Why does Jesus object to being called "good?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedIvan3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RedIvan3

Guest
Hey guys,

As a pastime I enjoy debating atheists and defending the faith and such, but then today I got a rather interesting problem.

In the story of the rich young man, the man addresses Jesus as “good teacher”, but Jesus objects, saying only God the Father is good. My opponent used to passage as a means to say Jesus is not the Son of God and is merely a flawed human.

This passage is kind of hard to explain, so why is it that Jesus says he is not good? If he is God then he must be good right?
 
I believe because of His humanity, which is linked to His Divinity by way of the hypostatic union. There are two natures, one Divine Person and the Good is of God alone.

From Wikipedia on Hypostatic Union:
Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις, {"[h]upostasis"}, “hypostasis”, translated reality or person)[1][dubious – discuss] is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John 10:37-38 quotes Jesus as follows: “…that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Click to expand...
The Hypostatic union became official at the Council of Ephesus, which stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (existence or reality, “hypostasis”) of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think Jesus is objecting to it at all, rather, when He asks ‘WHY do you call me ‘good’?’ He’s asking, in a subtle rather than obvious way ‘think about what you’re saying here, do you really want to be claiming that I’m God?’
 
LilyM said:
I don’t think Jesus is objecting to it at all, rather, when He asks ‘WHY do you call me ‘good’?’ He’s asking, in a subtle rather than obvious way ‘think about what you’re saying here, do you really want to be claiming that I’m God?’
Click to expand...
I think of it as the above. That it is more a question about how the man perceives Jesus. Will watch this thread with interest.
 
well if you think about it, Jesus never denies He was good.

He just asked the man a very subtle hypothetical question.

as He was and is God in flesh, He is Good, and calls Himself the Good Shepherd in John 10, wherein He also reveals His nature and identity as God (see Ezekiel 34 in relation to John 10 and Matthew 25:31-46).

God alone is Good, and Jesus as the Son of God is also Good, and He shares in God’s unique qualities, holiness, and Person, fully God and fully Man.
 
For me because he is not all knowing and all seeing and wants us to understand the G-d he prayed to is the source of goodness.

I guess the rich young man had his eyes open and saw Our Fathers goodness in Yeshua (pbwh).
 
RedIvan3 said:
Hey guys,

As a pastime I enjoy debating atheists and defending the faith and such, but then today I got a rather interesting problem.

In the story of the rich young man, the man addresses Jesus as “good teacher”, but Jesus objects, saying only God the Father is good. My opponent used to passage as a means to say Jesus is not the Son of God and is merely a flawed human.

This passage is kind of hard to explain, so why is it that Jesus says he is not good? If he is God then he must be good right?
Click to expand...
I think Jesus is saying something very interesting here. Jesus came down in the flesh to live amoung us, and he only got a little angry a few times. His Father, got mad often.

So, I guess good has a relative meaning.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I think Jesus is saying something very interesting here. Jesus came down in the flesh to live amoung us, and he only got a little angry a few times. His Father, got mad often.

So, I guess good has a relative meaning.
Click to expand...
Anger at evil in not bad. God is not bad for anger or for destruction of anything. Mad is defined as a more uncontrolled, enraged anger and, perhaps not intended on your part, is degrading of the person described as such.

“God alone is Good” is objectively identifying good as godly. The more good one is, the more godly they are. The relative aspect is in our desire to become good and in the acceptance of the grace necessary to be good.
LilyM said:
I don’t think Jesus is objecting to it at all, rather, when He asks ‘WHY do you call me ‘good’?’ He’s asking, in a subtle rather than obvious way ‘think about what you’re saying here, do you really want to be claiming that I’m God?’
Click to expand...
Is not Jesus God? The key word is “alone” and as the Church has elucidated the truth of Him being united to God in assuming our human nature into His divinity, making one Divine Person. This Divine Person is Good, is God, but the explanation of this would take time and the Church to accomplish. The teaching moment was left to another time, but not much later as “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me”, and “Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven” attest. Jesus’ human nature is seen in “Let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless, not My will but Yours be done”. Two wills, two natures, and one Divine Person, the “good” comes strictly from the divine nature and this is what was being taught at that moment.

More on the incarnation: newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#I3
 
He was expressing proper humility and bringing focus upon the very make of “good” being God whereas he was only a teacher, messenger, “Messiah”. Too much focus on the messenger corrupts the message. The messenger is seen and thus can be misjudged and misunderstood to represent something unintended. Jesus having long hair, for example, is not associated with the good of God. “Don’t look upon my body and say ‘good’, but upon the spirit within which is very make of good.”

In effect, he was saying, “don’t focus upon me, but upon what I am teaching about and know the good of that, as that is God.”
 
James_S_Saint said:
He was expressing proper humility and bringing focus upon the very make of “good” being God whereas he was only a teacher, messenger, “Messiah”.
Click to expand...
The quote “I am the Truth, the way and the life” pretty much refutes this. As does the Eucharist. Messiah means “Savior”, not teacher.
James_S_Saint said:
Too much focus on the messenger corrupts the message. The messenger is seen and thus can be misjudged and misunderstood to represent something unintended. Jesus having long hair, for example, is not associated with the good of God. “Don’t look upon my body and say ‘good’, but upon the spirit within which is very make of good.”
Click to expand...
The message is Jesus. The flesh is of no avail is true but Jesus did not sin thus His flesh is worthy, or we are not saved and the quote “Eat the flesh of the son of Man” means nothing. The whole of Catholic teaching really sheds light on individual passages often interpreted badly from an “out of context” view. The “context” used should be Catholicism.
James_S_Saint said:
In effect, he was saying, “don’t focus upon me, but upon what I am teaching about and know the good of that, as that is God.”
Click to expand...
The message and the messenger are the same. “No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.”. It would be incorrect to assume it as “No man cometh to the Father, but by My message”.
 
Earnest_Bunbury said:
The quote “I am the Truth, the way and the life” pretty much refutes this. As does the Eucharist. Messiah means “Savior”, not teacher.
.
Click to expand...
in scripture Yeshua (pbwh) says he is the teacher, this does not mean he is not the messiah but clearly he is the teacher.

B blessed B guided
 
Steven_John said:
in scripture Yeshua (pbwh) says he is the teacher, this does not mean he is not the messiah but clearly he is the teacher.

B blessed B guided
Click to expand...
Who can teach well without fully knowing the subject matter?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Who can teach well without fully knowing the subject matter?
Click to expand...
Clearly the one who was created by the Fathers command, had the holy spirit descend upon him and was obedient to Our Fathers will.

But why question me, If you read what i posted response to you will see your comment should be addressed to them as both you and i are saying he did say and is the teacher. Assuming the subject matter is how we serve Our Father and interact will all peoples.

Forgive me if this is “reading between the lines” but for some reason i considered when u say subject matter could be to mean the mind of Our Father and all that was and will be.
Of course this would be wrong as being in flesh Yeshua (pbwh) explained / revealed he was not the all knowing self existent one who is without beginning and end.

May Our Father bless and guide us to the straight path with abundant blessings for you and yours that we may glorify Him.
 
Would a teacher cease being a creator, merely by coming to be with his creation?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Something that is perfect, can not be created.
Click to expand...
My G-d can do anything without limits you assert on Him, including create what is perfect. I would go further to say He does not create fault or imperfection as you assert.

And in truth He is your G-d.
 
Steven_John said:
My G-d can do anything without limits you assert on Him, including create what is perfect. I would go further to say He does not create fault or imperfection as you assert.

And in truth He is your G-d.
Click to expand...
I have no God, but I take this in a kind way thank you.

🙂

Something that is perfect can not create perfect- but can only be perfect in any way or means he chooses to be.

A creation, can never be perfect. It can only strive to show perfection.
 
Hi Strawberry,
oops never read you were agnostic.

Your posts confuse me now, who or what is the creator you spoke of in earlier posts.
example
Would a teacher cease being a creator, merely by coming to be with his creation?
Click to expand...
Who is the creator that came to be with his creation?

Be kind and happy, i pray others treat you well to be so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top