Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

I hope that we can debate together on that topic one day, and I hope Heavenly Pilgrim does not believe like you, in that we do not have a spirit that lives on after the death of our bodies.

 

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.

Mark 10:18 ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος

There is none good but one, God.

Jesus was plainly saying, even rebuking this man:
Why are you being so flippant with calling me (and perhaps others) "good"?
Do you not know that there is only one person that is Good, and that is God?
If I am good then I am God; If I am not good then I am not God.

Be careful who you call "good." Only God is good!

 

Can you prove that there exists discrepancies in the account given in Mark? Even if you find one in Matthew, you don't find one in Mark, so you are just chasing a rabbit trail.

Consider the whole story.
Jesus told him to keep the law, and he would live.
He said: "This I have done from my youth" (a lie).
Then Jesus beholding him, loved him and said: "This do, sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, take up thy cross, and follow me."
But the man went away sorrowful for he had many riches.
Jesus turned to his disciples and said: "How hard shall it be for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
I say unto you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The disciples were astonished at that saying.

What had just happened?
Jesus indeed loved the young man, as he loves all. He had just demonstrated that the law was impossible to keep. He told the young man to keep the law, but the young man couldn't keep the law. In the end he coveted his riches more than he desired God. Jesus demonstrated that his sin of covetousness kept him from the very thing that he said he was seeking after:
"Good Master, what must I do to have 'eternal life'"?
Eternal life cannot be gained by keeping the law. No man can keep the law, and that is what Christ demonstrated with this man. He knew that he did not, could not, and would not keep the law. In fact he rejected Christ and broke the law in doing so. He coveted his riches more than he desired Christ. Covetousness is a terrible sin. Thou shalt not covet.

 

You presume to be more inspired than Mark and Luke who both include "God" (theos)??????? Mark and Luke prove that the better manuscript reading for Matthew is that one which agrees with two other INSPIRED witnesses.

Of course not! You better reread the Lexicon as you read it wrong. Agathos is Nominative Masculine Singular and if you read it as "neuter" you are either looking at the wrong word or inventing your own Greek grammar.

 

Ok, I see the problem. You don't understand that Greek adjectives can be used in all three genders (Masculine, Neuter and Feminine).

However, when they are used in any context the gender is determined by the gender of the noun they modify. The adjective must agree with the noun it modifies both in gender, case, and in number.

If you will check the text again you will see that the noun the adjective "agathos" modifies is a Masculine noun and therefore must agree with it in gender, case and number.

For example in the Text you have chosen that omits "theos", Matthew 19:17 still retains the masculine singular definite article preceding "agathos." The masculine singular definite article "ho" which looks like 'o immediately precedes agathos in that Greek text.

If you look again at your Lexicon the term "agathos" should be followed by "n" and "ov" which gives the femine and neuter nominative form.

If Matthew wanted to use the neuter form here, not only must the definite article be in the neuter form (which it is not but in the masculine) but you would find the neuter "agathov" which is the neuter form of the masculine nominative singule "agathos." However, the neuter form is not found in Matthew's account.

The masculine and neuter Genitive singular "agathou" are identical and only the noun being modified can determine whether it is masculine or neuter.

The Analytical Greek Lexicon published by Zondervan lists the term like this:

Agathos, n, ov

Thus listing the term "agathos" in its masculine form while giving the ending of the feminine and neuter in the nominative case.

Find a Greek scholar you trust and he will back up every word I have said.


However, there are no alternative readings for the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke as they all say "God" "theos" and all use the same masculine nominative case "agathos."

 

Why do you call me good?
You know that there are none that are good. All have a depraved nature, born of original sin. Why is it then that you are calling me "good"? You must have a good reason. What is different about me, that you are calling me good?

The essence of "goodness" is God-ness.

 

I trust the translation of the KJV more than I trust you.
I trust the dozens of other translations more than I trust you.
I have no reason to doubt the translation, "Why callest thou me good?"
On what valid basis do you doubt this?

 

Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν

Teacher, the good
the good Teacher
the good Master

 

You do not even know Greek and you want to judge those who do????

What scholar asserts that Mark and Luke speak aboout some other individual????? Please bring them forward or bring evidence that Mark and Luke are speakng of some other man! You cannot assume it or just assert it as all the evidence denies such an presumptive idea.

The textual reading you have hand selected based upon your vast understanding of textual criticism Literally says "Why question me concerning goodness?"

The KJV translators were correct in following the readings that agree with Luke and Mark. The text you have chosen is in error and there are two inspired writers who side against it.

 

Textual Criticism has nothing to with Calvinism or non-Calvinism. It simply has to do with: which text is the most accurate? The Critical Text or the Majority Text? I for one believe that the KJV which comes from the TR, the Majority Text, is more accurate and complete then the modern versions which use the Critical Text. This is a matter for you to study out. You should also take a basic Greek course. You don't seem to even recognize the Greek words in the verse you posted.

 

You are demonstrating why you believe bizzare ideas and have bizzare interpretations.

In order to justify the textual variant you have chosen for Matthew 19:17 you will have to condemn both Mark and Luke and deny they were inspired as they use the same exact reading the KJV translators followed which agrees with Mark and Luke.

Instead you reject a reading of Matthew 19:17 found in ancient manuscripts that agrees with the undisputed readings found in both Mark and Luke.

To suggest that Mark and Luke spoke of some other person than Matthew is ludriocus as there is NO EVIDENCE for that assumptiona and there is MASSIVE evidence against that presumption.

 

No, I am KJV preferred.
Look at some of the terms involved.
The KJV came from the TR or the received text--those texts which were received by the majority.
They are also called the Majority Text because the majority of the churches have used this text down throughout the centuries. It was always the accepted text. This is easily verifiable since the W-H text is an eclectic text and did not come into existence until Westcott and Hort put it together at the end of the 19th century when liberalism was rampant.
This year marks the KJV's 400th anniversary (last year did). No other Bible has lasted so long. It is an accurate translation. The KJVO say that it is infallible. I don't go that far. I know that there are inaccuracies in its translation. But the underlying Greek text is more accurate than the others. That is what I believe.