Another Trinity verse

We have shown over and over again that there is no bridging the theology gap between the trinitarians and the non-trinitarians in these forums. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the exchanges and create new ones.

For the Bible study in my small group Wednesday night, I had us look at the story of Jesus as a youth, in the temple with the teachers while his parents first left town, then conducted a frantic search before finding him (Luke 2.41-52). At the end of the chapter, Luke says "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (v.52) If Luke believed Jesus was God, why would he tell us Jesus grew in favor with God? How could one who was God grow in God's favor?

I expect the response will have something to do with "God" meaning the "Father" piece of the Trinity. The problem is there is no indication in the text that Luke considers God anything other than a unitary deity. AND, Luke doesn't put "Father" in the mouth of the adult Jesus until Luke 6.36, which seems like a long time to wait for the first mention of such a fundamental concept. (NOTE: It's true that the adolescent Jesus calls God his "Father" in Luke 2.49, but that verse offers no indication that Jesus believes himself to be connected to God as a part of a multi-part Godhead.)

«1

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Bill_Coley said:
    We have shown over and over again that there is no bridging the theology gap between the trinitarians and the non-trinitarians in these forums. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the exchanges and create new ones.

    For the Bible study in my small group Wednesday night, I had us look at the story of Jesus as a youth, in the temple with the teachers while his parents first left town, then conducted a frantic search before finding him (Luke 2.41-52). At the end of the chapter, Luke says "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (v.52) If Luke believed Jesus was God, why would he tell us Jesus grew in favor with God? How could one who was God grow in God's favor?

    I expect the response will have something to do with "God" meaning the "Father" piece of the Trinity. The problem is there is no indication in the text that Luke considers God anything other than a unitary deity. AND, Luke doesn't put "Father" in the mouth of the adult Jesus until Luke 6.36, which seems like a long time to wait for the first mention of such a fundamental concept. (NOTE: It's true that the adolescent Jesus calls God his "Father" in Luke 2.49, but that verse offers no indication that Jesus believes himself to be connected to God as a part of a multi-part Godhead.)

    As plain as could be ...

    Jesus never voiced anywhere that he considered himself to be God, nor that he considered himself to have lived as God in ages past, then changed into a human being, and expected to change back into being God later on ...
    Jesus never voiced that he considered God to be a "more-than-one person" Godhead/God ...

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:
    We have shown over and over again that there is no bridging the theology gap between the trinitarians and the non-trinitarians in these forums. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the exchanges and create new ones.

    For the Bible study in my small group Wednesday night, I had us look at the story of Jesus as a youth, in the temple with the teachers while his parents first left town, then conducted a frantic search before finding him (Luke 2.41-52). At the end of the chapter, Luke says "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (v.52) If Luke believed Jesus was God, why would he tell us Jesus grew in favor with God? How could one who was God grow in God's favor?

    I expect the response will have something to do with "God" meaning the "Father" piece of the Trinity. The problem is there is no indication in the text that Luke considers God anything other than a unitary deity. AND, Luke doesn't put "Father" in the mouth of the adult Jesus until Luke 6.36, which seems like a long time to wait for the first mention of such a fundamental concept. (NOTE: It's true that the adolescent Jesus calls God his "Father" in Luke 2.49, but that verse offers no indication that Jesus believes himself to be connected to God as a part of a multi-part Godhead.)

    If you consider Jesus (God) filtered through human nature, it makes sense. His human nature had the same restrictions we have. Only without sin. As the Son of God he was causing the universe to exist. But as the Son of Man, he began learning as an infant.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:
    If you consider Jesus (God) filtered through human nature, it makes sense.

    ?? what is going on? Trinity proponents are coming up with more and more weird ideas, such as this "consider Jesus (God) filtered through human nature" ... what on earth or in heaven is that expression supposed to mean?

    His human nature had the same restrictions we have. Only without sin. As the Son of God he was causing the universe to exist. But as the Son of Man, he began learning as an infant.

    ??? Do you not realize that "the Son of God" biblically is a human being ???

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    If you consider Jesus (God) filtered through human nature, it makes sense.

    ?? what is going on? Trinity proponents are coming up with more and more weird ideas, such as this "consider Jesus (God) filtered through human nature" ... what on earth or in heaven is that expression supposed to mean?

    His human nature had the same restrictions we have. Only without sin. As the Son of God he was causing the universe to exist. But as the Son of Man, he began learning as an infant.

    ??? Do you not realize that "the Son of God" biblically is a human being ???

    This type of information is concealed in books a person must read before knowing anything about it. This might explain your puzzled response.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    His human nature had the same restrictions we have. Only without sin. As the Son of God he was causing the universe to exist. But as the Son of Man, he began learning as an infant.

    ??? Do you not realize that "the Son of God" biblically is a human being ???

    This type of information is concealed in books a person must read before knowing anything about it. This might explain your puzzled response.

    ??? which books outside Scripture with more truths than Scripture do you suggest or have read sine you indicate that you are in the know ?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    His human nature had the same restrictions we have. Only without sin. As the Son of God he was causing the universe to exist. But as the Son of Man, he began learning as an infant.

    ??? Do you not realize that "the Son of God" biblically is a human being ???

    This type of information is concealed in books a person must read before knowing anything about it. This might explain your puzzled response.

    ??? which books outside Scripture with more truths than Scripture do you suggest or have read sine you indicate that you are in the know ?

    If you begin with the Ecumenical creeds, you can gain a biblical perspective on God in trinity, Christ as God and Man, the Deity of Christ and Sin. They are an eye opener.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,315

    @Dave_L said:
    If you begin with the Ecumenical creeds, you can gain a biblical perspective on God in trinity, Christ as God and Man, the Deity of Christ and Sin. They are an eye opener.

    As a matter of principle, Dave, do you believe that a person can ALSO "gain a biblical perspective on God in trinity, Christ as God and Man, the Deity of Christ and Sin" by beginning with the Bible? Or in your view, is a "biblical perspective" on those matters only possible by beginning with extra-biblical sources such as the ecumenical creeds?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    If you begin with the Ecumenical creeds, you can gain a biblical perspective on God in trinity, Christ as God and Man, the Deity of Christ and Sin. They are an eye opener.

    As a matter of principle, Dave, do you believe that a person can ALSO "gain a biblical perspective on God in trinity, Christ as God and Man, the Deity of Christ and Sin" by beginning with the Bible? Or in your view, is a "biblical perspective" on those matters only possible by beginning with extra-biblical sources such as the ecumenical creeds?

    You can skip college and read books learning on your own. Or you can study under the masters and gain centuries of insight probably not available to the do-it-yourself guys.

    This speaks of the volumes of learning and debates it took to accurately define what the bible says through the creeds. The Westminster Confession took nearly ten years of debate with weekly days of fasting to keep cool heads in the matter.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,315

    @Dave_L said:
    You can skip college and read books learning on your own. Or you can study under the masters and gain centuries of insight probably not available to the do-it-yourself guys.

    This speaks of the volumes of learning and debates it took to accurately define what the bible says through the creeds. The Westminster Confession took nearly ten years of debate with weekly days of fasting to keep cool heads in the matter.

    The point of the question I asked, Dave, was to highlight what seems to me to be the obvious value of beginning one's search for a "biblical perspective" with the Bible.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    You can skip college and read books learning on your own. Or you can study under the masters and gain centuries of insight probably not available to the do-it-yourself guys.

    This speaks of the volumes of learning and debates it took to accurately define what the bible says through the creeds. The Westminster Confession took nearly ten years of debate with weekly days of fasting to keep cool heads in the matter.

    The point of the question I asked, Dave, was to highlight what seems to me to be the obvious value of beginning one's search for a "biblical perspective" with the Bible.

    Why launch any study without asking the best place to begin? Studied teachers are the most logical place to begin. Especially after enduring grueling debates challenging their beliefs and winning.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:
    Why launch any study without asking the best place to begin?

    Well, the best place to begin for me and anyone would be the Bible!

    Studied teachers are the most logical place to begin. Especially after enduring grueling debates challenging their beliefs and winning.

    I have too many times in my life experienced "studied teachers" being wrong while simple folk employing common sense were right ... and this has been true for various fields.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Why launch any study without asking the best place to begin?

    Well, the best place to begin for me and anyone would be the Bible!

    Studied teachers are the most logical place to begin. Especially after enduring grueling debates challenging their beliefs and winning.

    I have too many times in my life experienced "studied teachers" being wrong while simple folk employing common sense were right ... and this has been true for various fields.

    But we need to begin where it makes the most sense. The bible is like a maze full of dead ends that people can waste a lifetime of searching through to no avail. But we have centuries of learning we can fall back on and use as an anchor for our own explorations. Never allowing us to get so far off course that we cannot return.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,315

    @Dave_L said:
    Why launch any study without asking the best place to begin? Studied teachers are the most logical place to begin. Especially after enduring grueling debates challenging their beliefs and winning.

    In my view, the "best place to begin" a study of the Bible is the Bible. In making that claim, I don't for an instant dismiss other sources as useless or without merit! I refer to extra-biblical sources all the time. My point is simply that the best place to begin a Bible study is with the Bible.

    In seminary, we were taught to value commentaries and other extra-biblical sources, but before turning to those, to engage the text ourselves. That made sense to me then, and has been my practice since.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Why launch any study without asking the best place to begin? Studied teachers are the most logical place to begin. Especially after enduring grueling debates challenging their beliefs and winning.

    In my view, the "best place to begin" a study of the Bible is the Bible. In making that claim, I don't for an instant dismiss other sources as useless or without merit! I refer to extra-biblical sources all the time. My point is simply that the best place to begin a Bible study is with the Bible.

    In seminary, we were taught to value commentaries and other extra-biblical sources, but before turning to those, to engage the text ourselves. That made sense to me then, and has been my practice since.

    Too often though the bible is nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test fro religious crackpots. Obviously.....

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:
    But we need to begin where it makes the most sense.

    Indeed ... the Bible makes most sense

    The bible is like a maze full of dead ends that people can waste a lifetime of searching through to no avail.

    I have a different opinion concerning the Bible

    But we have centuries of learning we can fall back on and use as an anchor for our own explorations. Never allowing us to get so far off course that we cannot return.

    I do not share your estimation about the creeds etc ... while they have true statements,, the statements concerning the Trinity are dead wrong and essentially leading people to worshiping three Gods under the mystery disguise that the Three are "really" only one.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    But we need to begin where it makes the most sense.

    Indeed ... the Bible makes most sense

    The bible is like a maze full of dead ends that people can waste a lifetime of searching through to no avail.

    I have a different opinion concerning the Bible

    But we have centuries of learning we can fall back on and use as an anchor for our own explorations. Never allowing us to get so far off course that we cannot return.

    I do not share your estimation about the creeds etc ... while they have true statements,, the statements concerning the Trinity are dead wrong and essentially leading people to worshiping three Gods under the mystery disguise that the Three are "really" only one.

    I don't see the creeds in anyway contradicting scripture. And as I recall they denounce having three separate gods.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    ... the statements concerning the Trinity are dead wrong and essentially leading people to worshiping three Gods under the mystery disguise that the Three are "really" only one.

    I don't see the creeds in anyway contradicting scripture. And as I recall they denounce having three separate gods.

    Sure, they denounce that ... just as I stated above.
    Let's see .. we have three orchids in our home ... I could denounce that and claim the three are actually only one flower. Would my claim make it true? No!

  • @Wolfgang said:
    Well, the best place to begin for me and anyone would be the Bible!

    Concur best place to start Bible Study is praying Psalm 119:18 to God "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law." followed by reading/studying Bible with application so the Truth of God, which includes His Holy Love, becomes real in your life <3

    Thankful for The Word (God) who became human (Jesus Christ) so experienced growing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52) that is insightful for growing community of human believers in God's Love.

    Hebrews 12:2 "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

    Humanly can try to imagine the Lord God Almighty designing Holy redemption plan from sin using faith, which shows awesome magnitudes of God's Love. Humanly not know when God choose to become three intelligent persona's intimately sharing One nature/essence for Love <3 (happened before the creation of the world)
    One is alone
    Two can relate
    Three are a community (reflected in Ephesians 3:14-6:9)
    God choose community, whose design appears in several social settings. Husband & Wife become One (Ephesians 5:31), which reflects God the Will (Father) and God the Word (Son) being One. Children obeying their parents reflects Holy Spirit obeying (Loving) God the Will (Father) and God the Word (Son). God the Word (Christ) and the Church (believers in Jesus) are One (Ephesians 5:32)

    Thankful for God the Word (Jesus) lovingly fitting whole body of believers together so we grow and build up in Love as each part does its work to glorify God, which reflects Ephesians 4:15-16.

    A cunning and crafty deception (Ephesians 4:14 & 4:18) from the father of lies is blinding people to God's Love expression in the nature of God (community of three in One). The apostle of Love, John, wrote in 1 John 4:1-3 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." Similar test question is asking spirit(s) where is Jesus now ? Correct answer is sitting on the right hand of God's throne.

    Keep Smiling :smile:

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,315

    @Dave_L said:

    Too often though the bible is nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test fro religious crackpots. Obviously.....

    I don't know what you mean by this claim, Dave. And as a response to another CD participant, its imagery of "religious crackpots" contributes little if anything to a constructive forum discussion.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:

    Too often though the bible is nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test fro religious crackpots. Obviously.....

    I don't know what you mean by this claim, Dave. And as a response to another CD participant, its imagery of "religious crackpots" contributes little if anything to a constructive forum discussion.

    I think we see evidence of my claims everywhere today.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    ... the statements concerning the Trinity are dead wrong and essentially leading people to worshiping three Gods under the mystery disguise that the Three are "really" only one.

    I don't see the creeds in anyway contradicting scripture. And as I recall they denounce having three separate gods.

    Sure, they denounce that ... just as I stated above.
    Let's see .. we have three orchids in our home ... I could denounce that and claim the three are actually only one flower. Would my claim make it true? No!

    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity. And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,315

    @Dave_L said:
    I think we see evidence of my claims everywhere today.

    Whether you "see evidence of (your) claims" is not germane to the point I made, Dave - that references to "religious crackpots" in your posted responses to other CD participants contribute little if anything to constructive forum discussions. The reason for my point was that such references are easily interpreted as accusations and insinuations about the CD participants to whom they respond.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:
    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity.

    That fact should cause some serious thought, especially so since the OT Jewish religion had a worship of only One Alone as true God. Since Christianity is claiming to have a foundation in the OT religion, how could true Christianity deviate from this most fundamental truth and have a worship of Three as God??? Truth is, the early church following Jesus and his teaching and the original apostles and their teaching did NOT teach or worship a God in Trinity, but rather exactly the same OT God, YHWHW. Who is a singular person One Alone God.

    And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

    See above ... In addition, so-called Trinity Christianity is not the only religion which worships Three (or even more) as God(s). At least those ancient religions are honest and declare that they are worshiping three (or more) Gods, whereas Trinity Christianity disguises and hides that fact by a big far mystery self-contradictory nonsense claim that "the Three are each fully God, but really only one God"

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity.

    That fact should cause some serious thought, especially so since the OT Jewish religion had a worship of only One Alone as true God. Since Christianity is claiming to have a foundation in the OT religion, how could true Christianity deviate from this most fundamental truth and have a worship of Three as God??? Truth is, the early church following Jesus and his teaching and the original apostles and their teaching did NOT teach or worship a God in Trinity, but rather exactly the same OT God, YHWHW. Who is a singular person One Alone God.

    And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

    See above ... In addition, so-called Trinity Christianity is not the only religion which worships Three (or even more) as God(s). At least those ancient religions are honest and declare that they are worshiping three (or more) Gods, whereas Trinity Christianity disguises and hides that fact by a big far mystery self-contradictory nonsense claim that "the Three are each fully God, but really only one God"

    “And God (plural) said, Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (singular), after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man (singular) in his own image (singular), in the image (singular) of God (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26–27) (KJV 1900)

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    I think we see evidence of my claims everywhere today.

    Whether you "see evidence of (your) claims" is not germane to the point I made, Dave - that references to "religious crackpots" in your posted responses to other CD participants contribute little if anything to constructive forum discussions. The reason for my point was that such references are easily interpreted as accusations and insinuations about the CD participants to whom they respond.

    I don't know why you or anyone else on the CD forum would assume crackpot status applies to them upon mention of the term.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,593

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity.

    That fact should cause some serious thought, especially so since the OT Jewish religion had a worship of only One Alone as true God. Since Christianity is claiming to have a foundation in the OT religion, how could true Christianity deviate from this most fundamental truth and have a worship of Three as God??? Truth is, the early church following Jesus and his teaching and the original apostles and their teaching did NOT teach or worship a God in Trinity, but rather exactly the same OT God, YHWHW. Who is a singular person One Alone God.

    Dave_L, did you comment on my objection to your statement? If you didn't, why?

    And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

    See above ... In addition, so-called Trinity Christianity is not the only religion which worships Three (or even more) as God(s). At least those ancient religions are honest and declare that they are worshiping three (or more) Gods, whereas Trinity Christianity disguises and hides that fact by a big far mystery self-contradictory nonsense claim that "the Three are each fully God, but really only one God"

    Dave_L, where is your comment to this objection of mine to your statement?

    “And God (plural) said, Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (singular), after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man (singular) in his own image (singular), in the image (singular) of God (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26–27) (KJV 1900)

    And what is it that you think your are saying with your inserted "singular"/"plural" words? You claim that "God" is plural ...but obviously none of the translators agrees with you, because plural form would be "Gods". Furthermore,in the following verse references to "God" are all singular, both pronouns ("he, his") and verbs ("created"). "God" is one singular (!) Spirit being,

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity.

    That fact should cause some serious thought, especially so since the OT Jewish religion had a worship of only One Alone as true God. Since Christianity is claiming to have a foundation in the OT religion, how could true Christianity deviate from this most fundamental truth and have a worship of Three as God??? Truth is, the early church following Jesus and his teaching and the original apostles and their teaching did NOT teach or worship a God in Trinity, but rather exactly the same OT God, YHWHW. Who is a singular person One Alone God.

    Dave_L, did you comment on my objection to your statement? If you didn't, why?

    And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

    See above ... In addition, so-called Trinity Christianity is not the only religion which worships Three (or even more) as God(s). At least those ancient religions are honest and declare that they are worshiping three (or more) Gods, whereas Trinity Christianity disguises and hides that fact by a big far mystery self-contradictory nonsense claim that "the Three are each fully God, but really only one God"

    Dave_L, where is your comment to this objection of mine to your statement?

    “And God (plural) said, Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (singular), after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man (singular) in his own image (singular), in the image (singular) of God (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26–27) (KJV 1900)

    And what is it that you think your are saying with your inserted "singular"/"plural" words? You claim that "God" is plural ...but obviously none of the translators agrees with you, because plural form would be "Gods". Furthermore,in the following verse references to "God" are all singular, both pronouns ("he, his") and verbs ("created"). "God" is one singular (!) Spirit being,

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Just that Christianity is the only religion to worship God in trinity.

    That fact should cause some serious thought, especially so since the OT Jewish religion had a worship of only One Alone as true God. Since Christianity is claiming to have a foundation in the OT religion, how could true Christianity deviate from this most fundamental truth and have a worship of Three as God??? Truth is, the early church following Jesus and his teaching and the original apostles and their teaching did NOT teach or worship a God in Trinity, but rather exactly the same OT God, YHWHW. Who is a singular person One Alone God.

    Dave_L, did you comment on my objection to your statement? If you didn't, why?

    And for good reason. It's the main doctrine that separates us from the Unitarians, Muslims, Jews... etc.

    See above ... In addition, so-called Trinity Christianity is not the only religion which worships Three (or even more) as God(s). At least those ancient religions are honest and declare that they are worshiping three (or more) Gods, whereas Trinity Christianity disguises and hides that fact by a big far mystery self-contradictory nonsense claim that "the Three are each fully God, but really only one God"

    Dave_L, where is your comment to this objection of mine to your statement?

    “And God (plural) said, Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image (singular), after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man (singular) in his own image (singular), in the image (singular) of God (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26–27) (KJV 1900)

    And what is it that you think your are saying with your inserted "singular"/"plural" words? You claim that "God" is plural ...but obviously none of the translators agrees with you, because plural form would be "Gods". Furthermore,in the following verse references to "God" are all singular, both pronouns ("he, his") and verbs ("created"). "God" is one singular (!) Spirit being,

    What is your objection? State it clearly and I'll see if I can contribute.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,904

    @Dave_L said:

    Too often though the bible is nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test fro religious crackpots. Obviously.....

    Dave,
    What constitutes "religious crackpots" to cause them to see the "Inspired Word", The Bible as "nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test"? However you define it, the statement doesn't speak well of this group of people nor a proper reference of the Bible. I remarked on it, this statement, in the distant past. I guess it's a favorite saying of yours. Regardless, the Bible deserves better references and is the solution to "Crackheads", "religious crackpots, etc. Let's show the highest regard for it and refer to it as God's Inspired Word to humanity-- "Divine Accommodation" -- God speaking on man's level. That is, God used men ("Inspiration") to speak to men. ;) CM

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,904
    edited February 2

    @Bill_Coley said: "...For the Bible study in my small group Wednesday night, I had us look at the story of Jesus as a youth, in the temple with the teachers while his parents first left town, then conducted a frantic search before finding him (Luke 2.41-52). At the end of the chapter, Luke says "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." (v.52) If Luke believed Jesus was God, why would he tell us Jesus grew in favor with God? How could one who was God grow in God's favor?...

    Luke identifies Jesus both as “Son of God” and as “Joseph’s son” (Luke 3:23) and John as the son of Zechariah (Luke 1:57-80; 3:2). However, especially for Jesus, this identification through sonship is carried past his genealogy and infancy into his youth and adult ministry. This is due to the household structure:

    • For Jesus as Son of Joseph -- Luke 3:23, 30; and 4:22.
    • For Jesus as Son of God -- Luke 1:32, 35; 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28; and 22:69.

    From the first time that Jesus’ character speaks as a child in the temple (Luke 2:49) to his adult self’s dying breath on the cross (Luke 23:46), Jesus professes obedience to the will of God.

    This obedience is emphasized in this childhood account, in which the actions of which Jesus is himself the subject (as opposed to the object of his parents’ actions) include:

    • His remaining behind in Jerusalem (Luke 2:43).
    • Sitting among the teachers (Luke 2:46).
    • Listening to them (Luke 2:46).
    • Asking questions (Luke 2:46).

    The first of these, remaining, in and of itself is implicit in a child’s relationship with a tutor in antiquity. Please note, that each verb directly reflects the proper disposition of a child toward a teacher in antiquity. A student of antiquity describes his day: entering the school, greeting the teacher, taking his seat, copying models, making recitations, asking for dictation, writing, sitting again, and studying his books. For e.g. in Plato’s Praetorium, Hippias is described as “sitting on an imposing chair as he gives a lecture surrounded by his pupils sitting on benches.” Not to get lost, it's the basic activities of students engaged in learning—to show submission, attention, and respect.

    The teachers are “amazed at his understanding and answers” (Luke 2:47) suggests that Jesus demonstrates learning—another expected and appropriate quality of an attentive student. The more parents invested in their child’s education, which in antiquity could be a great amount, the more understanding they expected the student to exhibit as a result.

    It is true that Scripture tells us that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52), yet there is not the slightest indication in Scripture that He limited Himself to the knowledge of His age. The evidence of Scripture points in a different direction. Christ in every respect, in power, in wisdom, in knowledge, was not only beyond the age in which He lived on earth, but also beyond any age since that time. But He restrained Himself, not sharing more than was essential for the purpose for which He had come, namely, “to save His people from their sins” (Matt 1:21).

    While Luke portrays the child Jesus as a precocious and sophisticated student who inspires amazement, he remains a student contrary to what's found in the apocryphal Jesus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (see source).

    I hope this helps. I will continue to look to answer your concerns more specifically. CM

    Sources:

    • -- Rafaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) pp 15, 31 fn 67; 109-110.
    • -- Plato, Praetorium 315c
    • -- Aasgaard, Reidar. The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009, pp 115-116.
  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,286

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    Too often though the bible is nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test fro religious crackpots. Obviously.....

    Dave,
    What constitutes "religious crackpots" to cause them to see the "Inspired Word", The Bible as "nothing more than a giant Rorschach Test"? However you define it, the statement doesn't speak well of this group of people nor a proper reference of the Bible. I remarked on it, this statement, in the distant past. I guess it's a favorite saying of yours. Regardless, the Bible deserves better references and is the solution to "Crackheads", "religious crackpots, etc. Let's show the highest regard for it and refer to it as God's Inspired Word to humanity-- "Divine Accommodation" -- God speaking on man's level. That is, God used men ("Inspiration") to speak to men. ;) CM

    Why so many wild and crazy ideas about what the bible says? Charles Manson thought the locusts of Rev. 9 with men's faces and hair like women were the Beatles. And the sting in their tails were electric guitars and amplifiers. How is this any different from prophecy buffs and Dispensationalists world wide that make similar calls trying to harmonize technology with ancient prophecies?

Sign In or Register to comment.