The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

Kelly of the Phoenix · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
Now you've got me scared to go Palestine and preach.

Meh. There are lots of Palestinian Christians you can preach to. Israel will not look kindly upon you, though. They want your money, just not your Christ.

74x12 said:
But note carefully that according to the scriptures Jesus was without sin.

But he commits so many....

74x12 said:
So God cannot become satan. Satan is evil. God is good. But God can become Jesus because Jesus was always good.

Jesus said anyone who calls another a fool will burn in hell. God and Jesus both do. I guess we know where to forward (T)heir mail.

74x12 said:
Well first of all I don't believe the trinity doctrine! I'm oneness.

Well, to be fair, there really isn't any good biblical justification for it. You can tell when later people started shoehorning it in, but in general, Yahweh was always just One (of Many, depending on how early in the game you want to go).

74x12 said:
God is omnipresent and can send His Spirit.

If you want to be nitpicky, you don't need to send anything if you're omnipresent. That's kind of the whole point of being omnipresent.

nPeace said:
Therefore, there are various witnesses giving testimony to the truth.

Job is essentially a criticism of biblical morality. Ruth is a criticism of xenophobic attempts at ethnic purification. Jesus LOVES to say "You have heard/but truly I tell you" things. Since they don't even agree their cohorts are correct, how can we say they are?

Katzpur · Sep 12, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
He couldn't, could he? But, he could after he was resurrected. Not while he was dead, for those three days.

I don't know if you're just being obtuse or if you genuinely haven't understood anything I said. Of course He could have done so while His dead body lay in the tomb, and while the dead bodies of those He preached His gospel to had long since turned to dust. He could so so because His spirit did not die, and the spirits of those whose bodies had turned to dust had not died.

We're not getting anywhere, are we? As long as you're going to insist that the spirit of man turns to dust at death, and as long as I'm going to insist that it simply leaves the body, rendering the body dead and without any self-awareness, we're going to just keep going around in circles indefinitely.

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
Well of course not, isn't that silly?
The Bible is a collection of books, or writings from different sources.
Therefore, there are various witnesses giving testimony to the truth.

If you have 40 witnesses give account, and the accounts all are in agreement, that's reliable testimony. Isn't that so?

Not necessarily. It only reflects collaboration. Everybody used to believe the earth was flat, too. Doesn’t make it true.

nPeace · Sep 12, 2018

sojourner said:
Not necessarily. It only reflects collaboration. Everybody used to believe the earth was flat, too. Doesn’t make it true.

Some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16

Katzpur · Sep 12, 2018

rrobs said:
Besides the thing I wrote as to why God had to wait, there is the little matter that He had to wait for some woman to say, "Be it done unto me according to thy word." It's easy to see why it took so long. How many women do you know who wouldn't balk at God telling them they'd conceive the redeemer while still virgin? I can easily understand a woman like that would come along only every 4,000 years or so! In fact, it's a miracle a woman like Mary ever came on the scene. But God needed to have the redeemer born of a virgin so that the baby's seed would not be corruptible like the rest of mankind. The redeemer had to have innocent blood which only God could create in Mary. No earthly man could have put incorruptible seed into Mary's womb.

I don't believe Mary's virginity made it possible for her Son to be incorruptible. I believe the fact that God was His Father made that possible.

Hockeycowboy · Sep 12, 2018

Katzpur said:
As long as you're going to insist that the spirit of man turns to dust at death, and as long as I'm going to insist that it simply leaves the body, rendering the body dead and without any self-awareness, we're going to just keep going around in circles indefinitely.

Please excuse me, but where did I say the spirit turns to dust? I never said nor implied. In fact, I believe as you said...the spirit "simply leaves the body." Psalms 146:3-4 reinforces your statement: "his spirit goes out."

Reach is breath, or wind. It is the force that keeps us living. Our life force. The same that is in animals. -- Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

rrobs said:
It's not what you've learned, but what you've been taught that is the crux of the matter. Paul called it dung (Phil 3:4-8).

I and most bible scholars call it “valid scholarship.”

rrobs said:
For whatever reason, you've come to the conclusion that the scriptures do not contain everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Correct. First of all, we don’t have all the texts. Some have been lost, some were not canonized. Second, the texts we have only contain what their producing cultures understood. What we have is a biased account from a fairly narrow perspective.

rrobs said:
You've been taught that it is necessary to introduce extraneous texts, speculation, and personal feelings into the matter, despite the fact that many of those things contradict the scriptures which claims to have all the answers.

That’s because that’s what has always been the case. Scholarly commentary has always been used to interpret texts, the more so since we have become distanced from them by time and culture. Since we can’t crawl into the minds of the writers and redactors, and since we mostly rely on translators whose work is sometimes tenuous and impossible, speculation is sometimes all we’re reasonably left with. We have to be honest and admit it for what it is. Personal feelings are properly left out of the exegetical process.

rrobs said:
What do you see as our end? What is you hope?

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.

Katzpur · Sep 12, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
Please excuse me, but where did I say the spirit turns to dust! I never said nor implied. In fact, I believe as you said...the spirit "simply leaves the body." Psalms 146:3-4 reinforces your statement: "his spirit goes out."

Okay, but you do believe that it ceases to exist as a cognizant entity. The reason I thought you were implying that the spirit turns to dust is that you said...

God told Adam, "You will return to the ground. For dust you are...." God didn't tell Adam, "your body"; He told him, "You." (Genesis 3:19).

So if it wasn't just Adam's body that was going to turn to dust, and you made a point of stating that it wasn't, I think it was only logical that I assumed you meant his spirit would turn to dust as well, that it would also return to the ground, that when God said "you," He meant your body and spirit.

Reach is breath, or wind. It is the force that keeps us living. Our life force.

Exactly. You just said that "it is the force that keeps us living." You didn't say "it's the force that keeps our body living." And when God said "you will return to the ground," it meant "your body will return to the ground." It didn't mean that your spirit will cease to exist or become unconscious. It simply meant that it will leave the body, and that the body will die.

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
If you apply that kind of reasoning to the Biblical accounts, then you should also apply it to everything else, including the story given for the formation of our solar system, etc.
What "video recording" support those stories?
Then those stories are all highly, highly mythic.
Even without your logic, they really are.

Scientists are the first to admit that they don’t know everything. However, we use factual markers as best we can. We don’t dismiss them, simply because they don’t fit our beliefs. The flood account is mythic, because it contains too few historic facts to be able to call it “historical fact.” The creation of the solar system is speculative, because we don’t have all the facts we need, but we have enough to establish theories.

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
The Bible is harmonious. The only way to understand it, is by taking all of it into consideration, comparing those "disparate passages" in the light of what those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writers of the Bible believed as worshippers of Yahweh/Jehovah.

Any way other than that is futile.

No. It’s really not harmonious. The only way to understand it is to undertake an exegesis of each text, or group of texts that are in relationship. Each text approaches the subject from a different perspective, with a different theological understanding. Each text has a different intended audience and a different goal in mind. The writers all held differing beliefs. So did the redactors.

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
Some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16

Some things in them are impossible to understand, and the ignorant and unstable twist them in order to pretend to make them jibe.

nPeace · Sep 12, 2018

sojourner said:
Scientists are the first to admit that they don’t know everything. However, we use factual markers as best we can. We don’t dismiss them, simply because they don’t fit our beliefs. The flood account is mythic, because it contains too few historic facts to be able to call it “historical fact.” The creation of the solar system is speculative, because we don’t have all the facts we need, but we have enough to establish theories.

You say that based on what?
Scientists are not the first to admit that they don’t know everything.

Where did you get that from? What a shocking statement.
Can you prove that?
If you can, I will rate every post you make "Winner".

Admitting that you don't know everything out of one corner of the mouth, and saying you know things you really don't know, out the other... well what is that? :shrug:

It's not just the creation of the solar system that is speculative.
Establishing theories doesn't give one everlasting life.... and the temporary satisfaction a human gets from honor of men is only fleeting.
It's as King Solomon said.

I saw all the works that were done under the sun, And look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind.

Ecclesiastes 1:14

Hockeycowboy · Sep 12, 2018

Katzpur said:
Okay, but you do believe that it ceases to exist as a cognizant entity. The reason I thought you were implying that the spirit turns to dust is that you said... So if it wasn't just Adam's body that was going to turn to dust, and you made a point of stating that it wasn't, I think it was only logical that I assumed you meant his spirit would turn to dust as well, that it would also return to the ground, that when God said "you," He meant your body and spirit.
Exactly. You just said that "it is the force that keeps us living." You didn't say "it's the force that keeps our body living." And when God said "you will return to the ground," it meant "your body will return to the ground." It didn't mean that your spirit will cease to exist or become unconscious. It simply meant that it will leave the body, causing the body to die.

Oh....I think I see where our misunderstanding arose. It's about the soul....or what some consider a 'conscious' part of us, that exists after death.

Most everyone believes that people "have" a soul. But does the Bible really teach that? If you read Genesis 2:7, God said Adam "became" a soul, not that he "had" or was given one.

We are souls. We are persons, with individual personalities. So are animals.

We can use the Scriptures to explore this concept further., but now I have to go. @nPeace, you're more than welcome to take this up in my stead, if @Katzpur doesn't mind.

Thanks for the interchange, Katzpur. Take care!

nPeace · Sep 12, 2018

sojourner said:
Some things in them are impossible to understand, and the ignorant and unstable twist them in order to pretend to make them jibe.

What Paul said seem to make more sense, since these word were true of his letters, and other parts of scripture.
Your words however are not true, for in order to say they are impossible to understand, you must know that - which you don't.

The last bit I can certainly agree with.

Katzpur · Sep 12, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
Oh....I think I see where our misunderstanding arose. It's about the soul....or what some consider a 'conscious' part of us, that exists after death.

Most everyone believes that people "have" a soul. But does the Bible really teach that? If you read Genesis 2:7, God said Adam "became" a soul, not that he "had" or was given one.

We are souls. We are persons, with individual personalities. So are animals.

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?

nPeace · Sep 12, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
Oh....I think I see where our misunderstanding arose. It's about the soul....or what some consider a 'conscious' part of us, that exists after death.

Most everyone believes that people "have" a soul. But does the Bible really teach that? If you read Genesis 2:7, God said Adam "became" a soul, not that he "had" or was given one.

We are souls. We are persons, with individual personalities. So are animals.

We can use the Scriptures to explore this concept further., but now I have to go. @nPeace, you're more than welcome to take this up in my stead, if @Katzpur doesn't mind.

Thanks for the interchange, Katzpur. Take care!

Sorry bro.
I don't think Katzpur likes being backed into corners, So you're on your own, on this one.
Or. You can take the hint...

Katzpur said:
We're not getting anywhere, are we?

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
You say that based on what?
Scientists are not the first to admit that they don’t know everything.
Where did you get that from? What a shocking statement.
Can you prove that?
If you can, I will rate every post you make "Winner".

Admitting that you don't know everything out of one corner of the mouth, and saying you know things you really don't know, out the other... well what is that?

It's not just the creation of the solar system that is speculative.
Establishing theories doesn't give one everlasting life.... and the temporary satisfaction a human gets from honor of men is only fleeting.
It's as King Solomon said.

Ecclesiastes 1:14

Scientists don’t know yet about the origin of the universe — and they admit that they don’t.

I expect you to make good on your end of the bargain:
Can you prove that?
If you can, I will rate every post you make "Winner".

nPeace · Sep 12, 2018

sojourner said:
Scientists don’t know yet about the origin of the universe — and they admit that they don’t.

I expect you to make good on your end of the bargain:
Can you prove that?
If you can, I will rate every post you make "Winner".

Pardon me? Sorry. You lost me. What are you talking about?

sojourner · Sep 12, 2018

nPeace said:
What Paul said seem to make more sense, since these word were true of his letters, and other parts of scripture.
Your words however are not true, for in order to say they are impossible to understand, you must know that - which you don't.

The last bit I can certainly agree with.

We don’t understand the first two words of the Bible. We can guess, we can speculate, we can come fairly close. Most translations say, “in the beginning,” but since there’s no definite article, it doesn’t necessarily refer to a specific event horizon. Some say, “When God began to create,” but that’s not really correct either. In the end, we don’t understand exactly what the writer meant.

Then there’s the whole, “This is my body...” thing. It doesn’t say, “This represents my body.” It says what it says, yet science will show that bread remains bread. It’s impossible to fully comprehend exactly what is being said.

Therefore, what I said is true.

lostwanderingsoul · Sep 12, 2018

Katzpur said:
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?

The same word that is translated as "soul" when Adam became a living "soul" is also translated as "beast" or "animals" so animals are also living souls. The difference is that animals do not have a spirit.

The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Witness for Jehovah

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Not your average Mormon

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Witness for Jehovah

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member