Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly...

2»

Comments

  • @Pages On the contrary, no trinitarian makes the claim that God was with God, this entire argument is fallacious and nonsensical. 

    You are the one making the claim that Jesus is God so explain why it doesn't say "In the Beginning was God and God was with God" which is your false teaching.

    Of course reading this theology in print would offend your sense of justice. How can God be with God and at the same time be God?" See how your theology falls on its face?

    "So God has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

    To claim this and you do by claiming Jesus is God, how is it God was worse than the angels before he inherited a name?

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    "You are the one making the claim that Jesus is God so explain why it doesn't say "In the Beginning was God and God was with God" which is your false teaching."

    This was fully answered in my previous post, perhaps a re-read, or review, of that previous post will refresh your mind as to the answer of this absurd assertion. This also applies to the remainder of your post I'm now responding to as well.

    I have yet to read an answer to two questions, one each from my last two posts, I'll repeat them again below.

    Moving on, I want to ask a question of you regarding the early days of the movement when Jesus was worshiped, as noted in the July 15, 1898 Watchtower Magazine pg. 216, "Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so.".

    When was this worship of Jesus changed and by whom? Do you know?

    Can you tell me who else, other than the WT, believes as you do that beginning in Jn. 1:1 has to be defined as a point of origin for the Word?

  • @Pages This was fully answered in my previous post, perhaps a re-read, or review, of that previous post will refresh your mind as to the answer of this absurd assertion. This also applies to the remainder of your post I'm now responding to as well.

    No, tell us how "God has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

    You have no answer because you are a fraud.

    Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God.

    • Tell us Legion, how is it that you claim God said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God.

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    "No, tell us how "God has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

    I assume your "no" to mean you won't answer my two questions posted now twice.

    You answered this question yourself in a previous post when you wrote this: "The trinity doctrine itself states, "the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Son or the Father""

    Based on your question, the context of Heb. 1:1-13 revolves on the relational aspect of God's Son to God, His Father – Son implies there is a Father. It is the Son who is the recipient of this exalted name (Heb. 1:4 cf. Phil. 2:9) from His Father. 

    The Father says of His Son (Heb. 1:8-9) what has been already stated in Heb. 1:3 regarding His Son who is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being". This statement allows no room for a lesser, degraded, qualitative sense regarding the Son as to His being. It also doesn't allow for Michael to be the Son, as the Son is "the exact representation of his being" which will logically mean that God, Himself, is thereby an angel.   

    "You have no answer because you are a fraud."

    "Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God."

    "Tell us Legion, how is it that you claim God said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God.""

    So now you wish to argue that in Mk. 10:18 Jesus compares himself to God, and only God is good; therefore, Jesus can not be God for this reason?     

    That you make this assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good, only serves to say that Jesus is himself not good; with the resulting inference that Jesus has sin and imperfection – rendering Jesus as an imperfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sin and salvation for all believers.      

    Jesus is simply pointing out the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man. In other words, only God is good and this goodness was credited to Jesus by the young man. There is no denial by Jesus of being good, or God, in this text of scripture. 

  • @Pages That you make this assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good, only serves to say that Jesus is himself not good; with the resulting inference that Jesus has sin and imperfection – rendering Jesus as an imperfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sin and salvation for all believers.

    I'm not the one making the assertion. It is Jesus Christ himself. I simply quoted his saying. "Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God."

    Your the one making the claim that God said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God." Of this is not being accurate at all. Now if we read the statement from Jesus, it is a true statement of a false one.

    Since Jesus pointed out and asked "Why do you call Me good?" You make the assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good,

    • The first address is to the question "Why do you call Me good?"
    • And the address is to the statement made by whom?? (JESUS) stating Nobody is good except one, God.

    Trinitarians play dirty and always have twisted scripture. especially from the very words of Jesus Christ.

    Trinitarians falsely claimed when God was being put to death, he cried out, "And at the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” which means, when translated: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


    @Pages The Father says of His Son (Heb. 1:8-9) what has been already stated in Heb. 1:3 regarding His Son who is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being". This statement allows no room for a lesser, degraded, qualitative sense regarding the Son as to His being. It also doesn't allow for Michael to be the Son, as the Son is "the exact representation of his being" which will logically mean that God, Himself, is thereby an angel.  

    • Yes, the one who is like God? Is the exact representation of his being" 
    • For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—  and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
    • He is the image of the invisible Godthe Firstborn of All Creation;
    •  and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things;


    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    "I'm not the one making the assertion. It is Jesus Christ himself. I simply quoted his saying. "Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God."


    "Your the one making the claim that God said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God." Of this is not being accurate at all. Now if we read the statement from Jesus, it is a true statement of a false one."


    "Since Jesus pointed out and asked "Why do you call Me good?" You make the assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good,"


    "The first address is to the question "Why do you call Me good?"


    "And the address is to the statement made by whom?? (JESUS) stating Nobody is good except one, God."

    I see by your response you are challenged in the understanding of what I wrote in response to your assertion. Not only that, but you are quoting a part of what I wrote to you as though you are writing it to me. Or so it seems.  

    You wrote above, "You make the assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good," as if I was the one making the assertion, when in fact I wrote this to you. I'll refresh your memory with the context of what I wrote to you below.

    • That you make this assertion as a proof that Jesus can not be God, because only God is good, only serves to say that Jesus is himself not good; with the resulting inference that Jesus has sin and imperfection – rendering Jesus as an imperfect sacrifice for forgiveness of sin and salvation for all believers.      

    So, with that in mind, let me ask you directly: when Jesus states, “No one is good—except God alone.", is Jesus excluding himself from being good?

    "Yes, the one who is like God? Is the exact representation of his being"

    This is your primary, and immediate, response to what I wrote concerning Heb. 1:3. It is responding to this portion of my previous post where I stated the following:

    • The Father says of His Son (Heb. 1:8-9) what has been already stated in Heb. 1:3 regarding His Son who is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being". This statement allows no room for a lesser, degraded, qualitative sense regarding the Son as to His being. It also doesn't allow for Michael to be the Son, as the Son is "the exact representation of his being" which will logically mean that God, Himself, is thereby an angel. 

    By your initial response to the above with, "Yes, the one who is like God? Is the exact representation of his being", I can conclude that you miss the ontological significance of "the exact representation of his being"

    This is an ontological statement regarding being, specifically, God's Being – all of what makes God, God – only God has this particular being.

    The writer is explicit with his words that the Son is the exact representation, not a likeness or something similar, and that the exact representation is of God's being. This means, the Father and Son are of the same ontological being. This, in itself, is a disqualification of Michael from being the Son and for good reason.

    In other words, whatever type of being Michael has, according to Heb.1:3, it is the exact representation of God's being.

    Given that the writer of Hebrews has in verse three made explicit that Father and Son are of the same ontological being, coupled with the WT belief that Michael is the Son, would then logically, and unfortunately, relegate God as having the being of an angel.

    Just one of many theological reasons to reject the WT teachings.

  • Brother Rando
    Brother Rando Posts: 1,300
    edited November 2022

    @Pages "Yes, the one who is like God? Is the exact representation of his being"

    This is your primary, and immediate, response to what I wrote concerning Heb. 1:3. It is responding to this portion of my previous post where I stated the following:

    The Father says of His Son (Heb. 1:8-9) what has been already stated in Heb. 1:3 regarding His Son who is "". This statement allows no room for a lesser, degraded, qualitative sense regarding the Son as to His being. It also doesn't allow for Michael to be the Son, as the Son is "" which will logically mean that God, Himself, is thereby an angel. 

    The trinity doctrine claims that all parts or persons are without beginning.

    Yet this lie and deception is just that, a deception. Is God a son? The whose son is he?

    • In the Beginning was the Word

    You rejected this from the start, and claim this God, that God somehow created himself, that there are No angels, No sons. Beginning is the Word who was SENT, and has his Father's Name in him, GIVEN authority to forgive sins or not.

    Claiming 746. arché is God is the same as claiming God created himself. No the beginning is a Creation, the first of his ways, the one he was fond of, the one who was beside him, his only begotten son.

    746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").

    • Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, -- 746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
    • Arche is the rootword for Archangel, the one who is like God? Is the exact representation of his being"
    • He is not God, but a Personal Representative of God (Exodus 23:20-21)
    • The Archangel means Chief Angel or you Can also say Chief Son -- what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent"). His qualitative sense is that he is Divine a godlike.

    Trinitarians claim God was given authority. No. The Holy One of God was given the Name Jesus and exalted to the glory of the Father JEHOVAH. He inherited the Name for an assignment and became better than the angels which means JEHOVAH is SALVATION.

    Denying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God is denying that Jehovah is Salvation. Remember that Jesus Christ was raised up from the dead and was David’s offspring, according to the good news I preach,

    God was not Raised from the Dead, Neither is God David's Offspring.... Now Jesus is called son of David... NOT GOD

    Hope this helps.

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    "You rejected this from the start, and claim this God, that God somehow created himself, that there are No angels, No sons. Beginning is the Word who was SENT, and has his Father's Name in him, GIVEN authority to forgive sins or not."

    This is a beautiful example of subterfuge in use – I made no such claim – re-read my post.

    Overall, your post is quite incoherent, see above example, and it is apparent that you are unable to grasp the logic of an argument being made; or, perhaps you are knowingly employing distraction techniques to get around not having sound and relevant answers with which to respond with.

    In your last post you completely failed to deal with the central subject matter of the Son who is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" in the text of Heb. 1:3. In fact, you went so far as to delete that portion of text under discussion from the middle of my statement you quoted; thereby, avoiding having to give any answer, let alone a coherent answer, regarding the ontological nature of this section of text, and the ramification this places upon WT theology.

    You even steer clear of answering a direct question asked of you on a text you brought into this discussion previously; therefore, I'm going to now ask it of you again.

    Referencing Mk. 10:18 I asked you the following:

    • So, with that in mind, let me ask you directly: when Jesus states, “No one is good—except God alone.", is Jesus excluding himself from being good?


  • @Pages Referencing Mk. 10:18 I asked you the following:

    So, with that in mind, let me ask you directly: when Jesus states, “No one is good—except God alone." , is Jesus excluding himself from being good?

    Let's look at JESUS words... the first phrase and then the second phrase for emphasis.

    •   So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call ME good?
    • No one is good except God alone.


    So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call ME good? No one is good except God alone. Mark 10:18


    You have no understanding because you have rejected the Son of Man. "For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." (Mark 10:45)

    • God is not a Son of man. Numbers 23:19
    • Nor can God die to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    "Let's look at JESUS words... the first phrase and then the second phrase for emphasis.


    So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call ME good?


    No one is good except God alone."

    I'll speak to this only as the rest of your posted response lacks any relevancy to either Mk. 10:18 or Heb. 1:3.

    I have looked at the text of Mk. 10:18 in considerably more theological detail and commentary in a previous post than what you have presented here with this response of simply citing the text and bolding some words. 

    This response does not even provide any meaningful commentary on how you believe this text supports your theological view of its supposed meaning. Of course, you will then have to face, and defend, the theological implications that come with your WT interpretation of this text as I outlined in a prior post.

    I take this response above as confirmation of your position, and answer, that Jesus did indeed exclude himself from being good. Correct?

  • Brother Rando
    Brother Rando Posts: 1,300
    edited November 2022

    @Pages

    You have no understanding because you have rejected the Son of Man. "For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." (Mark 10:45)

    • God is not a Son of man. Numbers 23:19
    • Nor can God die to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.

    Your teaching that God is the Son of Man goes against scripture. Also the teaching that God died and then was resurrected by someone else. The trinity rejects (Romans 10:9) There is no salvation.


    "I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his life in behalf of the sheep." (John 10:11)

    • Watchtower explanation: fine: Or “excellent; good.” The Greek word ka·losʹ may denote that which is intrinsically good and beautiful, something of fine quality. For example, the term is used of “fine fruit”; “fine soil”; “fine pearls.” (Mt 3:10; 13:8, 45)
    • In this context, the term is used to denote that Jesus is a fine, excellent, superb shepherd.

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Brother Rando

    I conclude you have replied in the affirmative that I am correct in understanding your previous response as: Yes, Jesus did exclude himself from being good in Mk. 10:18. Thank you.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675
    edited November 2022


    @Pages asked:

    So, with that in mind, let me ask you directly: when Jesus states, “No one is good—except God alone.", is Jesus excluding himself from being good?

    I don't mean to disrupt your ongoing exchange with @Brother Rando in this thread, but this insightful question you posed to him prompts me to intrude, I hope briefly.

    As a follower of Jesus who does not accept Trinitarian theology, I've long believed that the scene in Jesus asks a "man" (Mark 10.17) or "ruler" (Luke 18.18) why he called him "good" reveals Jesus' belief that he is not God. To my reading of his question + assertion, Jesus is not excluding himself from being good; he's excluding himself from being "God good" - akin, I suggest, to the way that we humans can, at times, be loving, wise, or forgiving, but we can't be loving, wise, or forgiving in the way God is any of those.

    In the scene with the man, Jesus follows up his "why do you call me good?" question with a reminder of the centrality of the commandments and an advisory to sell possessions, distribute proceeds, and then follow him (Luke 18.19-20). After the man walks away dejected by the demands reported in Jesus' counsel (Luke 18.23), listeners to the exchange question who can be saved (Luke 18.26). In response, Jesus again distinguishes between himself and God by declaring that what is impossible for humans is possible for God (Luke 18.27). He doesn't say that what's impossible for humans is possible for him.

    I contend that in this scene Jesus reserves for God alone the goodness required to provide the salvation humans cannot provide for themselves. Jesus says only God is good in that way.

    Hope that made sense!

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323

    @Bill_Coley

    "I don't mean to disrupt your ongoing exchange with @Brother Rando in this thread, but this insightful question you posed to him prompts me to intrude, I hope briefly."

    Hi Bill – no disruption, good to hear your thoughts.

    "As a follower of Jesus who does not accept Trinitarian theology, I've long believed that the scene in Jesus asks a "man" (Mark 10.17) or "ruler" (Luke 18.18) why he called him "good" reveals Jesus' belief that he is not God. To my reading of his question + assertion, Jesus is not excluding himself from being good; he's excluding himself from being "God good" - akin, I suggest, to the way that we humans can, at times, be loving, wise, or forgiving, but we can't be loving, wise, or forgiving in the way God is any of those."

    Okay, a couple of thoughts on the above: 

    To my reading Jesus isn't engaged here in making a comparison of himself with God, and neither denies, or affirms, he is God. 

    Two things on "good" – one, where we agree that Jesus isn't excluding himself from being "good" in his statement; two, we part company fully at the suggestion of the text having introduced different degrees of "good"; since "good" is in reference to an absolute good of God himself. 

    To equate, as proposed above, a lesser than "God good" to Jesus carries the theological premise that Jesus is not without sin. This is how the use of this text is historically framed in regard to where either Jesus is said to deny he is God, or that Jesus was not without sin. If Jesus is not "good" then he is not the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin of all who believe.

    "In the scene with the man, Jesus follows up his "why do you call me good?" question with a reminder of the centrality of the commandments and an advisory to sell possessions, distribute proceeds, and then follow him (Luke 18.19-20). After the man walks away dejected by the demands reported in Jesus' counsel (Luke 18.23), listeners to the exchange question who can be saved (Luke 18.26). In response, Jesus again distinguishes between himself and God by declaring that what is impossible for humans is possible for God (Luke 18.27). He doesn't say that what's impossible for humans is possible for him."

    I agree with most of the above, and will add a thought or two. I wrote this in an early post on this thread and it seems to be an apt place to state it again. In my estimation of Mk. 10:18, Jesus is simply pointing out the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man. In other words, only God is good and this goodness was credited to Jesus by the young man. There is no denial by Jesus of being good, or God, in this text of scripture. 

    The "what is impossible for humans is possible for God" (Lk. 18:27) is in reference to "who then can be saved" (Lk. 18:26). And, I agree with you that Jesus doesn't say "what's impossible for humans is possible for him" at any point in that discourse. 

    "I contend that in this scene Jesus reserves for God alone the goodness required to provide the salvation humans cannot provide for themselves. Jesus says only God is good in that way."

    "Hope that made sense!"

    I can agree with this section, with of course a caveat; that there is no denial by Jesus of being good, or God, to be found in this text of scripture. Repeating myself, it's late.  

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675


    @Pages posted:

    Hi Bill – no disruption, good to hear your thoughts.

    Thanks for the welcome.


    Two things on "good" – one, where we agree that Jesus isn't excluding himself from being "good" in his statement; two, we part company fully at the suggestion of the text having introduced different degrees of "good"; since "good" is in reference to an absolute good of God himself. 

    Common ground (as to whether Jesus excludes himself from being "good") is a good thing. However (!) ...

    ... In your view, then, what is the function of the question, "Why do you call me good?" that Jesus asks the man? More specifically, what is the function of that question when it prefaces Jesus' assertion that only God is good? The man has employed the adjective seemingly only as a compliment to Jesus as a teacher; his use of it promotes no obvious theological or Christological agenda. So why does Jesus ask the man to explain his decision to call him "good" when only God is "good"?

    In a subsequent paragraph of your response, you seem to address that last question:

    In my estimation of Mk. 10:18, Jesus is simply pointing out the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man. In other words, only God is good and this goodness was credited to Jesus by the young man. There is no denial by Jesus of being good, or God, in this text of scripture. 

    In what understanding of the flow of Jesus' conversation with the man does it make sense for Jesus to point out "the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man"? Access to eternal life, not the meaning of goodness, is the subject the man raises in his question. In that specific conversational context, why does Jesus point out the meaning of good? Do you think Jesus' use of that question-assertion combo issues a denial of any sort?

    In my view, it is the question-assertion pairing - NOT the question or assertion in isolation - that reveals the meaning of the question. WHY CALL ME GOOD? ONLY GOD IS GOOD. Doesn't the the word "only" as the introduction to his assertion about God serve to exclude Jesus from whatever goodness the assertion ascribes to God?

    • PERSON 1: 25mph is speeding.
    • PERSON 2: Why do you call 25mph speeding? Only speeds greater than 30mph are speeding on that road.

    In that exchange, "only" introduces a definition of speeding that excludes the 25mph referenced in the preceding question. In my view, "only" serves an analogous function in Jesus' response to the man. What function do you believe it serves as it immediately follows the question about goodness?


    To equate, as proposed above, a lesser than "God good" to Jesus carries the theological premise that Jesus is not without sin. This is how the use of this text is historically framed in regard to where either Jesus is said to deny he is God, or that Jesus was not without sin. If Jesus is not "good" then he is not the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin of all who believe.

    Of the many cans of worms I stock in my personal theological warehouse, the issue of the sinlessness of Christ is among the wormiest (which, to my pleasant surprise, IS a word!). Such, on its own, could give birth to a lengthy and multi-dimensional exchange between us, so I'll simply point out that Jesus himself asks why the man calls him good when only God is good, a question-assertion combo one reasonable interpretation of which, in my view, is that Jesus denies that he is God. I certainly respect your different conclusion.


    The "what is impossible for humans is possible for God" (Lk. 18:27) is in reference to "who then can be saved" (Lk. 18:26). And, I agree with you that Jesus doesn't say "what's impossible for humans is possible for him" at any point in that discourse. 

    More common ground. In modern day culture, I'm pretty sure that the discovery of TWO areas of agreement in the same exchange is illegal. Let's hope these forums aren't widely read by the cultural law enforcement community.

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323
    edited December 2022

    @Bill_Coley

    "In what understanding of the flow of Jesus' conversation with the man does it make sense for Jesus to point out "the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man"? Access to eternal life, not the meaning of goodness, is the subject the man raises in his question. In that specific conversational context, why does Jesus point out the meaning of good? Do you think Jesus' use of that question-assertion combo issues a denial of any sort?"

    I would be in agreement that eternal life is the subject on the man's mind; or perhaps better, what he, himself, could do to achieve eternal life. 

    Do you at all find this man's question to be somewhat odd given he is a Torah observant Jew?

    "In my view, it is the question-assertion pairing - NOT the question or assertion in isolation - that reveals the meaning of the question. WHY CALL ME GOOD? ONLY GOD IS GOOD. Doesn't the the word "only" as the introduction to his assertion about God serve to exclude Jesus from whatever goodness the assertion ascribes to God?


    "In that exchange, "only" introduces a definition of speeding that excludes the 25mph referenced in the preceding question. In my view, "only" serves an analogous function in Jesus' response to the man. What function do you believe it serves as it immediately follows the question about goodness?"

    Were I to view this text in the manner described above; logically, I would be of the same conclusion as you. Obviously, of course, I don't view it in that way.

    This form of address to a teacher seems extremely rare, almost non-existent within Judaism. Other than this verse and its parallel, including sometimes Matt. if that translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, becomes the sum total of occurrence within scripture. I can find two other instances of this; once, in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew 14:4, and once in the Babylonian Talmud in the recounting of a Rabbi's dream. 

    My view of "why call me good" reflects on how Jesus was formally addressed which would be expressed why do you say Good Teacher as Good and Teacher are functioning together as a unit – think honorary title. It is this form of address, "Good Teacher", that is being questioned here – not the state of moral and ethical quality of himself (cf. Lk. 6:40, 7:40, 8:49, 9:38, 10:25, 11:45, 12:13, etc.). 

    The next phrase is expressing that this form of address is better suited for God, i.e. only God is a Good Teacher; and the following "You know the commandments" (the law as a good instructor and absolute good) justifies this view; as does, the form of the man's very next address which has now been adjusted to simply "Teacher"

    Additionally, this same question "Teacher, what must I do so that I will inherit eternal life?” is asked of Jesus (Lk. 10:25) using a proper address, with the resulting answer "Do this and you will live.” (Lk. 10:28); which, lends further textual support to the view I hold.

    It simply is not necessary to read this account as Jesus comparing his goodness to God's goodness, or as a denial of being good, or God; none of which, in my view are addressed by this text.

    "Of the many cans of worms I stock in my personal theological warehouse, the issue of the sinlessness of Christ is among the wormiest (which, to my pleasant surprise, IS a word!). Such, on its own, could give birth to a lengthy and multi-dimensional exchange between us, so I'll simply point out that Jesus himself asks why the man calls him good when only God is good, a question-assertion combo one reasonable interpretation of which, in my view, is that Jesus denies that he is God. I certainly respect your different conclusion."

    Yes, we do differ greatly on the issue of Christ's sinlessness; as also, we differ in our individual interpretation of this account. 

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675
    edited December 2022


    @Pages posted:

    Do you at all find this man's question to be somewhat odd given he is a Torah observant Jew?

    Thanks for continuing this exchange.

    In Matthew's account of what appears to be the same encounter (Matthew 19.16-26), the questioner adds the question, "What else must I do?" (Matthew 19.20b, NLT) to his assertion of personal faithfulness to the Torah. To my reading of it, the added question suggests an elevated level of spiritual self-awareness; he believes he's missing something and solicits Jesus' help to find out what. Hence, I don't find the man's question odd.


    This form of address to a teacher seems extremely rare, almost non-existent within Judaism. Other than this verse and its parallel, including sometimes Matt. if that translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, becomes the sum total of occurrence within scripture. I can find two other instances of this; once, in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew 14:4, and once in the Babylonian Talmud in the recounting of a Rabbi's dream. 

    I defer to your research skills on the frequency/rarity of the term "Good Teacher." Well done. I couldn't have done it.


    My view of "why call me good" reflects on how Jesus was formally addressed which would be expressed why do you say Good Teacher as Good and Teacher are functioning together as a unit – think honorary title. It is this form of address, "Good Teacher", that is being questioned here – not the state of moral and ethical quality of himself

    In my view, the text does not support your view. If Jesus sought to question the role of the term "Good Teacher" in the man's question, I would expect him to then ask, "Why do you call me Good Teacher?" But he doesn't. In his next sentence Jesus has a second opportunity to identify "Good Teacher" as the subject of his concern (e.g. "Only God is the Good Teacher"), but again he doesn't. Each time Jesus limits his spoken attention to the adjective.

    In addition, Matthew's account quotes Jesus as asking the man, "Why ask me about what is good? . . . There is only One who is good." (Matthew 19.17ab, NLT). I grant that the question in Matthew differs from Mark and Luke as to its referent, but the focus of Jesus' follow-up assertion in Matthew is clearly about the adjective "good" and not the noun "teacher." Do you find support for your view in the text of any of the synoptic accounts of this encounter?


    Additionally, this same question "Teacher, what must I do so that I will inherit eternal life?” is asked of Jesus (Lk. 10:25) using a proper address, with the resulting answer "Do this and you will live.” (Lk. 10:28); which, lends further textual support to the view I hold.

    Two observations:

    1. The Luke 10 encounter seems clearly different from the Luke 18 (plus parallels) scene. The questioner in Luke 10, for example, is "an expert in religious law" who wants to "test" Jesus. The other scene's questioner, whose agenda is disclosed only by his question and then reaction to Jesus' response to it, is identified only as "a man."
    2. The questioner in Luke 10 does not call Jesus "Good Teacher," which permits Jesus to address the man's question about eternal life immediately, without first disputing his use of an adjective such as "good."

    I read your previous point to contend that the words "good" and teacher" should be considered as a unit or honorary title whose accuracy/relevance Jesus questions. But the word "good" does not appear in the Luke 10 scene, and neither there does Jesus object to any part of the content of the expert's question, including its labeling Jesus as a teacher. As a result, I don't think said scene supports your view of the Luke 18 passage.


    It simply is not necessary to read this account as Jesus comparing his goodness to God's goodness, or as a denial of being good, or God; none of which, in my view are addressed by this text.

    I'm intrigued by your phrase, "It simply is not necessary to read this account...." Necessary? I don't know how to respond to that. Justified? There, it's clear, we disagree, at least in part. (I repeat that I do not think Jesus denies his own goodness in the Luke 18 encounter!)

  • @Pages

    @Bill_Coley In my view, the text does not support your view. If Jesus sought to question the role of the term "Good Teacher" in the man's question, I would expect him to then ask, "Why do you call me Good Teacher?" But he doesn't. In his next sentence Jesus has a second opportunity to identify "Good Teacher" as the subject of his concern (e.g. "Only God is the Good Teacher"), but again he doesn't. Each time Jesus limits his spoken attention to the adjective.

    • The reason Jesus responded in the manner he did was in regards to His Father based on Isaiah 48:17

    Jesus is not called Holy One of Israel, that title belongs only to His Father. However, Jesus is called Holy One of God. Therefore, when Jesus is called (Holy One) it should be understood that is the Holy One of God. Read Isaiah 48:17 you will not find Jesus in that scripture, So Jesus comes to his God and Father's defense.... you can add John 7:28 for emphasis.

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Brother Rando posted:

    The reason Jesus responded in the manner he did was in regards to His Father based on Isaiah 48:17

    I don't see a connection between the Luke 18 scene in which Jesus asks a man why he calls him (Jesus) "good" and the Isaiah verse in which God claims the role of Israel's teacher. At issue in Jesus' question to the man is NOT Jesus' role as a teacher, but rather the meaning and applicability to Jesus of a specific adjective in that specific scene. Could you identify the specific verse(s) of the synoptic accounts that in your view connect them with Isaiah 48.17?

    In addition, in the Luke 18 scene I see no references to Jesus' identity as "the Holy One of God." The man calls him "good teacher" and nothing else. Jesus objects to the adjective "good" and nothing else. Neither conversation participant raises any other dimension of Jesus' identity. Could you identify the specific verse(s) of the synoptic accounts that in your view raise aspects of Jesus' identity other than his role as a teacher?

  • You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such. (John 13:13)

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Brother Rando posted:

    You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such. (John 13:13)

    I should have made my request more clear.

    I intended to ask you to cite the specific verse(s) in the synoptic accounts of Jesus' encounter with the man who wants to know what he must do to inherit eternal life (Luke 18.18-27 and parallels) that in your view make Isaiah 48.17 relevant to understanding said encounter. In a prior post, you contended that the reason Jesus "responded in the manner he did was in regards to His Father based on Isaiah 48:17." I'm asking for the specific verse(s) in the synoptic reports of that encounter that in your view support your contention.

    Sorry for my lack of clarity.

  • Okay, that's a very different request. Let's start with the scriptures...

    Luke 18:18

    And one of the rulers questioned him, saying: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”

    Luke 18:19

    Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God.

    Luke 18:20

    You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.’”

    Luke 18:21

    Then he said: “All of these I have kept from youth on.”

    Luke 18:22

    After hearing that, Jesus said to him, “There is still one thing lacking about you: Sell all the things you have and distribute the proceeds to the poor, and you will have treasure in the heavens; and come be my follower.”

    Luke 18:23

    When he heard this, he became deeply grieved, for he was very rich.

    Luke 18:24

    Jesus looked at him and said: “How difficult it will be for those having money to make their way into the Kingdom of God!

    Luke 18:25

    It is easier, in fact, for a camel to get through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

    Luke 18:26

    Those who heard this said: Who possibly can be saved?

    Luke 18:27

    He said: “The things impossible with men are possible with God.


    To sell all things and deny oneself to become a follow of the Messiah would be an act of faith and the way to life. These things to be something New to the Jews.

    Galatians 3:24

    So the Law became our guardian leading to Christso that we might be declared righteous through faith.

    Romans 5:21

    To what end? So that just as sin ruled as king with death, so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    John 3:16

    “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

    1 Peter 3:18

    For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.


    The man was reluctant to become a follower for he was fooled by earthly treasures to live an easy life. Earthly treasures do not give life.

    Romans 3:19

    Now we know that all the things the Law says, it addresses to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and all the world may become accountable to God for punishment.

    Romans 8:3

    What the Law was incapable of doing because it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemning sin in the flesh,

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Brother Rando posted:

    Okay, that's a very different request. Let's start with the scriptures.

    Again, I asked you to cite the specific verse(s) in the synoptic accounts of Jesus' encounter with the man who wants to know what he must do to inherit eternal life (Luke 18.18-27 and parallels) that in your view make Isaiah 48.17 relevant to understanding Jesus' response to him. No part of your latest post even mentions, let alone engages, Isaiah 48.17.

    In a previous post, you asserted that Isaiah 48.17 helped explain Jesus' response to the man who calls him "good teacher" -- i.e. "Why do you call me good? Only God is good." Once again I ask you to cite the verse(s) the synoptic accounts of the man's response that support your assertion.

  • @Bill_Coley Once again I ask you to cite the verse(s) the synoptic accounts of the man's response that support your assertion.

    You are asking synoptic accounts to the man's RESPONSE. He thought he was saved by following the law, But Jesus informs something is missing. Then Jesus actually informs him what is needed. The man refuses to do what was needed by Jesus answer to him.

    Now to the point of calling Jesus good teacher. Jesus response them is quite evident.

    Luke 18:18

    And one of the rulers questioned him, saying: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”

    Luke 18:19

    Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God.


    The synoptic account of what Jesus Christ said and did is self explained in the attachment below.

    Like the man, most are unwilling to follow or even learn. According to "This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself, The One guiding you in the way you should walk." (Isaiah 48:17)

    Not only was the man unwilling to follow the instructions of the Messiah for eternal life, but he did not know the One who sent him either.

    • Then as he was teaching in the temple, Jesus called out: “You know me and you know where I am from. And I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him. (John 7:28)
    • I know him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me.” (John 7:29)

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675


    @Brother Rando posted:

    Now to the point of calling Jesus good teacher. Jesus response them is quite evident.

    But Jesus doesn't object to the man's calling him "good teacher." He objects to the man's calling him "good."


    Like the man, most are unwilling to follow or even learn. According to "This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself, The One guiding you in the way you should walk." (Isaiah 48:17)

    Not only was the man unwilling to follow the instructions of the Messiah for eternal life, but he did not know the One who sent him either.

    Thanks for including the Isaiah 48 text in your response.

    In my view, whether God or Jesus is a teacher, and whether the man knew the God who had sent Jesus, are not germane to the meaning of Jesus' question to the man, "Why do you call me good?" a question which, to my reading, makes clear that Jesus did not understand himself to be God.

  • @Brother Rando posted:

    Now to the point of calling Jesus good teacher. Jesus response them is quite evident.

    @Bill_Coley But Jesus doesn't object to the man's calling him "good teacher." He objects to the man's calling him "good."

    Ahh! So close, yet so far away...

    @Bill_Coley In my view, whether God or Jesus is a teacher, and whether the man knew the God who had sent Jesus, are not germane to the meaning of Jesus' question to the man, "Why do you call me good?" a question which, to my reading, makes clear that Jesus did not understand himself to be God.

    Yes, and there it is! Your opinion. And now are you teaching Jesus? The answer is plain and clear.

    • "Why do you call me good?"
    •  "Nobody is good except one, God."

    That's why I included other scriptures that lead to the Messiah... the chosen one of God. I guess I am alone on the forum that invokes "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

    https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/22080/#Comment_22080

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • @Pages December 5  This form of address to a teacher seems extremely rare, almost non-existent within Judaism. Other than this verse and its parallel, including sometimes Matt. if that translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, becomes the sum total of occurrence within scripture. I can find two other instances of this; once, in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew 14:4, and once in the Babylonian Talmud in the recounting of a Rabbi's dream. 

    Searching for phrases "good teacher" OR "good Rabbi" in my Logos 10 library found results in 1,829 resources, which included the Jewish Encyclopedia:

    ELEAZAR OF HAGRONIA: Babylonian scholar of the fourth amoraic generation (fifth century); junior of Aḥa b. Jacob and Raba (b. Joseph). He is mentioned twice in the Babylonian Talmud, and both times in connection with extraordinary circumstances. Once he incurs divine punishment for assuming rabbinic authority at a place over which extended the jurisdiction of Aḥa b. Jacob (‘Er. 63a); and then again he is represented as having dreamed an ominous dream. It was a season of drought at Hagronia (Agranum; Neubauer, “G. T.” p. 347) when Raba happened to visit the town. He ordained a day of fasting and prayer, but no rain came. Then he inquired, “Did any one have a dream last night?” Eleazar had had one, and at Raba’s request he told it as follows: “There was said to me in my dream, ‘Good greetings to the good teacher from the good Lord who, in His goodness, doeth good to His people.’ ” On hearing this Raba remarked, “This betokens that Heaven will be propitious.” Thereupon prayer was again offered, and soon rain descended (Ta‘an. 24b).

     Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 99.

    Phrase "good teacher" appears only once in The Jewish Encyclopedia while "teacher" has 2,812 results (so concur with @Pages about rare usage).

    My Logos search results also included Byzantine harmonization insight:

    3. Although it is true that the orthodox occasionally corrupted the Scriptures (just as the nonorthodox occasionally corrupted the Scriptures), the emerging Christology of the proto-orthodox was not the major force behind most of the intentional changes to the NT MSS. The larger impetus was harmonization, especially in the Gospels. As Ehrman recognizes,

    [t]his scribal tendency to “harmonize” passages in the Gospels is ubiquitous. Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that the accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by strokes of their pens.

    Although Ehrman overstates the point, it is true that narrative harmonization was a stronger impetus than a high Christology. To put it bluntly, to the early Christian scribes, the historicity of Christ was more important than their doctrine of Christ. Virtually all Gospels MSS harmonized passages between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.89 They even did so in such a way that would, at times, turn a high Christology into a highly suspect Christology.

    As an example, consider the story of the rich young man who asks Jesus how to obtain eternal life:

    “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:17–18)

    Matthew changes this passage in a couple of key ways:

    “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?”

    He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (Matt 19:16–17)

    In Mark’s story, the reader is confronted with the question of Jesus’ identity in a startling way: Is Jesus suggesting that he is not God? Vincent Taylor argued that “[Jesus’] use of the question along with [his] statement that God alone is good implies a contrast of some kind between Jesus and God.” But in Matthew’s version, “good” is no longer attached to “teacher” in the young man’s question. This allows Jesus’ response to be less of a threat to an orthodox Christology.

    As we would expect, many scribes—especially the later orthodox scribes—harmonized these two passages. But what they changed was not Mark’s Gospel but Matthew’s. In the hands of these scribes, the young man now says in both Gospels, “Good teacher,” and Jesus says in both Gospels, “Why do you call me good?”

    Why would these scribes change Matthew’s wording instead of Mark’s? The most likely reason was because the story in Luke’s Gospel already conformed to the wording in Mark’s, and it was easier to change one story rather than two. But this clearly illustrates that the scribal tendency to harmonize the Gospels could trump their tendency toward a high Christology. What seems to drive much of Ehrman’s text-critical method is the belief that the least orthodox reading is to be preferred. But the story of the rich young man shows that there are other factors that need to be weighed and that this criterion clearly is not the most important.

     Daniel B. Wallace, “Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text?,” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace, Text and Canon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 52–54.

    Relative to John 1:1 topic of this discussion is on pages 235-241:

    EXTENDED EXAMINATION

    John 1:1

    According to Aland’s Kurzgefasste Liste, the Gospel of John has more papyrus fragments than any other book of the NT.30 Surprisingly, though, neither UBS4 nor NA27 list any variants for John 1:1c. Only three major published NT Greek texts—those of Tischendorf, Merk, and von Soden—even list textual variants in their apparatus (with 100 percent unanimity as to its Ausgangstext: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). No textual debates on John 1:1c exist in any standard work on Jesus-θεός passages, and until eighteen years ago, NT textual critics were unanimous in their certainty of John 1:1c. This scholarly agreement continues today even though one textual critic, Bart Ehrman, stated his reluctance to dismiss the testimony of a single eighth-century Alexandrian manuscript, L. To Ehrman, an articular θεός gives him the “distinct impression” that the orthodox party changed it due to the Arian controversies. In other words, Ehrman points out that an articular θεός possibly makes this otherwise implicit identification (Jesus as simply divine) an explicit one (God himself).

    Although the most probable understanding of the anarthrous θεός is qualitative (the Word has the same nature as God), three points concern us here textually:

    1. Both 𝔓75 and Codex B attest to the absence of the article in John 1:1c. This is significant since “[t]hese MSS seem to represent a ‘relatively pure’ form of preservation of a ‘relatively pure’ line of descent from the original text.”37 Kenneth W. Clark concludes, “[I]t is our judgment that 𝔓75 appears to have the best textual character in the third century.” Ehrman concurs, “Among all the witnesses, 𝔓75 is generally understood to be the strongest.” Thus this evidence significantly strengthens our initial external examination in favor of an anarthrous θεός.

    2. Only two MSS (L and Ws) contain the articular θεός in καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In addition, these two MSS are late (eighth century) and have never produced a reading that has found acceptance into the base text of the NA or UBS without the support of better and earlier MSS. In fact, as Matthew P. Morgan points out regarding Regius (L), the article with θεός in John 1:1c represents the only sensible variant involving a single letter in all (53) of this scribe’s singular readings. The best explanation for the addition of the article is the sloppy scribal behavior evident in every aspect of this manuscript (i.e., the Gospel of John portion of Regius). As for Ws, Morgan points out the following:

    1. There is no evidence to establish a direct relationship between these two eighth-century manuscripts. As a result, the occurrences of the article with θεός found in John 1:1c in both MSS should be considered isolated readings.

    2. Alignment of Codex L and Ws never merits inclusion in the accepted text of NA27 without support from other key MSS (א, B, C, D, 𝔓66, 𝔓75).

    3. There are no known instances where a combination of Ws with a single other witness finds credibility as a potentially “original” reading.

    Therefore, the inclusion of Ws as a subsingular reading in John 1:1c does not negate the egregious nature of the scribal behavior in Codex L, and it further demonstrates that this combination possesses insufficient testimony to consider the reading καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to be a plausible original.

    This scant evidence, at best, struggles to gain any viability in going back to the Ausgangstext. In addition, it is highly improbable that this was a deliberate corruption by the Orthodox Church five centuries after the Arian controversy.

    Sahidic Coptic MSS,44 usually considered decent representatives of the Alexandrian form of text, offer an intriguing clue to the textual certainty in John 1:1c. In short, Sahidic has both an indefinite and a definite article (whereas Koine Greek only has a definite article). What gives this fact significance is that John 1:1c has the indefinite article in Sahidic (and Bohairic) MSS46: ⲀⲄⲰ ⲚⲈⲨⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ ⲠⲈ ⲠϢⲀϪⲈ. It should come as no surprise, then, that the occurrence of the indefinite article (ⲞⲨ, which has contracted) before “God” (ⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ) in this passage suggests that the Coptic translator was looking at a Greek Vorlage with an anarthrous θεός. In other words, the fact that θεός was translated into Sahidic (and Bohairic) as an indefinite noun strongly suggests that the translator was translating a Greek text without the article.

    To flesh this out a little more, Horner translates John 1:1c into English as follows: “and [a] God was the Word.” The apparatus, however, states, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.” Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with abstract nouns (e.g., truth, love, hate) and nouns of substance (e.g., water, bread, meat).50 An example of this can be seen in Horner’s translation of John 19:34b (καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ), where there are no Greek articles: “and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” None of the words in brackets are necessary in English, but they are noted by Horner due to the presence of the indefinite article in the Coptic MSS.

    Circling back to the textual assessment, the question we must now answer is, did Coptic translators uniformly translate the nominative singular θεός? To answer this, I examined every occurrence of the nominative singular θεός in every potential Johannine writing (i.e., John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation). This examination revealed that John 1:1c was the only time the nominative singular θεός (articular or anarthrous) was translated with a Coptic indefinite article. Putting this in further perspective, of the five NT books examined, there were only four other anarthrous uses of θεός (if one includes the textual variant in Rev 21:3). Still, despite whatever one understands the Coptic translator to have done with the other four potential instances (assuming their Vorlage contained them), John 1:1c is the only text for which we can be certain that the Coptic translator was in fact looking at a Vorlage that contained an anarthrous θεός (i.e., no evidence to the contrary exists to date). As stated already, only two, late eighth-century MSS contain the articular θεός, and both the Sahidic and Bohairic versions were composed prior to then. In other words, until (or unless) new evidence is discovered to the contrary, it is highly probable that the Coptic translator(s) were looking at a Greek Vorlage with an anarthrous θεός, as reflected by the only Coptic indefinite article with a nominative singular θεός in the five NT books previously mentioned.

    In sum, it is highly improbable that the Coptic translator was translating a Greek Vorlage containing an articular θεός. Internally (and syntactically), the absence of the article does not necessarily deny the full deity of Jesus. “Neither in LXX Greek nor in secular Greek,” Harris explains, “is a firm or a fine distinction drawn between the articular and the anarthrous θεός. This judgment is confirmed, as far as Hellenistic Greek writings contemporaneous with the NT are concerned, by Meecham, who cites specific examples from the Epistle to Diognetus.”55 Another critic puts it more specifically: “The term θεός appears in some form 83 times. Of these 63 are articular and 20 anarthrous. Still, it is highly improbable that the Fourth Evangelist intends any consistent distinction to be drawn between θεός and ὁ θεός.” At any rate, the scholarly consensus is correct that the text is certain and that every viable MS ascribes the title θεός to Jesus.


     Brian J. Wright, “Jesus as ΘΕΟΣ: A Textual Examination,” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace, Text and Canon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 235–241.

    Noticed an extended examination found no significant textual variant for John 1:1c "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" "and God being (was) The Word" (continous action in past time) so rendering basis for this discussion is baseless. The Greek word for son is NOT in John 1:1

    @Brother Rando October 12 There were times when Jesus answered his enemies and they left him without a response because they recognized his answer was 'the truth'. Who could argue against him? Those who recognized his teachings as truth had a choice to make. Do I humble myself and become a follower of Jesus Christ or do I choose to become an enemy of Christ and scatter his followers? Many are the latter!

    What does 'a follower of Jesus Christ" truly mean to @Brother Rando ? (possibly 'a follower of Michael the archangel, God's Personal Messenger')


    Also found Messianic Jewish insight about "good teacher" in eternal life discussion:

    IV. The Story of the Rich Young Ruler

    Jesus used another example to teach the proper attitude toward the mammon of unrighteousness. In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Yeshua instructed him concerning the true source of eternal life. This story is found in Matthew 19:16–22; Mark 10:17–31; and Luke 18:18–30.

    In the Mark account, chapter 10:17 we read: And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

    As Jesus came to another town, suddenly a rich young ruler, meaning he was the ruler of a local synagogue, ran to Yeshua. His running shows a sense of urgency. He knelt before Jesus, showing a posture of respect, and addressed Him. The fact that this man was rich meant that, according to Pharisaism, he had eternal life. However, it is obvious that this wealthy young ruler did not feel satisfied with that teaching. Although he had been taught that the very presence of his wealth was evidence that he had eternal life, he did not feel that he really had it. He came to Yeshua and said, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

    Jesus responded to him by asking a question of His own in verse 18: And Jesus said unto him, Why call you me good? none is good save one, even God.

    Critics of the New Testament and those cults that teach that Yeshua was not God, will often turn to Mark 10:18 to show that Jesus never claimed to be God. However, they are missing the point of the passage. A common rabbinic title for God was “the Good One.” Jesus had been claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God, thereby claiming to be intrinsically good.

    Yeshua was asking the ruler a question. If the ruler had answered, “I am calling you good because you are God,” then he would have answered his own question, “How does one receive eternal life?” One receives eternal life by owning Jesus as God.

    But the ruler did not answer the question of Yeshua, instead he remained silent. And because the ruler failed to answer the question, Jesus proceeded to turn the man to the Law, as verse 19 states: You know the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.

    Since the man would not, at that point, own Yeshua as God, Jesus then turned him to the Mosaic Law and quoted some of the Ten Commandments. But Yeshua was selective as to which of these Ten Commandments he chose to quote. He quoted only those commandments which concerned a man’s relationship to other men.

    Concerning these commandments the ruler said in verse 20: And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.

    Insofar as the commandments which dealt with human relationships were concerned, the man said that he had kept those commandments very well.

    But then, according to Matthew 19:20, he said, “… what lack I yet?”

    He still felt there was something lacking. What was lacking was the other set of commandments—the commandments that concerned a man’s relationship to God.

    So Mark 10:21 states: And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing you lack: go, sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

    At this point, we come to the root of the problem of this rich young ruler. The reason he did not have eternal life was because he was unable to keep the commandments that controlled a man’s relationship to God. The one thing that kept him from trusting God for his salvation was his wealth. Because he had been brought up to believe that wealth was a sign of divine favor, he was trusting his wealth rather than God. And because he was trusting his wealth rather than God, he failed to keep the commandments that controlled a man’s relationship to God. Jesus said he had to remove the one thing that was a stumbling-block to him. That one thing, which was keeping him from trusting God, was his wealth.

    The principle being taught here is not that every rich man must dispense of his wealth to be saved, this would mean that salvation is by works. The principle being taught here is that you must not trust your wealth as a sign of divine favor. If you are trusting your wealth as a sign of divine favor—if that is the object of your trust—then that wealth must be disposed of so that you can learn to trust God, and God alone.

    This was something the rich man could not do and walked away sadly, as verse 22 states: But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.

    Yeshua responded in verses 23–24: And Jesus looked round about, and said unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answers again, and said unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

    Again, Pharisaism taught that wealth was a sign of divine favor. Unfortunately, people who are following the teaching of positive confession are also teaching that wealth is a sign of divine favor. As a result, wealthy men trusted their riches as a sign of already having eternal life. The problem was not their wealth; the problem was their trust in that wealth, because trusting their wealth, as a sign of divine favor, kept them from trusting God.

    Then in verse 25, Yeshua said: It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

    Matthew and Mark both use the Greek word that means a “sewing needle.” Luke, however, uses a different Greek word which means a “surgeon’s needle,” reflecting his own medical background. But all the Gospels point out that the disciples were astonished at what Jesus said, because it went contrary to the common teachings of that day.

    In Matthew’s account, chapter 19:25 points out: And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?

    The disciples said, “If the rich can not make it, what chance do we have?”

    But Yeshua responded in verse 26: And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

    What may be impossible with men and what may be the teachings of men are not necessarily the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah, the teachings of God the Father, or the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

    Yeshua pointed out that God could save in any situation whether a man is poor or rich, because that which will save any man is trusting the Lord Jesus the Messiah for their salvation. To trust the Messiah for salvation is to personally believe that Jesus died for our sins; that He was buried; and that He rose again on the third day. If we believe this and accept it, whether we are rich or poor, this is how we have eternal life.


     Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, vol. 48 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983), 9–11.

    I agree with idea of יֵשׁ֔וּעַ Yeshua being intrinsically good as the Son of אלהים God: Matthew 27:43; John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4; 19:7; Revelation 2:18

    Why did יהוה Father have יֵשׁ֔וּעַ Son command: πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 Greek spoken by יֵשׁוּעַ ) ?

    Be Ye Believing in The אלהים God, also in Me Be Ye Believing


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • FALSE RENDERING from the antichrist   I agree with idea of Yeshua being intrinsically good as the Son of God: Matthew 27:43; John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4; 19:7; Revelation 2:18

    Even the demons Know Jesus "to be" the Christ as the Son of God. "Demons also came out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.” But rebuking them, he would not permit them to speak, for they knew him to be the Christ." See that? They knew him to be the Christ not God!

    But your demonic teaching is that Jesus is God and he torments people in an eternal hellfire. You are bound up in a 3 in 1 cult that reject Christ by removing Christ from Scripture.

    • Most truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live. (John 5:25)
    • During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, (Daniel 12:1)
    • the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16)


    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 323
    edited January 2023

    @Bill_Coley

    I want to take a moment to update my previous findings regarding the historical use of "Good Teacher" as an address in and around the time of Jesus. I have since came across an additional usage in the Syriac narratives of the Assumption of the Virgin, Obsequies of the Virgin pg. 225 (c. 400 A.D.). (James, M. R., ed. (1924). The apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses. Clarendon Press). 

    In all, the sum total of occurrences that I've found, to date, are the two NT texts (Mk. 10:18; Lk. 18:19) and Matt. 19:16 only if the translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, two instances in the late second, early third, century A.D. Gnostic Apocryphal Acts, one instance in the fifth century A.D. Syriac writing, and the last instance in the Babylonian Talmud, also fifth century A.D.

    The following lends support for my findings to-date:

    • "διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, “good teacher.” There are no examples from the first century or earlier of anyone being called “good teacher” as we have here, though the Talmud offers a potential parallel." (Craig A Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 95.)

    "In my view, the text does not support your view. If Jesus sought to question the role of the term "Good Teacher" in the man's question, I would expect him to then ask, "Why do you call me Good Teacher?" But he doesn't. In his next sentence Jesus has a second opportunity to identify "Good Teacher" as the subject of his concern (e.g. "Only God is the Good Teacher"), but again he doesn't. Each time Jesus limits his spoken attention to the adjective."


    "In addition, Matthew's account quotes Jesus as asking the man, "Why ask me about what is good? . . . There is only One who is good." (Matthew 19.17ab, NLT). I grant that the question in Matthew differs from Mark and Luke as to its referent, but the focus of Jesus' follow-up assertion in Matthew is clearly about the adjective "good" and not the noun "teacher." Do you find support for your view in the text of any of the synoptic accounts of this encounter?"

    I understand your point on this; and yes, the attention, as you say, is on the adjective in the text. Nevertheless, I still take this direct address in the vocative case as a single unit just as if I directly addressed you as Good Pastor. Do you find any moral or ethical connotation to be included in that address?     

    I find support for my view in the lack of historical literary precedent for the use of Good Teacher within Judaism; also, that the man then drops good from his next address to Jesus in both Mk. and LK. accounts. I fully believe Teacher is to be considered the most usual, and proper, form of address within Judaism as all other texts in Lk. have "Teacher" (cf. Lk. 3:12; 6:40; 7:40; 8:49; 9:38; 10:25; 11:45; 12:13; 18:18; 19:39; 20:21, 28, 39; 21:7; 22:11; also Jn. 3:1); even Jesus refers to himself as "The Teacher" in the last reference Lk. 22:11.

    "The questioner in Luke 10 does not call Jesus "Good Teacher," which permits Jesus to address the man's question about eternal life immediately, without first disputing his use of an adjective such as "good."


    "I read your previous point to contend that the words "good" and teacher" should be considered as a unit or honorary title whose accuracy/relevance Jesus questions. But the word "good" does not appear in the Luke 10 scene, and neither there does Jesus object to any part of the content of the expert's question, including its labeling Jesus as a teacher. As a result, I don't think said scene supports your view of the Luke 18 passage."  

    I believe the above response actually answered in my favor of Teacher being the normal and preferred manner of address during this time period. I don't wish to belabor this issue of address so I will stop with this.      

    "I'm intrigued by your phrase, "It simply is not necessary to read this account...." Necessary? I don't know how to respond to that. Justified? There, it's clear, we disagree, at least in part. (I repeat that I do not think Jesus denies his own goodness in the Luke 18 encounter!)"

    In other words, the text, itself, does not demand a reading that construes Jesus as in denial of being either good, or God; or any assumption of a comparison in the overall quality of good existing for both Jesus and God. In a nutshell, Jesus' discourse is emphasizing God's goodness; while at the same time not denying his own goodness. As a side note, I will point out that Jesus uses good of himself in Jn. 10:11, 14 ("the good shepherd") allusions to where Yahweh is described as a shepherd (cf. Isa. 40:11; Ezek. 34:11-16).

    For clarification, I have to ask is the goodness you affirm above in Lk. 18 for Jesus different in degree than God's goodness; or, is there a different goodness to be found in Lk. 18 as opposed to Mk. 10? 

    I want to revisit something from your first post:

    "I contend that in this scene Jesus reserves for God alone the goodness required to provide the salvation humans cannot provide for themselves. Jesus says only God is good in that way."

    I still agree with the above sentiment. If, as I assume, it is the provision of salvation given by God that is in focus here; however, I cannot see how the giving of that particular provision itself will then require attributing any moral or ethical deficit to Jesus (i.e. less than absolute goodness cf. Matt. 5:17) – nor, does it establish any expectation of Jesus being God, or not being God, in my view.

    Having said the above, I would now point out certain items of interest within the context of this event by directing attention further along in the passage to Mk. 10:27, 45. In verse 27 Jesus asserts salvation is a human impossibility; and that, salvation is only possible with God. In verse 45 Jesus asserts that he is giving his own life as the ransom for many; however, Psa. 49:7-9 states no human can provide ransom for one another, and in Psa. 49:15 it is God alone who provides ransom. I'll skip the discussion of theological inferences that I believe can be applied to the above observations. 

    One last thought to be considered in all this is the phrase "...God alone" in Mk. 10:18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) which is the exact same phrase occurring earlier in Mark (Mk. 2:7); and, did not exclude Jesus from possessing this same attribute as God.

  • Brother Rando
    Brother Rando Posts: 1,300
    edited January 2023

    @Pages One last thought to be considered in all this is the phrase "...God alone" in Mk. 10:18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) which is the exact same phrase occurring earlier in Mark (Mk. 2:7); and, did not exclude Jesus from possessing this same attribute as God.

    • Trinitarians often claim Jesus is omniscient but Jesus stated, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36
    • Jesus Christ also called His Father, the only true God and admitted it was God that sent Him. (John 17:3)
    • consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus. Hebrews 3:1-2


     Jesus said to him: “Why do you call Me good? Nobody is good except one, God." (Mark 10:18) But the Pharisees whom were enemies of Christ were sitting there thinking, “Why is this man talking this way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?” (Mark 2:7)

    • But in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth—” he said to the paralytic: (Mark 2:10)
    • Behold I will send my angel, who shall go before thee, and keep thee in thy journey, and bring thee into the place that I have prepared.  Take notice of him, and hear his voice, and do not think him one to be contemned: for he will not forgive when thou hast sinned, and my name is in him. Exodus 23:20-21
    • Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth."

    Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Who's Online 0