The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

[Hockeycowboy]

I'd like to address these issues you raise, one statement at a time:

I don't agree. I don't believe that to be "quickened by the spirit" means to become a being of spirit alone.

The KJV renders it that way. (I have no idea what "quickened" is supposed to mean...we -- well, I -- don't speak 17th-cent. English.) Most versions say "made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)

And vs.19 further reinforces that Jesus was raised a spirit: it says, "In this state he preached to the spirits in prison."

Other points I will address, soon. (Got a lot of responsibilities going on!)

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't believe that Jesus would have lied to them in order not to scare them. You're making assumptions about what you think they would have done. In other words, you're reading into what the scriptures actually say what you think they probably meant to say. Jesus' Apostles felt the wounds in His hands and feet. They realized that He had actually been resurrected. He reinforced the idea that it was really Him because it was!

I never said Jesus lied to them. He simply asked a rhetorical question that they could understand, based on what they thought they knew about spirits. Or more specifically, what spirits can't do.

Yes, it was really Him! Materializing / Appearing and dematerializing / disappearing many times.

Would you like to comment on the Angels who visited Abraham? And the two who visited Lot? (Interesting how the Biblical accounts switch from angels to men, in their description of them.)
When the two told Lot and family to "Flee!", and grabbed them all by their hands... where did they then go? They dematerialized back into spirit form, and returned to heaven.

PS: I guess my earlier post to you wasn't that long, as I thought it was....it seemed so, cuz it took me quite a while to write it.

Anyway, best wishes to you and yours.

We don't have to continue with this particular subject. Maybe another?

 

[Katzpur]

The KJV renders it that way. (I have no idea what "quickened" is supposed to mean...we -- well, I -- don't speak 17th-cent. English.) Most versions say "made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)

And vs.19 further reinforces that Jesus was raised a spirit: it says, "In this state he preached to the spirits in prison."

Other points I will address, soon. (Got a lot of responsibilities going on!)

Take care.

Jesus Christ did, in fact, preach His gospel to the spirits in prison, and He did so during the period of time His body lay in the tomb. Hence, He had not been resurrected at that time. He was still a disembodied spirit, which is also noteworthy because it's just further evidence that the spirit does not die when the body does.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Jesus Christ did, in fact, preach His gospel to the spirits in prison, and He did so during the period of time His body lay in the tomb. Hence, He had not been resurrected at that time. He was still a disembodied spirit, which is also noteworthy because it's just further evidence that the spirit does not die when the body does.

But those who are dead "know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"; their "thoughts perish (Psalms 146:3)" at death. The same with Jesus... His condition at death was as He said about Lazarus @ John 11:11-14...they both had "fallen asleep".

If people are 'alive' in some realm after their death, then the future Resurrection really is nothing....how can the dead "stand back to life", if they're already living somewhere?

Jehovah told Adam, "(if you eat from that tree,) you will die". Adam knew what that meant, because he saw the animals die. (Otherwise, that statement would mean nothing to him.)
But if death really meant consciousness in another realm, then God was lying by omission; 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)

This reminds me....In Daniel 12, we are told that in future times,"those in the ground of dust will wake up."

They are "dust", their future prospects of life only coming through the Resurrection. -- John 5:28-29.

Why does the Psalmist say @ Psalms 115:17, "The dead do not praise God"? Because they "go down into silence." (And the Scripture doesn't differentiate between those who died good or bad.)
Similar to Isaiah 38:18.

 

[sojourner]

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.

The scriptures can make no truth claims about themselves. Any such claims would have to come from an objective source. Just because I say, “everything I say is true,” doesn’t make it so.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Except that many of the events also prove to be incredible. The creation accounts are factually wrong. There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate a worldwide flood, or that a large number of Hebraic people were in Egypt, or an invasion of a different culture into Canaan. There is no possible way that Israel could have supported an army the size of David’s army. Those stories are all highly, highly mythic.

 

[sojourner]

But those who are dead "know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"; their "thoughts perish (Psalms 146:3)" at death. The same with Jesus... His condition at death was as He said about Lazarus @ John 11:11-14...they both had "fallen asleep".

If people are 'alive' in some realm after their death, then the future Resurrection really is nothing....how can the dead "stand back to life", if they're already living somewhere?

Jehovah told Adam, "(if you eat from that tree,) you will die". Adam knew what that meant, because he saw the animals die. (Otherwise, that statement would mean nothing to him.)
But if death really meant consciousness in another realm, then God was lying by omission; 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)

This reminds me....In Daniel 12, we are told that in future times,"those in the ground of dust will wake up."

They are "dust", their future prospects of life only coming through the Resurrection. -- John 5:28-29.

Why does the Psalmist say @ Psalms 115:17, "The dead do not praise God"? Because they "go down into silence." (And the Scripture doesn't differentiate between those who died good or bad.)
Similar to Isaiah 38:18.

This is where an actual critical exegesis of the texts would come in real handy, rather than just spewing disparate passages, trying to support some preconceived notion.

 

[sojourner]

I'd like to address these issues you raise, one statement at a time:



The KJV renders it that way. (I have no idea what "quickened" is supposed to mean...we -- well, I -- don't speak 17th-cent. English.) Most versions say "made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)

And vs.19 further reinforces that Jesus was raised a spirit: it says, "In this state he preached to the spirits in prison."

Other points I will address, soon. (Got a lot of responsibilities going on!)

Take care.

Except that the first century concept of resurrection is that resurrection was physical. Indeed, the very word “resurrection” means, “to stand up,” or, “to get up.” It’s the same term used to indicate getting out of bed in the morning. All indications are that the gospel writers and Paul conceived resurrection as a physical thing.

 

[Katzpur]

But those who are dead "know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"; their "thoughts perish (Psalms 146:3)" at death. The same with Jesus... His condition at death was as He said about Lazarus @ John 11:11-14...they both had "fallen asleep".

This is a great example of what happens when you pick one or two verses of scripture and draw a conclusions from them that forces you to have to tweak other verses to get them to fit into what you believe. If the dead truly know nothing, if their thoughts truly perish at death, then what on earth was Jesus doing preaching to them? If they could not hear Him, what point was there to His visit?

If people are 'alive' in some realm after their death, then the future Resurrection really is nothing....how can the dead "stand back to life", if they're already living somewhere?

As I already said in another post, life exists when a spirit enters a body; death occurs when a spirit leaves a body. The physical body is brought back to life when the spirit (which remains cognizant) re-enters it and gives it renewed life -- eternal life, because it will never again leave.

Jehovah told Adam, "(if you eat from that tree,) you will die". Adam knew what that meant, because he saw the animals die. (Otherwise, that statement would mean nothing to him.)
But if death really meant consciousness in another realm, then God was lying by omission; 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)

How do you know that Adam saw the animals die? Seriously? That is pure conjecture on your part. Many people believe that nothing died prior to Adam being cast out of the Garden. The fact of the matter is that the Bible quite simply doesn't say one way or the other. No, God didn't tell Adam, "You body will die." He said, "You will die." By "you," He was referring to Adam as a living soul. When Adam's spirit left His body, He was no longer a "living soul." He was a dead body. And if you believe that a spirit is comprised of dust, I don't really know what to say. I realize that you believe that the spirit also "dies" at death, but most Christians don't. And none of them say, "My mother's body died last week," even though that is what they believe. They believe that the body is lifeless because the spirit is no longer residing in it. It is no longer a living soul (a soul being the entity comprised of both a body and a spirit).

This reminds me....In Daniel 12, we are told that in future times,"those in the ground of dust will wake up."

Yup. The body, which has turned to dust, will wake up. It will once again be a living soul, given new life by the spirit (which is certainly not dust!). In Ecclesiastes 12:7, we read, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The body, therefore, turns to dust, but the spirit doesn't!

They are "dust", their future prospects of life only coming through the Resurrection. -- John 5:28-29.

Why does the Psalmist say @ Psalms 115:17, "The dead do not praise God"? Because they "go down into silence." (And the Scripture doesn't differentiate between those who died good or bad.)
Similar to Isaiah 38:18.

You see, it all gets back to what we mean when we say that someone "died." That's why you say, "How can the dead stand back to life if they're already living somewhere?" It's why I believe that Jesus (while still in spirit form) preached to the spirits in prison and taught them His gospel.

But those who are dead "know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)"; their "thoughts perish (Psalms 146:3)" at death. The same with Jesus... His condition at death was as He said about Lazarus @ John 11:11-14...they both had "fallen asleep".

If people are 'alive' in some realm after their death, then the future Resurrection really is nothing....how can the dead "stand back to life", if they're already living somewhere?

Jehovah told Adam, "(if you eat from that tree,) you will die". Adam knew what that meant, because he saw the animals die. (Otherwise, that statement would mean nothing to him.)
But if death really meant consciousness in another realm, then God was lying by omission; 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)

This reminds me....In Daniel 12, we are told that in future times,"those in the ground of dust will wake up."

They are "dust", their future prospects of life only coming through the Resurrection. -- John 5:28-29.

Why does the Psalmist say @ Psalms 115:17, "The dead do not praise God"? Because they "go down into silence." (And the Scripture doesn't differentiate between those who died good or bad.)
Similar to Isaiah 38:18.

And this is why we are at an impasse. We each believe that something different happens at death. And both of our beliefs are based on scripture. We simply interpret certain passages differently.

 

[nPeace]

The scriptures can make no truth claims about themselves. Any such claims would have to come from an objective source. Just because I say, “everything I say is true,” doesn’t make it so.

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?

 

[rrobs]

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.”

Incompetent is not a word I would use to describe you. I would say quite the opposite. Regardless of what is taught, right or wrong, in theological school, it's not an easy grind. Competence is a requirement. It's not your competence I am calling into question. 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).

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). 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.

Going off topic for a minute, I suppose when it's all said and done, the thing that will count most is what happens after our mortal bodies die.

I believe that those born again as well as those that are resurrected in the first resurrection (1 Thes 4:13-18 and Rev 25-26 respectively) will enjoy an eternity in the new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness. You and I will be able to discuss all of this with a fresh insight. I'll bet we are both right in some points and wrong in others. We'll see!

What do you see as our end? What is you hope?

 

[nPeace]

Except that many of the events also prove to be incredible. The creation accounts are factually wrong. There is nothing in the archaeological record to indicate a worldwide flood, or that a large number of Hebraic people were in Egypt, or an invasion of a different culture into Canaan. There is no possible way that Israel could have supported an army the size of David’s army. Those stories are all highly, highly mythic.

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.

 

[rrobs]

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.

I Googled, "archaeological evidence of Noah's flood" and got half a million hits. It's there for anybody who cares to look at and consider. Personally, I don't overly care about scientific evidence one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, if it's in the scriptures it happened, period, end of story! Nonetheless, there is ample evidence in the scientific world that points to a great flood around 8,000 years ago.

 

[Katzpur]

As far as I'm concerned, if it's in the scriptures it happened, period, end of story!

So are you saying that you take everything in the Bible literally and do not believe that any of it is metaphorical?

 

[rrobs]

So are you saying that you take everything in the Bible literally and do not believe that any of it is metaphorical?

God, like all authors did use figures of speech. A figure of speech is used to emphasize something, to draw one's attention to something. I could say, "the ground is dry" or I could say, "the ground is thirsty." The former is true to fact and the latter is a figure of speech. As such, it momentarily arrests the reader's attention. We all know that the ground doesn't literally experience thirst. It just draws a more clear picture of how bad the drought is.

Figures of speech are precise. They are precise classifications of figures of speech in the literary world.

I believe the scriptures should be taken literally wherever and whenever possible. But if something is said that doesn't accord with the factual world we live in, it is a figure of speech. As I said, figures of speech are not used haphazardly. They are precise and have a definite meaning. It is up to the reader to ascertain what that meaning is. Guesswork is never a good thing when it comes to the scriptures. If I don't understand something, if something appears to contradict something else, then I simply say, "I don't know." Maybe someday I will. One thing I do know is that the scriptures are the revealed word and will of God and as such are perfect. Anything I perceive as imperfect in the scriptures is in my understanding.

Usually when God uses a metaphor (a type of metaphor, a figure of speech) He will explain it so their is no need to speculate. The account of the sower and the seed in Matthew chapter 13 is a good example. Jesus used the metaphor when speaking to multitude but when a few of his disciples asked later what it meant, he was forthcoming in exactly what the parable meant.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is where an actual critical exegesis of the texts would come in real handy, rather than just spewing disparate passages, trying to support some preconceived notion.

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.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If the dead truly know nothing, if their thoughts truly perish at death, then what on earth was Jesus doing preaching to them? If they could not hear Him, what point was there to His visit?

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

 

[Katzpur]

God, like all authors did use figures of speech. A figure of speech is used to emphasize something, to draw one's attention to something. I could say, "the ground is dry" or I could say, "the ground is thirsty." The former is true to fact and the latter is a figure of speech. As such, it momentarily arrests the reader's attention. We all know that the ground doesn't literally experience thirst. It just draws a more clear picture of how bad the drought is.

Figures of speech are precise. They are precise classifications of figures of speech in the literary world.

I believe the scriptures should be taken literally wherever and whenever possible. But if something is said that doesn't accord with the factual world we live in, it is a figure of speech. As I said, figures of speech are not used haphazardly. They are precise and have a definite meaning. It is up to the reader to ascertain what that meaning is. Guesswork is never a good thing when it comes to the scriptures. If I don't understand something, if something appears to contradict something else, then I simply say, "I don't know." Maybe someday I will. One thing I do know is that the scriptures are the revealed word and will of God and as such are perfect. Anything I perceive as imperfect in the scriptures is in my understanding.

Usually when God uses a metaphor (a type of metaphor, a figure of speech) He will explain it so their is no need to speculate. The account of the sower and the seed in Matthew chapter 13 is a good example. Jesus used the metaphor when speaking to multitude but when a few of his disciples asked later what it meant, he was forthcoming in exactly what the parable meant.

 

[nPeace]

I Googled, "archaeological evidence of Noah's flood" and got half a million hits. It's there for anybody who cares to look at and consider. Personally, I don't overly care about scientific evidence one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, if it's in the scriptures it happened, period, end of story! Nonetheless, there is ample evidence in the scientific world that points to a great flood around 8,000 years ago.

I agree. There is enough evidence if one wants to see.
What I find ironic, is that evolutionist will chirp that it is not necessary to find all the evidence in the fossil record etc., to support ToE, yet they expect to find all the evidence to support the Bible. So no matter how much is found, they will say, that there is none to support other events.

Like you, I find the strongest evidence comes from the Bible itself, and this is to be expected from a book that is of divine origin. If it is truth, then those who believe it, knows the truth.
The fact that it has survived so many centuries despite fierce opposition, and threat, should send a strong message to those who continue to fight against it. They can't win.

As you said, we will see.
Good questions in your post.

 

[Katzpur]

God, like all authors did use figures of speech. A figure of speech is used to emphasize something, to draw one's attention to something. I could say, "the ground is dry" or I could say, "the ground is thirsty." The former is true to fact and the latter is a figure of speech. As such, it momentarily arrests the reader's attention. We all know that the ground doesn't literally experience thirst. It just draws a more clear picture of how bad the drought is.

Figures of speech are precise. They are precise classifications of figures of speech in the literary world.

I believe the scriptures should be taken literally wherever and whenever possible. But if something is said that doesn't accord with the factual world we live in, it is a figure of speech. As I said, figures of speech are not used haphazardly. They are precise and have a definite meaning. It is up to the reader to ascertain what that meaning is. Guesswork is never a good thing when it comes to the scriptures. If I don't understand something, if something appears to contradict something else, then I simply say, "I don't know." Maybe someday I will. One thing I do know is that the scriptures are the revealed word and will of God and as such are perfect. Anything I perceive as imperfect in the scriptures is in my understanding.

Usually when God uses a metaphor (a type of metaphor, a figure of speech) He will explain it so their is no need to speculate. The account of the sower and the seed in Matthew chapter 13 is a good example. Jesus used the metaphor when speaking to multitude but when a few of his disciples asked later what it meant, he was forthcoming in exactly what the parable meant.

So what I'm getting from this is that you believe that Noah, for instance, rounded up a male and a female rattlesnake, a male and a female tarantula, a male and a female penguin, a male and a female kangaroo and a male and a female mosquito. And you belief this because the Bible says it happened. Do I have that right?