN AND IN HIS OWN HOUSE (Mark 6:4).".

This family opposition can be illustrated by various other Gospel references:

(2) Jesus' family think He is "out of His mind for not giving His audience a meal break.

Such amatuerish exegesis denigrating the God-man is rarely seen.

Jesus' family was concerned that he was overdoing it and would exhaust himself because of the huge crowds always gathered around him leaving him no time to eat, so they came to remove him from the house so he could have a break.

 

[Berserk]

n

My Bible reports no "scandal,"

You don't know Greek. The verb in 6:3 is "skandalizo,' which means "scanadalize."

only false accusations by his enemies, and nowhere is "opposition" of his family presented, only their concern for his welfare.

6:1-6 expresses no concern for His welfare and the "opposition of his family" is clearly expressed in Jesus' complaint that He "is without honor among His own kin and in His own house (6:4)."

Such amatuerish exegesis denigrating the God-man is rarely seen.

On the contrary, it is a standard interpretation of the Greek of 3:20-21. You overlook 2 key points:
(1) The family wants to "physically restrain" Jesus. "Harpaze" is a violent verb suggesting hostility.
(2) The 2 "theys" stand parallel and therefore both refer to the family's hostility. If Mark wanted to say the crowd were saying He's "out of His mind," Mark would have inserted "the crowd" as the accusers. In fact, the crowd is quite happy to sit at Jesus' feet and learn, even without a lunch break.

Jesus' family was concerned that he was overdoing it and would exhaust himself because of the huge crowds always gathered around him leaving him no time to eat, so they came to remove him from the house so he could have a break.

On the contrary, Mark never mentions the family's concern that Jesus missed lunch, a minor inconvenience that does not warrant family efforts to "restrain' Jesus. What concerns His family is that "they (the crowd at Jesus' feet) could not even eat" and the family's perception of Jesus' inconsiderateness is what energizes their attempt to interrupt and restrain Him.
Notice how Clare ducks the relevance of to all this of the opposition of Jesus' brothers: "For His own brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5)."

 

[Clare73]

You don't know Greek. The verb in 6:3 is "skandalizo,' which means "scanadalize."

And scandalize (v.) does not mean scandal (n.), it means to horrify or shock the moral sense of (usually an innocent mind).

 

[Berserk]

And scandalize (v.) does not mean scandal (n.), it means to horrify or shock the moral sense of (usually an innocent mind).

Nope! You didn't use the massive standard dictionary for Koine Greek by Arndt and Gingrich, where the verb "skandalizomai" has the nuances "give offense to [scandalize] , anger, shock" and Mark 6:3 is given as a NT example of these nuances. The equivalent noun "skandalon" is similarly defined as "that which gives offense or cause revulsion" (and hence scandal--p. 760).

 

[John Helpher]

Why did the ruler call Jesus "Good Teacher"?

It looks like flattery. It's the same reason people say stuff like, "most honourable your excellency the wonderful" to people from whom they want something. This guy would have already had some idea of what Jesus was on about. He wanted the miracles, the salvation, eternal life, all the good stuff. But, he didn't want the material discipline. He was hoping his devotion to the law would somehow spare him from having to sell it all like everyone else who joined this new movement.

He grew up in a society all about giving praise to one another. It's just what you do. That's why Jesus warned his followers about it. Be careful of these leaders who love special titles and those who think decorations on their clothing somehow give them authority. Be careful of leaders who love to put themselves first, who take the best for themselves. He chastised them for making public spectacles of their praying, fasting, and charity giving. He called them hypocrites for their attention seeking ways. It was rampant everywhere.

Israel, at that time, was a cesspool of self-serving complacency. Everyone wanted to be thought of as good and remember that Jesus was not widely regarded as the messiah worthy of such titles, at that time. Many people thought he was just some new prophet, or a reincarnation of a previous prophet, or some other theory. It's easy for us today to assume that this guy was calling Jesus good because he recognized the grand importance of Jesus' role as the Messiah of all man kind like we do with 2000 years of hindsight, but there was still a lot of confusion about just who Jesus really was back then. It was not presumed that he deserved to be called good because of his divinity. In fact, he was considered a criminal by the local authorities; his own people. That was not the expectation people had for the warrior messiah who would save Israel from all her enemies with a crushing rod of iron.

The "good" here is flattery for what the rich guy most likely interpreted as a godly prophet. Based on the context, it was so common to use such flattery that he may not have even realized he was doing it, a bit like we do today, going around calling people Master and Father without realizing it. Mr. is a shortened form of master and Sir. is a shortened form of father.

And, the best evidence that this was flattery is that Jesus really is good. He does deserve to be called good, even if it's coming from someone who only means it as flattery. I believe it is consistent with Jesus' character that despite being the one living person allowed to accept the compliment, instead dodges it for the sake of principle alone. He doesn't want to be flattered even when it's true.

In John 5:44 he makes this painfully clear, "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" People go around complimenting and seeking compliments from one another while neglecting what God thinks of them, because it's easier to get honour from one another. We have lower standards. Usually, we're even happy to fake it. "Good person, tell me I am good, too".

 

[GDL]

Jesus' inconsiderateness

This is astounding.

 

[Clare73]

Nope! You didn't use the massive standard dictionary for Koine Greek by Arndt and Gingrich, where the verb "skandalizomai" has the nuances "give offense to [scandalize] , anger, shock"

That's what I said.

 

[Berserk]

This is astounding.

(1) What's "astounding" is that you don't think it's inconsiderate for a boy (age 12) to desert His family entourage on their walk back to Nazareth
without His parents' permission and, worse, without telling them where He was going, making them worry that He might have come in harm's way and forcing them to embark on an anguished 3-day search for Him in the big city Jerusalem! As Mary rightly scolds Jesus:

"Why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you with great anxiety (Luke 2:48)!"
So Luke recognizes from this incident that Jesus needs to "grow in favor with God (2:52)."

(2) What's also "astounding" is that you can't recognize His family's motive for interrupting Jesus and trying to restrain Him for being inconsiderate to His audience for not allowing them a meal break during His long teaching session (Mark 3:20-21):

"...they could not even eat. When His family hear it, THEY went out to restrain Him; for THEY [His family!] were sayng He has gone out of His mind!"

Note that the family expresses no concern for the trivial detail that Jesus gave up lunch for a noble cause.
His family's overreaction illustrates their opposition to His ministry. Thus, Jesus laments that He "is not without honor except in His hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN AND IN HIS OWN HOUSE (Mark 6:4)." And John laments: "His own brothers didn't believe in Him (John 7:5)."

Despite His essential human learning curve, He was never separated from God and was therefore sinless. I love Jesus precisely because He not only died for my sins, but because He was fully human and learned by trial and error just like me: "Son though He was, He learned obedience through the things He suffered (Hebrews 5:7). So He can fully identify with my struggles by direct experience. That's precisely why I used to witness to His Gospel in the streets and door to door across Canada.