The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

[lostwanderingsoul]

Very good analogy! Look at 1 Corinthians 10:4, where a form of the same word was used. Then ask the question, "Was the rock-mass really Jesus, or did it just represent Jesus?"

Obviously, we can see how that Greek word "estin" was used.

And the church claims that Peter is the rock that the church is founded on. But several verses like this one show that the rock was Jesus. God would not build a church on an ordinary man but on the rock of Jesus.

 

[Jane.Doe]

If I told you you were wrong, would you be offended at that?
You are wrong. I would not be offended.
Are you offended?
I did not say it to offend you.
I will try to keep in mind that some persons don't like people to say their belief is wrong. I am not sure if it will work though. In fact thinking on it, I don't see how it will work.
If I believe your belief is not scriptural, I may well tell you.
Why not try to show me that it isn't, instead of taking offense?

Offering someone a gift is a kind thing. Gifts are something the person can accept or reject, and if someone says "no thank you", you respect their choice with "ok" and move on.

Debating is not offering a gift. Debating is akin to offering someone some orange juice, and when they say "no thank you", instead of respecting their choice you lecture them on all the reasons you think they should take the juice anyways and completely ignoring their views, intelligence, or polite "no thank you"s. Rather than having the juice be a gift, you've now made it an object to convey your ego and completely degrade the other person. It is the opposite of loving as Christ did.

Do you know how many times I have been told that I am wrong, and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong?
I didn't get offended. Do you know why?
Because I believe everyone has a belief, and they will not always agree with me, and will sometimes express those words.

Do you know how many times I have been told that what I believe and teach, is not scriptural?
I can't even count the number on my fingers and toes.
I didn't get offended, but more than that, I simply ask, "Show me where I am wrong." I walked away from every one of those conversations smiling, after shaking that person's hand - unless they get angry, and would rather storm in their house and slam their door. That may happen to us one or two times.

You see Katzpur, you don't know me, or most Jehovah's Witnesses. Most are not thinned-skin.
Sometimes we may think that everyone fits under the same umbrella, and sometimes we may fit persons with our own personality, but we are wrong when we do that.
However, I'm different - not because I am better than you, or anyone else, nor do I feel that way.

And...? Frankly, people being jerks to you doesn't impress me.
Instead, how about you tell me about the times you respected another person's view point and loved them as they ARE. Not as a future JW, but as the atheist, Hindu, Baptist, etc that they are.

I can only speak for the men though, because they are the ones that receive training to preach

Actually, LDS ladies can and do serve full-time missions are well. And all LDS know how to share their love of Christ, regardless of whether or not they go on a full-time mission.

Note: LDS missionaries are not "trained" the way I have seen JW trained (I have attended many JW meetings because I wanted to understand JW).

Who knows if we won't agree some time in the future?

Again, show me you loving a person NOT as a future JW.

 

[sojourner]

That's too bad... for you.

Smugness and faux-superiority gets us nowhere. This isnt a personal problem, it’s a fact of the disparity between languages. You either know this and are trying to get under my skin, or you don’t know it and are pretending that you do.

 

[sojourner]

I like your last sentence. We just don't know for sure. So my interpretation is as valid as yours

That was my point: there are things in the Bible that we cannot fully understand.
This isn’t about individual interpretations; it’s about what is able to be fully understood. Interpretation has relatively little to do with the point I was making.

I do not know anyone who was around in the first 1500 years of the church so I do not know what they believed

Gee, I don’t know why, there are all kinds of historical records, lists of bishops, writings, doctrines, etc. If you’re unfamiliar with them, you might find it helpful to familiarize yourself with them.

you do not know how ... learned I am

The following quote gives me a pretty good idea; it’s a gross misuse of the text you reference and just plain bad theology to suggest.

Why not change water into wine and make a real miracle?

 

[sojourner]

Gen 1:27,

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
God is spirit (John 4:24). That is His image.

As originally created therefore, man was body, soul, and spirit. It was the spirit part that had fellowship with God. God, being spirit, can not be know by a body and soul individual. The creature of body and soul is limited to gathering information from their five sense which do not register spirit.

The problem here is that you’re mushing together two widely disparate texts, that really have nothing to do with each other. John does not inform Genesis. The ancient Hebrews who wrote Genesis didn’t think the way you present here, nor did they think the way the author of John thought, so to use Genesis to bolster your argument is disingenuous and unhelpful.

 

[sojourner]

The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56


The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56


Read again.

So, you’re reneging on the deal you set. Thought so.

 

[sojourner]

Absolutely!

At the risk of offending any of the beautiful ladies here, I will say that seed comes from the male, not the female. Jesus' seed came directly from God, which seed was not tainted and therefore innocent as well as incorruptible. Everybody else's came from Adam who screwed up his seed and therefore everybody else's seed right on down the line. If my dad gave me a corruptible seed that's all I have to pass on to my son.

Nonetheless, Mary was quite a believer for believing that God would implant His seed in her womb while she had never been impregnated by a man, and that seed would end up being the Saviour of all mankind! Can you imagine what the world would say today (or then for that matter) about some woman who believed that? Had Mary not believed we'd still be waiting. She was quite a woman!

As they say, "It takes two to tango." God and Mary danced one heck of a tango!

That’s not How It Works, though. The baby gets as much from the mother as the father. Which is why, in order for Jesus to be incorruptible, the RCC had to accept the ex cathedra statement concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

 

[sojourner]

I've got to disagree with your there. According to the dictionary (pick any reliable version), an image is "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art," for instance "an image of St. Bartholomew." It is the representation of a person's or object's physical qualities. You would never use the word "image" in any other context outside of the Bible. You look at yourself in the mirror and you see your image. A child who looks like his dad is said to be "his spittin' image." Even if you use the word as a metaphor -- for example, "He is the image of health," you are describing how a person looks. You are describing his physical appearance as being "healthy." You can't apply the word "image" to something that is incorporeal. It makes no sense, for example, to say that something is the exact image of "air."

Respectfully, this is a bit of a weak argument. Someone can be said to be the image of love, kindness, mercy, friendship, etc. None of those things is based on physical appearance. Rather, they are based in action, or in effect. If you read Genesis closely, I think you’ll find that humanity is created in the image of the Creator — one who has the capacity for self-determination; ironically, the very attribute that allowed humanity to fall away from God by their very action of self-determination. And therein lies humanity’s spiritual struggle: to let God be God, and to find our self-determination through relationship, specifically, learning to live life in God. It presents us with a conundrum that we have to work hard to resolve.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

That was my point: there are things in the Bible that we cannot fully understand.
This isn’t about individual interpretations; it’s about what is able to be fully understood. Interpretation has relatively little to do with the point I was making.


Gee, I don’t know why, there are all kinds of historical records, lists of bishops, writings, doctrines, etc. If you’re unfamiliar with them, you might find it helpful to familiarize yourself with them.


The following quote gives me a pretty good idea; it’s a gross misuse of the text you reference and just plain bad theology to suggest.

Well again you say we cannot fully understand things but you argue as if anyone who disagrees with you is completely wrong. Then you turn around and say it is about what we can fully understand. And what is wrong with saying that if a priest can change bread into Christ's body why can't he change water into wine? I did not reference any text or theology. I have simply disagreed with your ideas and that is the basis of a discussion like this. Some people have information to share and some just want to call others names. I am not the name caller here.

 

[sojourner]

Well again you say we cannot fully understand things

No, I said that there are some things on the Bible that can’t be fully understood.

but you argue as if anyone who disagrees with you is completely wrong

Because you’re not tracking the argument I’m making.

Then you turn around and say it is about what we can fully understand

I never said that.

And what is wrong with saying that if a priest can change bread into Christ's body why can't he change water into wine?

What’s wrong with it is that it’s not the priest who effects the transubstantiation.

I did not reference any text or theology

Referencing a priest turning water into wine is referencing theology. And poorly.

 

[Katzpur]

Respectfully, this is a bit of a weak argument. Someone can be said to be the image of love, kindness, mercy, friendship, etc. None of those things is based on physical appearance. Rather, they are based in action, or in effect. If you read Genesis closely, I think you’ll find that humanity is created in the image of the Creator — one who has the capacity for self-determination; ironically, the very attribute that allowed humanity to fall away from God by their very action of self-determination. And therein lies humanity’s spiritual struggle: to let God be God, and to find our self-determination through relationship, specifically, learning to live life in God. It presents us with a conundrum that we have to work hard to resolve.

Yeah, I knew we wouldn't agree on this particular issue.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, I knew we wouldn't agree on this particular issue.

Ha! This is what makes Xy so very colorful!

 

[sojourner]

Then you turn around and say it is about what we can fully understand

My apologies. I originally answered that I never said that. Then I went back this morning and looked. I did, in fact, say that, but it was a typo. I meant to say “can’t.” No wonder you’re a little confused re: my post. Does reading “can’t” help at all?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

My apologies. I originally answered that I never said that. Then I went back this morning and looked. I did, in fact, say that, but it was a typo. I meant to say “can’t.” No wonder you’re a little confused re: my post. Does reading “can’t” help at all?

Thanks. I have nothing personal against you. I hope we can continue to discuss things even if we may not completely agree on everything. I believe you have some very good ideas but act like anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. There are many ideas that I may not agree with but I respect the person's right to believe what they want. Much of religion has very little real PROOF. It is about FAITH in things you can't prove.

 

[rrobs]

The problem here is that you’re mushing together two widely disparate texts, that really have nothing to do with each other. John does not inform Genesis. The ancient Hebrews who wrote Genesis didn’t think the way you present here, nor did they think the way the author of John thought, so to use Genesis to bolster your argument is disingenuous and unhelpful.

I'm trying to imagine how you fit the scriptures together, but I'm having a hard time. Is Genesis, or John, or both not part of the word of God? Likewise for Matthew and Luke. Is one or both of them not the word of God?

I guess I could just ask where you go to learn about God? Or is it not available to learn about God? It sure seems like the scriptures are not the final authority as to life and godliness in your mind, despite them claiming to be just that.

Maybe I'm not getting the message, so I'll just ask plainly, do you believe the scriptures (as originally given to Moses, Isaiah, Ezekial, Paul, etc.) are the revealed word and will of God? Please note the emphasized "originally given." I understand that the KJV, AV, etc have somewhat altered the original. But I also believe it is possible, by various methods, to at least get closer to the originals. So, again, I ask are the scriptures the revealed word and will of God or not?

I am also most curious as to what is your hope for the end of this life. I asked you before but you didn't answer. If you don't want to answer, I understand and won't press the issue.

 

[sojourner]

s Genesis, or John, or both not part of the word of God? Likewise for Matthew and Luke. Is one or both of them not the word of God

They are all included in canon text. There are also other texts that are not in the Protestant canon — or any canon — that are just as authentic. It sounds like I don’t have the same type of respect for the canon that you do. I see the texts differently. While I believe them to be holy, I don’t believe them to be magical, or to provide the surest or only lens through which we can apprehend God. Even though all the texts you mention are part of the canon, the are neither linked nor homogenous in their theological takes. Each presents a rather unique theological imagination, and each deserves to be studied separately. It’s like humanity. There are many different cultures and expressions of humanity that deserve to be honored for their uniqueness. When we begin to mush cultures together, we narrow our full spectrum of humanity, molding into something it is not. Only by honoring the diversity can we gain a clear picture of the human landscape.

I guess I could just ask where you go to learn about God? Or is it not available to learn about God? It sure seems like the scriptures are not the final authority as to life and godliness in your mind, despite them claiming to be just that.

God lives in the spaces between us. If I want to learn about God, I look most often to those who are created in God’s image. No, the texts are not the final authority. They do carry weight, but not the whole load by any means.

Maybe I'm not getting the message, so I'll just ask plainly, do you believe the scriptures (as originally given to Moses, Isaiah, Ezekial, Paul, etc.) are the revealed word and will of God? Please note the emphasized "originally given."

I believe the writings are inspired. I don’t believe them to be infallible. In fact, since the preponderance of the texts have oral origins, seeking “originals” is futile. In fact, there may be no “originals” to much of the texts. Many of the texts were “originally” cobbled together from disparate, oral sources. I don’t think God’s will had much to do with that process — at least not in the way many imagine. I don’t think God “orchestrated” what was written or how it was put together. I think God gave (and gives) humanity full reign to be creative, as God is creative. That’s God’s will.

I am also most curious as to what is your hope for the end of this life. I asked you before but you didn't answer

hmm... I could’ve sworn I did. Let me go back and look. You may have missed something or I may have omitted something. If I find it, I’ll direct you to it. If not, I’ll certainly share it.

 

[sojourner]

I am also most curious as to what is your hope for the end of this life. I asked you before but you didn't answer. If you don't want to answer, I understand and won't press the issue.

There it is! Post #327. At the bottom. You must have glossed over it — it’s a lot of text in that post.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I agree. Each of us is a soul. Adam became a living soul when the breath of life (aka "his spirit") was breathed into him. Prior to that, God had created his body, but it was a body without life. I believe that a soul is made up of body and spirit. We have a body and we have a spirit; we are a living soul.

You said one thing in this post, though, that made me curious. You said we are souls and so are animals. But you don't believe animals will be resurrected, do you?

Sorry, I missed this.

Yes. Only humans. Jesus' blood covers descendants from Adam, nothing else.

Best wishes.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry, I missed this.

Yes. Only humans. Jesus' blood covers descendants from Adam, nothing else.

Best wishes.

Could you explain which scriptures you use to come to this conclusion? Thanks!

 

[rrobs]

There it is! Post #327. At the bottom. You must have glossed over it — it’s a lot of text in that post.

I found it. Thanks for searching it out. Sorry I missed it. I really do read your posts carefully, but apparently I need to redouble my efforts.

Here's what you said,

"Reconciliation has been effected. God will “save” every person. Humanity, as a whole, will enjoy infinity with the Divine. There is no real “end,” because matter cannot be increased or reduced — it only changes form. God is our life; since God is infinite, so shall we be."​

You say, "God will save every person." While it is indeed God's will to save everyone (1 Tim 2:4), it doesn't mean everybody will accept that salvation. Revelations chapter 20 speaks of 2 resurrections. The folks in the first resurrection will indeed be saved, but the poor ******** in the second resurrection won't have it quite as good. They will not have any place in the new heavens and new earth. In fact they will be thrown into a lake of fire. Now it doesn't say they will be burning and in pain for eternity, as does church tradition. I think we can all imagine that if a person is thrown into a lake of fire they will die pretty quick, instantly really. So they will simply die again, and like the first death, there will be no consciousness whatsoever. The won't even spend eternity ruing they didn't make it into the new heavens and new earth. They simply won't "be" anymore.

You say, "there is no real end." God says,

1Cor 15:24,

Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
​

It looks like God thinks there is an end (telos) coming. I don't know how else to read that verse.

​

You say, "matter cannot be increased or reduced — it only changes form." God says,

2Pet 3:10,

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
​

If you consider the elements, the foundation of matter, burning with a fervent heat and the earth burning up as simply a "change" then I'd have to say your view does line up with the scriptures. But I'm not sure I'd consider the elements melting nothing more than a change. I'd call it more of an annihilation.

In any case, it looks like you do have a hope for a future of partying in paradise! I can't see anything amiss with that. We can talk about things then. We'll both be better informed. We'll probably laugh at some of the things we thought in this life. I'm looking forward to it. Take care.