Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[The Biblicist]

FWIW, it was post #132 by DHK that chnaged the course of the discussion. :thumbs:

No sir it was not post 132 that changed the discussion. It was your question in Post 131 "what good thing must we do" that changed the subject from the proper TEXTUAL reading of the Matthew 19:17 to the THEOLOGICAL question in Matthew 19:16 "What good thing...."

 

[DHK]

My point was that the parallel passage to Matthew 19:16-22 is Mark 10:17-22. I should have added Luke 18:18-23.

Matthew 19:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18:18-19 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

We see that all three accounts say the same thing. There is no discrepancy between them. HP's objection is totally invalid. What he is trying to find is an inferior text that omits certain words in the account in Matthew. The conclusion would be a denial of the deity of Christ, and a salvation by works. This is heresy. The MSS chosen by him is also advocated by Augustine and Origen (also a heretic), and by Greisbach (a man that denied the inspiration of the Bible). Even without mentioning the above, the evidence, we know that what is given is correct for all three gospels, as given in the KJV, are in harmony with each other, each supporting one another. The Bible does not contradict itself. Mark and Luke cannot be so easily dismissed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What he is trying to find is an inferior text that omits certain words in the account in Matthew.

HP: That is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. I have attempted to do no such thing.

 

[DHK]

HP: That is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. I have attempted to do no such thing.

Then what is it you have been trying to do?
You want to use a text that omits certain words.
--a text that ultimately takes away from the deity of Christ.
--a text that teaches that salvation can be of works.

This is your goal in searching for a text that is different from the one that is already in Matthew, and is supported by the other gospels in Mark and Luke where there are no textual discrepancies at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. I have attempted to do no such thing.

No, that is the gospel truth! You musts intentionally choose a reading for Matthew that not supported by ANY evidence - period! While the reading in the majority of manscripts is supported by inspired writers (Mark and Luke) in regard to the SAME conversation.

Either you have to come to the absurd conclusion that Jesus said BOTH but that does your argument in OR that Mark and Luke are not credible witnesses to what he said but that denies the inspiration of the scriptures OR that theological bias is the ONLY grounds for choosing that text and that is clearly seen with those you quote who support it and obvious with you. In other words, NBJECTIVITY but only clear theological bias.

Of course nothing I have said nor what ANYONE COULD SAY will change your mind even if they inspired men (Luke and Mark) as you are your own authority, just as those you quote.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You want to use a text that omits certain words.
--a text that ultimately takes away from the deity of Christ.
--a text that teaches that salvation can be of works.

HP: I am not looking for any text that omits anything. I simply ran across texts that were clearly different than the KJ reads, so that sparked my interest into study, which continues as we speak.

Jesus words speak for themselves as to obedience to the law as a road to eternal life....IF in fact no sin has occurred. Scripture says that in our dispensation, ALL have sinned, ...so go misrepresent someone else's motives or beliefs if that is what you desire to accomplish.

If anything turns me away from the KJV that I have always been a staunch defender of, it will be the attitudes of men like yourself. Trust me. After witnessing your repulsive personal remarks in this discussion, I have reason to second guess the KJV and any and all translations by those of like doctrinal positions.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: I am not looking for any text that omits anything. I simply ran across texts that were clearly different than the KJ reads, so that sparked my interest into study, which continues as we speak.

Jesus words speak for themselves as to obedience to the law as a road to eternal life....IF in fact no sin has occurred. Scripture says that in our dispensation, ALL have sinned, ...so go misrepresent someone else's motives or beliefs if that is what you desire to accomplish.

If anything turns me away from the KJV that I have always been a staunch defender of, it will be the attitudes of men like yourself. Trust me. After witnessing your repulsive personal remarks in this discussion, I have reason to second guess the KJV and any and all translations by those of like doctrinal positions.

Will you admit that the reading furnished by the KJV is the only reading that has any EVIDENCE to support it as the original reading or will you accuse both Mark and Luke of fabricating since ALL GREEK TEXTS of Mark and Luke read that way?????

 

[DHK]

HP: I am not looking for any text that omits anything. I simply ran across texts that were clearly different than the KJ reads, so that sparked my interest into study, which continues as we speak.

But the same story is repeated word for word in Mark and Luke. Had you read the parallel accounts that should have put to rest any doubt about different or spurious texts that differ from the TR in this case. For there is no question of the authenticity of the text used in Mark and Luke. Why, then, proceed any further?

By proceeding further it indicates to the rest of us that you have an agenda, a motivation to prove. I will give you an example. You will take a text (as you have done here) that will support your preconceived notion that salvation is obtained through "continued obedience" even though the evidence points to the contrary. You allow you bias to color your eyes.

The Catholics do the same thing. Note, that the RCC believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there is a problem

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--The Greek word for brethren "adelphos" means brother. No matter which way you explain this verse it is speaking of Jesus immediate family. However the Catholic will make the odd claim that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic (no proof), and the aramaic word could be translated cousins. They will then claim (without proof) that Joseph never had any other children by Mary, thus asserting Mary's perpetual virginity. This is inspite of all the evidence that sits right in front their face.

You are doing the same thing. You are ignoring all the evidence that is right there in your face so to speak. Why? Like the RCC, you have an agenda, a presupposition that you must adhere to, and you don't want to be proven wrong.

Jesus words speak for themselves as to obedience to the law as a road to eternal life....IF in fact no sin has occurred. Scripture says that in our dispensation, ALL have sinned, ...so go misrepresent someone else's motives or beliefs if that is what you desire to accomplish.

Jesus never said it was possible to keep the law.

If anything turns me away from the KJV that I have always been a staunch defender of, it will be the attitudes of men like yourself. Trust me. After witnessing your repulsive personal remarks in this discussion, I have reason to second guess the KJV and any and all translations by those of like doctrinal positions.

The KJV has been a reliable translation for 400 years. My attitude toward it has nothing to do with its reliability. I am not the one who translated it. I am not 400 plus years old.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jesus never said it was possible to keep the law.

HP: Take that up with Christ. He will have a word or so to say to you.

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

One more verse for good measure:
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

 

[DHK]

HP: Take that up with Christ. He will have a word or so to say to you.

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Again, let me say, and even emphatically so, Jesus never said it was possible to keep the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

One more verse for good measure:
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Does "could not" mean "could not"????

 

[gb93433]

For the origin of evil I would rather look to the rebellion of Lucifer. Lucifer, as well as the other angels were created perfect. Lucifer decision was to rebel against God. This story is recorded both in Isaiah 14 and Ezek.28. He wanted to be like the most High, to sit in His place. He was proud and puffed up and ready to wage war against God. In his rebellion one third of the angels followed him. They were all cast out of heaven. That is the source of evil.

That is the typical explanation I had heard and believed for a long time until a scholar whom I have known for several years corrected me when I said the same thing.

I would say that what you said is the first instance of rebellion and evil but that it was already present too. What I am talking about is the ability to rebel. The ability to rebel has to be in the one who is rebellious. What is its origin or source? How can one know good without a knowledge of evil? It would be impossible to name something as good when there is nothing to compare it against.

When I realized that the Jews saw God as creating everything. The Jews did not think like us, they saw everything in one big circle not like us who compartmentalize things. We see church as being different from business, from school, etc. The Jews saw God as a part of everything.

So my point is that nothing can exist apart from God.

 

[gb93433]

Again, let me say, and even emphatically so, Jesus never said it was possible to keep the Law.

Didn't Paul write, "as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless."

Your argument is a poor one. Where does it say in the Bible to drive your car to church. Where does it say to buy gas from Muslim countries?

There were many things Jesus did which are not recorded. So how do you know what Jesus did and did not do? Could it be that some things were assumed by the listeners and there was no need to address the issue?

 

[DHK]

So my point is that nothing can exist apart from God.

That almost sounds like Dualism, or a form of it.
God existed alone for eons. He is the only one that is eternal. Sometime in eternity he decided to create. All things have been created. Thus all things have existed apart from God. If you say different then you get into the heresies of darkness can't exist without light; Good cannot exist without evil; etc. Everything exists in pairs and are opposite one of the other. But this simply is not the case. Satan did not always exist, and evil did not always exist.

 

[DHK]

Didn't Paul write, "as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless."

Your argument is a poor one. Where does it say in the Bible to drive your car to church. Where does it say to buy gas from Muslim countries?

There were many things Jesus did which are not recorded. So how do you know what Jesus did and did not do? Could it be that some things were assumed by the listeners and there was no need to address the issue?

Jesus would not contradict the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that it is impossible to keep the law. It tells us in many places we are not justified by the law. "There shall no flesh be justified by the law."

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--Paul's point here is the futility and impossibility of keeping the law.
In order to avoid the curse you would have to be perfect--keep all the law from birth to the death--"continue in all things that are written in the law to do them." all things!
If you would sin but one time in your life you would be cursed.
The reality is that we don't sin one time in our lives, we sin everyday. We cannot but help but break the law. It is our nature. We are natural law breakers.

Jeremiah testifies to the same thing.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--Inasmuch as the Ethiopian can change the color of his skin, or the leopard his spots, so can you keep the law, or do good. You are accustomed to doing evil. It is in your nature. You can't do it. It is impossible.
Jesus would not contradict the Word of God.

 

[gb93433]

That almost sounds like Dualism, or a form of it.
God existed alone for eons. He is the only one that is eternal. Sometime in eternity he decided to create. All things have been created. Thus all things have existed apart from God.

That does not negate the existence of evil present in man just because matter existed before him.

Satan did not always exist, and evil did not always exist.

You are assuming that evil did not always exist before Satan and man. God has always existed. The one who created long existed before His creation. For something to possess a certain quality it has to be present. Evil could not have been a choice if it had not been present or existed. Whether I choose evil or good they have to be present. How could I possibly choose something that does not exist. Just look at a child. How long does it take for a child to be selfish. Where does that come from?

Since God gave man choices where did those choices originate? From finite beings? Isn't God the only infinite one who created something finite from nothing. I am not aware of anything or anyone who has.

 

[The Biblicist]

That does not negate the existence of evil present in man just because matter existed before him.

You are assuming that evil did not always exist before Satan and man. God has always existed. The one who created long existed before His creation. For something to possess a certain quality it has to be present. Evil could not have been a choice if it had not been present or existed. Whether I choose evil or good they have to be present. How could I possibly choose something that does not exist. Just look at a child. How long does it take for a child to be selfish. Where does that come from?

Since God gave man choices where did those choices originate? From finite beings? Isn't God the only infinite one who created something finite from nothing. I am not aware of anything or anyone who has.

Before Creation there was God and the Bible says "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 Jn. 1:5 Hence, before creation there was no "darkness at all."

 

[gb93433]

Before Creation there was God and the Bible says "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 Jn. 1:5 Hence, before creation there was no "darkness at all."

Does that mean evil came with the creation of man? Your statements do not negate evil at the time of creation in man. I have the choice of evil or good. For evil to be present it had to come from somewhere. For good to be a choice it had to come from somewhere. Satan chose evil. Where did that choice come from? Nothing? The choice of evil was present when Satan chose evil. My point is that you cannot choose something that is not there. I can choose red if it there. I can choose blue if it is there. It seems to me that people like to think that God created everything, but one thing--evil.

I see that God created man with the ability to choose evil or good. It is convenient to suggest that it came from Satan. Was not Satan a created being who made a choice? Where did that choice come from.

To suggest that God created everything except evil is to say that that God did not create everything. If one were take the totality of everything, is not evil part of that totality of everything just as good is?

 

[The Biblicist]

Does that mean evil came with the creation of man? Your statements do not negate evil at the time of creation in man. I have the choice of evil or good. For evil to be present it had to come from somewhere. For good to be a choice it had to come from somewhere. Satan chose evil. Where did that choice come from? Nothing? The choice of evil was present when Satan chose evil. My point is that you cannot choose something that is not there. I can choose red if it there. I can choose blue if it is there. It seems to me that people like to think that God created everything, but one thing--evil.

I see that God created man with the ability to choose evil or good. It is convenient to suggest that it came from Satan. Was not Satan a created being who made a choice? Where did that choice come from.

To suggest that God created everything except evil is to say that that God did not create everything. If one were take the totality of everything, is not evil part of that totality of everything just as good is?

Before Creation there was God and the Bible says "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." - 1 Jn. 1:5 Hence, before creation there was no "darkness at all."

Gen. 1:3231 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Hence, no spiritual darkness before creation and still no spiritual darkness after creation before the seventh day, unless you think God can look on spiritual darkness within his creation and pronounce "it was very good"?