The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

[74x12]

NOPE, not conforming to your idea of what is proper, forget it.

That's your choice. A very hasty choice, but it is your choice.

 

[Ellen Brown]

That's your choice. A very hasty choice, but it is your choice.

It is. Men often resort to abuse, both emotional and physical when a woman stands up to them.

 

[rrobs]

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.

I'm afraid that they taught you in theology school to disregard the scriptures as the source of truth. The book says they are, but somehow that simple assertion gets lost in a morass of worldly so-called wisdom. I suppose you give them a certain amount of credence, but they don't appear to be your sole source of truth.

I don't mean to attack you personally. In fact I love and pray for you just as I do for any brother in Christ. You are the way you are because of what you've been taught. Nothing is your fault. I'm sure you are sincere in your beliefs. Nonetheless, sincerity is no guarantee for truth. I'm just calling a spade a spade. The scriptures are the revealed word and will of God. They testify of Jesus Christ and what he did for all of mankind. As Jesus said, "if you have ears to hear you will hear."



God bless.

 

[74x12]

I should add, “How do you explain it, without putting a spin on it?”

Just take it, as it is in Greek.

I do take it as it is and understand through the wisdom that God teaches.

 

[74x12]

People weren't alive yet at Genesis 1:2

Of course. It's symbolism. You understand that God fore-tails events before they occur.

 

[nPeace]

Of course. It's symbolism. You understand that God fore-tails events before they occur.

God foretell events before they happen, true. He is almighty God.
I am interested though, in understanding why you make a symbolic application here.

 

[74x12]

God foretell events before they happen, true. He is almighty God.
I am interested though, in understanding why you make a symbolic application here.

All of Genesis chapter 1 is more or less symbolic. The meaning is more than surface.

 

[nPeace]

All of Genesis chapter 1 is more or less symbolic. The meaning is more than surface.

Anyone can make a claim - including unbelievers. How do you arrive at that? What support do you have?

 

[nPeace]

Because I have the mind of Christ with me. (1 Corinthians 2:16)

No. That doesn't cut it. That's just another claim. A claim is no support for a claim. You need proper backing from the source of truth. That would be Jesus, and his apostles, and their writings, on the teaching of Jesus, and the prophets, found in God's word.
None of those give support to your claims. Rather they contradict those claims.

 

[74x12]

None of those give support to your claims. Rather they contradict those claims.

Oh really? So you believe the scriptures contradict my claim that Genesis 1 is symbolic as well as literal?

 

[nPeace]

Oh really? So you believe the scriptures contradict my claim that Genesis 1 is symbolic as well as literal?

You already made claims of a few things you think are symbolic, here on this thread, and elsewhere. The scriptures do not support those claims.
I asked how you arrived at those claims, and you claim you have the mind of Christ, but you have not provided any support for these.
If you have support, you should provide it, to show that your claims are true. Don't you agree, or do you think we all should just accept your claims?

 

[sojourner]

I suppose you give them a certain amount of credence, but they don't appear to be your sole source of truth

They aren’t; they were never intended to be. The Jews use Talmud as an authoritative source of Rabbinic commentary on Hebraic text. The epistles (only later canonized) were commentary — not scripture. It has always been the case that scholarly interpretation and commentary, as well as other teaching, were and are used in addition to the scriptures. The Bible as “sole source” has only been in play since the 1500s, and only in the Protestant mvt. In fact, I give them a lot of credence, but only for what they are — not for what some wish them to be.

In fact I love and pray for you just as I do for any brother in Christ

Thank you. That means a lot to me.

You are the way you are because of what you've been taught. Nothing is your fault. I'm sure you are sincere in your beliefs

I disagree. Yes, I am sincere in my beliefs. They are the product, not only of what I’ve been taught, but also of my own intuition and experience. I claim responsibility for my own understanding, theological imagination and conclusions. I’m not naive. I’m not misled. I’m not innocent or ignorant — either intellectually or spiritually. No need to paint me as such, either in order to make me feel better, or as an attempt to make me sound incompetent. Where biblical exegesis is concerned, a theology degree trumps “sincere belief.”

 

[sojourner]

Anyone can make a claim - including unbelievers. How do you arrive at that? What support do you have?

That conclusion is drawn from the facts we know of the texts in question. It’s obvious origin in earlier, Sumerian oral story, it’s similarity to other mythic texts of the same time frame, literary “markers” that point to its mythic nature, critical analyses by noted scholars on the field — all point to the story being highly metaphorical and mythic.

 

[nPeace]

That conclusion is drawn from the facts we know of the texts in question. It’s obvious origin in earlier, Sumerian oral story, it’s similarity to other mythic texts of the same time frame, literary “markers” that point to its mythic nature, critical analyses by noted scholars on the field — all point to the story being highly metaphorical and mythic.

So if I claim that an event that is similar to a story before or even after its time, is a myth, that makes it a myth?

 

[Desert Snake]

They aren’t; they were never intended to be. The Jews use Talmud as an authoritative source of Rabbinic commentary on Hebraic text. The epistles (only later canonized) were commentary — not scripture. It has always been the case that scholarly interpretation and commentary, as well as other teaching, were and are used in addition to the scriptures. The Bible as “sole source” has only been in play since the 1500s, and only in the Protestant mvt. In fact, I give them a lot of credence, but only for what they are — not for what some wish them to be.

It isn't 'sole source', 2 Thessalonians 2:15
It is 'final say', or, in some matters, the only say. This is textual. Final say, textual. This is why they didn't want nonsense 'added texts', in the first place, only what is real to the religion.

 

[sojourner]

It is because we are believed by most Christians to be born as sinners that so many of them practice infant baptism

I think you’re mistaken here.

Since sin is the voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle, it is impossible for a person to sin until he reaches the age at which he is capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong.

That’s possibly the most widely-accepted view — and one that makes sense, but I’m no longer certain that’s the case. Not that I buy into the prevailing Calvinistic view, but I think I tend to take a more ... esoteric viewpoint of humanity’s sinful nature.

 

[sojourner]

So if I claim that an event that is similar to a story before or even after its time, is a myth, that makes it a myth?

No, that’s not what I said. I said that there’s no way we can know, based upon the type literature we’re dealing with, that the story relates actual, historical events. Knowing the type of literature this is, the story is far more mythic than factual.

 

[sojourner]

It isn't 'sole source', 2 Thessalonians 2:15
It is 'final say', or, in some matters, the only say.

That’s inconsistent with how the texts have always been conceived of and treated.

This is textual. Final say, textual

You understand that “text,” in many cases, was a fluid concept to the ancients who wrote these ancient stories, poetry and law down from earlier, oral sources?

This is why they didn't want nonsense 'added texts', in the first place, only what is real to the religion

It’s all been “added to,” though. That’s why there are two creation accounts and three synoptic gospels.

 

[nPeace]

No, that’s not what I said. I said that there’s no way we can know, based upon the type literature we’re dealing with, that the story relates actual, historical events. Knowing the type of literature this is, the story is far more mythic than factual.

You said that?

As far as I know, there are ways we can test things, .
Many of the historical events prove to be credible, and there seems to be no unbiased reason to doubt that the accounts are based on real events.

 

[Desert Snake]

That’s inconsistent with how the texts have always been conceived of and treated.


You understand that “text,” in many cases, was a fluid concept to the ancients who wrote these ancient stories, poetry and law down from earlier, oral sources?


It’s all been “added to,” though. That’s why there are two creation accounts and three synoptic gospels.

Yeah. It does, though, have a textual format, and checks for things that are wrong. That is why we can textually, say, or surmise, that the book of John, isn't presenting a new god concept, as noted in other threads. In other words, the text isn't completely contextual book by book. Can one revise the canon...sure...I mean, it was protestants, and protestant ideals previously, that didn't want added texts, because why have a canon with contradictions. And, you actually don't know, what was totally set, and what was fluid, because, it's obvious, you aren't reading them in a manner that correlates to the type of religion, some of these books, were written in.

Anyways, the text as a canon, becomes logical to canonization. Otherwise, don't standardize a canon, in the first place.
That being said, since now, texts of all sorts are available, it's somewhat of a moot point.

'nite