• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
And Jesus prayed to the Father. That seems like a pretty good example to follow.
He did say that we should pray in His name. To me, that means addressing our prayers to "Our Father in Heaven" and closing them, "In the name of Jesus Christ" since He is our Mediator with the Father.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I mean that He had divine parentage as well as mortal parentage. It's a simple as that. He was not the Son of Mary and some other human being; He was the Son of Mary and God. Just as Mary was His literal mother, God was His literal Father.
That clears it up. Thanks. :thumbsup:

The scriptural support is that He was the Only Begotten Son of God. He wasn't just some man who managed somehow to get through life without sinning.
:thumbsup:

I'm saying that His Father was God. I don't know any other way to put it.
:thumbsup:

He was raised with a body of flesh and bones, which He clearly pointed out to His Apostles. That doesn't mean that His risen body was corruptible or mortal. It was not. His resurrected body was incorruptible and immortal, just as you say it was, but that doesn't mean that it was incorporeal. He could not possibly have been more clear in asking them to prove to themselves that He was still a corporeal being. He wasn't playing games with His Apostles. He appeared to them exactly as He was.
The problem here is that there is no scriptural support for this, What is happening here, is that persons come to a conclusion based on what they think, not what the scriptures say.

Let's reason on it... from the scriptures. Is that okay with you?
First.
Do the scriptures say he was raised in the flesh, or spirit?
According to the scriptures, did God give him a heavenly body or physical body, at his resurrection?

The bottom line: Corporeal does not necessarily mean corruptible or mortal. It merely means tangible.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The problem here is that there is no scriptural support for this, What is happening here, is that persons come to a conclusion based on what they think, not what the scriptures say.
There's no scriptural support for what Jesus Christ himself said? What on earth do you mean by that? I know what the scriptures say and they say He had a body of flesh and bone! And they further state that if His was merely a spirit, He would not have had such a body.

Let's reason on it... from the scriptures. Is that okay with you?
You know what this sounds like, don't you? It sounds like you're saying, "Now, dear... if you'll listen very carefully to what I'm going to tell you (since your understanding of the scriptures is clearly flawed and mine isn't), you'll end up seeing that I'm right and you're wrong. Is that okay with you?";)

First.
Do the scriptures say he was raised in the flesh, or spirit?
According to the scriptures, did God give him a heavenly body or physical body, at his resurrection?
Both. He had a physical body that would be sustained eternally by spirit. It was a heavenly body in that it was glorified, perfect, incorruptible and immortal. It was a physical body in that it had flesh and bones. That is what the scriptures say. That is what Jesus Christ himself said.

nPeace, you need to understand that nothing you could possibly say is going to change what I believe. It's not that my "conclusion [is] based on what think"; it is based on "what the scriptures say." We are reading the same scriptures (well, sort of, since you use the JWs own translation, which may very well state things differently than the KJV, which I use) but we are understanding them differently. That's really all there is to it. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and ultimately of all of us. It is one of our core doctrines. We can try to "reason" from what the scriptures say, but we're still going to come up with contradictory conclusions. Now if you really want to go there, I will, but I would suggest that you spend your time trying to convince someone who might actually be able to see it your way, because I've heard the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective before (including all of their arguments) and I don't find them convincing.
 
Last edited:

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
r
Ellen, I agree with you that Moses DID talk to God face to face. There are many times when a verse of scripture can be interpreted in a number of different ways, even though only one way may be accurate. There are other times, though, that the Bible makes a very straightforward statement, one that must either be accepted or flat out ignored. It seems to me that it makes a whole lot more sense to just say, "That's one I just can't explain. I don't have an answer for you," than it does to deny it. There are verses of scripture that I can't explain. They don't seem to fit in with all of the other scriptures upon which my beliefs are based. But the fact that some people simply refuse to believe a simple, uncomplicated, unambiguous statement when they see one does not mean that they are devious and evil. When people just have to be right all the time, they can't bring themselves to back down on anything. Consider it a character flaw and not something worth ripping out chest hair over.


Thank You. I have been out working all day and come home to find that I am still very disturbed by their behavior. If they would simply tell the truth about what they believe. None of us are perfect. Perhaps I'll calm down before I have to fact God with it.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Thank You. I have been out working all day and come home to find that I am still very disturbed by their behavior. If they would simply tell the truth about what they believe. None of us are perfect. Perhaps I'll calm down before I have to fact God with it.
I'm sure you will. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation myself. I think nPeace is telling the truth about what he believes and about how he interprets the Bible, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how the Jehovah's Witnesses can insist that Jesus Christ was not physically resurrected when He personally states that He was. It blows my mind, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I believe if Jesus is just a man then he can't save you but if He is God then He can because only God can save.


"No man cometh to the Father except through the Son. So, it is not the Son that saves us but the Son who intercedes for us to the Father.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There's no scriptural support for what Jesus Christ himself said? What on earth do you mean by that? I know what the scriptures say and they say He had a body of flesh and bone! And they further state that if His was merely a spirit, He would not have had such a body.

You know what this sounds like, don't you? It sounds like you're saying, "Now, dear... if you'll listen very carefully to what I'm going to tell you (since your understanding of the scriptures is clearly flawed and mine isn't), you'll end up seeing that I'm right and you're wrong. Is that okay with you?";)
It sounds that way to you, but that's not the way I meant it.
When you suggested
What I would really like would be for either @dianaiad or @Jane.Doe to join me and talk to both you and Hockeycowboy in the team debate forum (just the four of us). This thread may not be the best place for us to have our dialogue.

I did not form an idea in my head that you wanted to school us.
I could have done so by simply zeroing in on a few phrases like, "talk to both" and interpreted it that way, but I didn't.

I just thought we could reason from the scriptures on this subject alone. That's all.
There is no need to get offended about that. I think.
If you preferred not to, I would have accepted that.

Both. He had a physical body that would be sustained eternally by spirit. It was a heavenly body in that it was glorified, perfect, incorruptible and immortal. It was a physical body in that it had flesh and bones. That is what the scriptures say. That is what Jesus Christ himself said.

nPeace, you need to understand that nothing you could possibly say is going to change what I believe. It's not that my "conclusion [is] based on what think"; it is based on "what the scriptures say." We are reading the same scriptures (well, sort of, since you use the JWs own translation, which may very well state things differently than the KJV, which I use) but we are understanding them differently. That's really all there is to it. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and ultimately of all of us. It is one of our core doctrines. We can try to "reason" from what the scriptures say, but we're still going to come up with contradictory conclusions. Now if you really want to go there, I will, but I would suggest that you spend your time trying to convince someone who might actually be able to see it your way, because I've heard the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective before (including all of their arguments) and I don't find them convincing.
I'm quite shocked actually.
This seems so odd to me.
So your invitation to debate was why?
I said let's reason on it, not let's agree to what I say.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm sure you will. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation myself. I think nPeace is telling the truth about what he believes and about how he interprets the Bible, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how the Jehovah's Witnesses can insist that Jesus Christ was not physically resurrected when He personally states that He was. It blows my mind, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.
That can be solved simply by reasoning on scripture, rather than just stating ideas and saying it's scriptural.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Except that Mary probably wasn’t a virgin. First of all, the term isn’t “virgin” — it’s “young woman.” Mary was a teenager (not unusual in those days). Second, since the narrative of “Virgin Mary” is found in Matthew, Matthew makes extensive use of “outsider women” in his genealogy of Jesus, so it stands to reason that Mary could have been not virginal, and thus an “outsider,” which would put her right in line with the genealogy. Third, the birth narrative (indeed, much of the Christ myth) was lifted directly from that of Augustus — including the “virgin birth” part.

The most reasonable interpretation is that Mary was not a virgin. Despite the lyrics to Silent Night.
There is Silent Night. But there is also the scriptures. In my opinion, they should be consulted when pondering such things as life, Personally, I give them the utmost respect and authority. I think all things that pertain to life and godliness are in the scriptures (2 Pet 1:3). It's not necessary to bring neither Augustus nor Silent Night into the study.

Matt 1:18,

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Don't assume all the words in this verse mean the same thing they do to us. We are separated by a couple thousand years along with a culture that has little resemblance to our modern Western culture. Part of biblical research is learning the moors and customs of that day. The Bible wasn'tt written Last year in The Bronx.

Luke 1:34,

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
As above, find out what it meant to "know a man" in the ancient Near East. You can figure it out.

If these verses are not clear, maybe these will be:

Matt 1:23,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.​

Luke 1:26-27,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
Speaking of Augustus, could it be that he (and all the others) got their ideas from Isaiah, who lived in the 8th century BC?

Isa 7:14,

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.​

The upshot is that the scriptures do indeed speak of a virgin, namely Mary, the mother of Jesus. Whether it is taken as truth or a fairy tale is something else. Whatever anybody things about it, it's most definitely there.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I'm sure you will. I'm currently in the middle of such a conversation myself. I think nPeace is telling the truth about what he believes and about how he interprets the Bible, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how the Jehovah's Witnesses can insist that Jesus Christ was not physically resurrected when He personally states that He was. It blows my mind, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.


I am not proud of my feelings right now, and I had trusted nPeace, so now I am feeling betrayed, indignant and spitting like a cat.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And yet Mary tells the angel that she has not been with a man and does not understand how she could be with child. So maybe the actual word virgin is not used but it sure sounds like that is what is meant. This is what happens when people try to translate words in a way that follows their beliefs instead of letting their beliefs follow what is said.
No, that’s Luke. I was speaking strictly of Matthew. In Matthew she says no such thing. That’s what happens when we smush two different gospel stories together. We get muddled interpretations.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I am not proud of my feelings right now, and I had trusted nPeace, so now I am feeling betrayed, indignant and spitting like a cat.
wink.gif

I don't have a white flag, so "have a heart".
If there was good reason to trust me, I don't see why that should change. I haven't changed, have I? What bad thing have I done?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Matt 1:18,

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Don't assume all the words in this verse mean the same thing they do to us. We are separated by a couple thousand years along with a culture that has little resemblance to our modern Western culture. Part of biblical research is learning the moors and customs of that day. The Bible wasn'tt written Last year in The Bronx.
I learned that in undergraduate school. It was bolstered by my years spent in bible study in graduate seminary. It was further drilled into me in the years since, whilst exegeting texts for sermons. I’m well practiced in the methodology of biblical exegesis. One very important component of the exegetical process is that we don’t mush different texts together to arrive at an interpretation. Like you’re doing here:

Luke 1:34,

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
As above, find out what it meant to "know a man" in the ancient Near East. You can figure it out.

If these verses are not clear, maybe these will be:

Matt 1:23,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Luke 1:26-27,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
Shifting between Matthew and Luke really is unhelpful.
Problem is that both the Hebrew in Isaiah and the Greek in Matthew can (and do) mean, “young woman.” Hence, my post, which (taking into account the culture of the time) asserts that Mary as an unwed pregnant female would theologically place her in line with the immediately preceding genealogy.

Speaking of Augustus, could it be that he (and all the others) got their ideas from Isaiah, who lived in the 8th century BC?
Unlikely. It’s much more likely that Christendom ripped off Augustus. One of the earliest pieces of Christian art is a bas-relief ascene on the side of an altar. It’s a direct ripoff of an earlier bas-relief of Augustus.

The upshot is that the scriptures do indeed speak of a virgin, namely Mary, the mother of Jesus. Whether it is taken as truth or a fairy tale is something else. Whatever anybody things about it, it's most definitely there.
No, what’s evident is that Matthew and Isaiah speak of a young woman. It is at best unclear that “virgin” is meant, because at other points in the texts, those terms do not mean “virgin.”
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
That can be solved simply by reasoning on scripture, rather than just stating ideas and saying it's scriptural.
I didn't just state an idea and say that it's scriptural.

Luke 24:36-43 states: And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.

How in the world can you say that what I have said is not scriptural? :rolleyes:
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
It sounds that way to you, but that's not the way I meant it.
When you suggested
What I would really like would be for either @dianaiad or @Jane.Doe to join me and talk to both you and Hockeycowboy in the team debate forum (just the four of us). This thread may not be the best place for us to have our dialogue.
Well, at the time I posted that, that's how I felt, but when you tell me that my beliefs are "not scriptural," I can't help but wonder what kind of a dialogue we could possibly have!

nPeace said:
I just thought we could reason from the scriptures on this subject alone. That's all.
There is no need to get offended about that. I think.
I'm not offended by the suggestion that we could "reason from the scriptures." I'm offended by your claim that my beliefs are "not scriptural." See, this is how it always ends up -- every last time I attempt to have a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness. Without fail. On the surface, it looks like a congenial dialogue is about to take place, and then there's an insult. Don't act surprised. If I were to tell you that your interpretation was "not scriptural," you'd be insulted, just as I am. I get the impression that all you guys do when you get together to worship is fine-tune your debating skills. It's all about proving that you're right and the other guy is wrong. Maybe it's so ingrained that you're not even aware of it. There is a passage in The Book of Mormon which states, "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention." When I talk to a Jehovah's Witness, I always feel like my back is up against a wall. It's not a matter of how our doctrines differ. It's a matter of how you come across. I'm sorry, that's just how it is.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Um, I dunknow? That is a question I never thought of.
Maybe you could explain to me exactly who you believe Jesus Christ to have been and what was the purpose of His Atonement -- i.e. if you still believe in His Atonement. I mean, you've described yourself as "sort of Christian" but have also told me that you are "still very Muslim in my approach to many things." So maybe if you try to clarify what you believe about Jesus Christ at this point in your life, it will help me understand what you meant when you said, "It is not the Son that saves us." And from there, we could explore what the purpose of His intercession to have been. I'm just curious, in case you'd like to explain.
 
Top