The Trinity in Luke 2:40-56

[74x12]

Jesus makes clear who it applies to: "If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came"

Yes, but you're assuming He is referring to the entire Word of God or in other words the whole Tanakh.

But, what He means is the prophecy in Psalm 82 itself. It was a prophecy directed at specific people. "the word of God" sent to a specific group of people. We see this in scriptures over and over that the "Word of the LORD" or in this case the "Word of God" is sent or comes to this or that person or group of people.

This is why He says "if he called them gods". If it was unto the Jews; then Jesus should have said "if he called you gods".

 

[iam1me]

Yes, but you're assuming He is referring to the entire Word of God or in other words the whole Tanakh.

But, what He means is the prophecy in Psalm 82 itself. It was a prophecy directed at specific people. "the word of God" sent to a specific group of people. We see this in scriptures over and over that the "Word of the LORD" or in this case the "Word of God" is sent or comes to this or that person or group of people.

This is why He says "if he called them gods". If it was unto the Jews; then Jesus should have said "if he called you gods".

I'm afraid you are simply incorrect. In the first place, Psalm 82 isn't limited to a specific subset of the Jewish people - and Jesus doesn't take it that way. In the second place, in context Jesus is very clearly applying this verse to his accusers. He is rebutting their accusations against him by pointing out that the scriptures call them Gods, while he makes the lesser claim: that he is the Son of God.

Finally, you're "them" vs "you" complaint holds no weight. It is very plain to see that them = "those to whom God's word came" = the Jewish People, a group to which his accusers belong. Just 'cause you wouldn't speak that way doesn't mean it is an invalid or unclear way to state it.

 

[74x12]

I'm afraid you are simply incorrect. In the first place, Psalm 82 isn't limited to a specific subset of the Jewish people - and Jesus doesn't take it that way. In the second place, in context Jesus is very clearly applying this verse to his accusers. He is rebutting their accusations against him by pointing out that the scriptures call them Gods, while he makes the lesser claim: that he is the Son of God.

Finally, you're "them" vs "you" complaint holds no weight. It is very plain to see that them = "those to whom God's word came" = the Jewish People, a group to which his accusers belong. Just 'cause you wouldn't speak that way doesn't mean it is an invalid or unclear way to state it.

The fact is I used to believe the same way you do about these verses. I thought it was to the Jews (or anyone who reads the scriptures). But, I had to change my belief when presented with evidence to the contrary. You should be willing to reexamine your interpretation of scriptures.

Everything you're saying here is based off of assumptions. For example I didn't even claim it was to a specific subset of Jewish people at all. In fact I haven't even told you yet who I believe Psalm 82 is about.

And you say my argument holds no weight?

 

[rrobs]

OH, give me a friggen break! Go read Exodus, for crying out loud!!! There are numerous incidents in the Book where Moses stands and talks to God, AND there are all sorts of other happenings. I am not about to spoon feed you the Bible.

I think you are referring to Exodus chapter 33. God is spirit (John 4:24). A spirit can not be seen and does not have a face, arms, or a back. Those terms are a figure of speech, specifically anthropomorphism. John 1:18 on the other hand is speaking literally so it in no way contradicts Exodus. To this day, no man has seen God.

Jesus did say that if you saw him you saw God. Another apparent contradiction. If the scriptures are accepted as truth, there can be no contradictions. What people see as contradictions, I see as a failure to understand something or another. The problem is with understanding, not the scriptures themselves.

We use a phrase that goes something like, "if you've seen one you've seen them all." We all understand that it doesn't mean to actually see "all" of something. Instead they are simply saying that all the things we didn't actually see are exactly like the one thing we did see. In that sense we did see the "all" things. Jesus always did his father's will, every jot and tittle. In that sense if you saw him you did see God, but not literally.

 

[iam1me]

The fact is I used to believe the same way you do about these verses. I thought it was to the Jews (or anyone who reads the scriptures). But, I had to change my belief when presented with evidence to the contrary. You should be willing to reexamine your interpretation of scriptures.

Everything you're saying here is based off of assumptions. For example I didn't even claim it was to a specific subset of Jewish people at all. In fact I haven't even told you yet who I believe Psalm 82 is about.

You've already stated you think it refers to a specific subset of people. Jesus, on the other hand, applies it liberally - to those who received God's word. If you have serious evidence I'll consider it - but nothing presented so far is in agreement with Jesus' interpretation of the passage.

And you say my argument holds no weight?

You're argument about "you" versus "them" indeed holds no weight. Just because you personally wouldn't have stated it as such doesn't invalidate the way that Jesus said it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

But why would He want to be anything other than who He is? I mean if He is perfect, if He has infinite power and knowledge, what would be the point of His temporarily turning Himself into a frog or a dog or anything else?

It is just a personal sentiment of mine. I think he can shift his form at will. Told ya I was weird.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The OP was sarcasm. I changed words to show how Jesus being God causes problems. The same thing happens when "Jesus" is substituted for "word" in John 1:1.

Sorry, I am not good at sarcasm. I think many problems are caused by the word "God". A lot of people use the word "God" when they really mean the Heavenly Father. But the Father is only part of "God". Jesus is also part of "God". It is like a family. You can have one family with several members of that family. There is only one God but that God can have several parts. In fact, if humans are God's children ( like many people believe) then they are part of the God family or part of God. In the beginning the Word was with the Father and the Word was part of the God family along with the Father. Later that Word was given a human body and was named Jesus.

 

[rrobs]

It is interesting that when I was Mormon, they said that God is "flesh and bone". I told them that since he is God, he can be what ever he wants to be. I think they were glad to be done with me.

God can't be anything He wants to be. He is limited by His word, the scriptures. They say God is love (1 John 4:8). Therefore He can't not be love, even if He wanted to. Once He says something He will always follow through with it. He can not deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13).

Maybe you did something else that ticked them off.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I think you are referring to Exodus chapter 33. God is spirit (John 4:24). A spirit can not be seen and does not have a face, arms, or a back. Those terms are a figure of speech, specifically anthropomorphism. John 1:18 on the other hand is speaking literally so it in no way contradicts Exodus. To this day, no man has seen God.

Jesus did say that if you saw him you saw God. Another apparent contradiction. If the scriptures are accepted as truth, there can be no contradictions. What people see as contradictions, I see as a failure to understand something or another. The problem is with understanding, not the scriptures themselves.

We use a phrase that goes something like, "if you've seen one you've seen them all." We all understand that it doesn't mean to actually see "all" of something. Instead they are simply saying that all the things we didn't actually see are exactly like the one thing we did see. In that sense we did see the "all" things. Jesus always did his father's will, every jot and tittle. In that sense if you saw him you did see God, but not literally.

Nope, not buying it.

 

[rrobs]

Nope, not buying it.

Which part specifically?

 

[rrobs]

I'm not sure what you think you are reading there, but verse 1 says the Logos was in the beginning. It's not until verse 14 that John then takes this eternal Logos which is identified as Divine in the 3rd clause of verse 1, and then clearly states, "The Logos became flesh", which is a direct reference to Jesus. So, "The Logos is God".... "The Logos became flesh." You don't see it's a continuous thought from verse 1 to verse 14, identifying Jesus directly with the eternal Logos?


Correct. The flesh is temporal, Spirit is eternal. Spirit became flesh does not mean Spirit ceased to exist. It means it took a temporary form.

You seem unfamiliar with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which is that Jesus Christ was both fully man and fully God. Fully man means he had a beginning, born of his mother in history. Fully God means he was eternal Spirit. Etc.

Regarding the OP, I pointed out how you can just as easily make a mockery using dualistic language to describe nonduality when you imagine the Omnipresent God, meaning God is everywhere at all time at once, doesn't exist somewhere, such as in you, or AS you. Is God a block of swiss cheese and you exist in the holes where God does not exist? How can God be omnipresent, yet be imagined as "outside" of you?

Please explain that, and then take a look at how you butchered the meaning in your OP by trying to force fit nondualistic truths into a construct of dualistic language, yet at the same time, you leave the Omnipresent God that somehow is imagined to not exist everywhere alone? Can you make God everywhere, but not everywhere at the same time? No? Then how is your OP any better at speaking truth? I think the atheist that denies God exists would have an easier job at that than you do.

Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, as they say.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand exactly what you are saying or asking. I'm not sure what you ostensibly want me to explain, but I have a feeling that whatever it is you wouldn't buy my answer. You seem biased against me.

 

[rrobs]

From my perspective neither your view, nor that of traditional Christianity and the fundamentalist view of scripture have a coherent argument, because of the lack of provenance of scripture, inconsistence of scripture, and the matter of fact evidence of the world we live in.

Reality is not boring at all, but hiding is,

Gee, I never thought you'd say something like that! I thought I would convince you for sure to become a Christian. What can I say to make you think just like me?

1Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
​

I'm just goofing around with you. A bit of playful bantering. I don't mean to offend you in any way. I hope you understand my humor.

 

[rrobs]

Actually not... because of something else... the hypostatic union.
Jesus was fully God and fully manIn this humanity 'he grew in wisdom and knowledge and in favor of God and men" as Like said

in his divining Col 1:5 the world could be made through him and for him

I looked for "hypostatic union" in a concordance and couldn't find it anywhere. I don't think it's scriptural. I went to Catholic school for 12 years with religion class 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. I know the verbiage. Most of it is from the Catechism, not the scriptures. They are more often than not at odds with one another. I choose to believe the scriptures, so I don't believe in a hypostatic union of any sort. Many of the Roman/Greek mystery religions had god-men, but the scriptures are void of any such idea.

Jesus was tempted just like you and me (Heb 4:15). How could that be if he knew he was part God but you and I have no such notions floating around in our mind? Seems like if I knew I was half God, I'd have a different view on things. Temptations certainly wouldn't affect me the way they do now.

The world was indeed made through and for Jesus, but God did the creating.

 

[rrobs]

Of course there is no way a son can be his own father, but two different individuals may both share the same title: God.

Deut 6:4,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
​

Just leave it at that without going into man's wisdom. God is not two different individuals with the same title. As Deuteronomy says, He is one.

 

[Desert Snake]

You mean Psalm 82?

It can't mean that.
Romans 9:6
Romans 9:8

 

[rrobs]

Sorry, I am not good at sarcasm. I think many problems are caused by the word "God". A lot of people use the word "God" when they really mean the Heavenly Father. But the Father is only part of "God". Jesus is also part of "God". It is like a family. You can have one family with several members of that family. There is only one God but that God can have several parts. In fact, if humans are God's children ( like many people believe) then they are part of the God family or part of God. In the beginning the Word was with the Father and the Word was part of the God family along with the Father. Later that Word was given a human body and was named Jesus.

It you are sincerely seeking, you must decide what your source of truth is. If it is the Bible, then you should be able to quote verses to back up whatever it is you claim. I'm afraid that a lot of what you've said can't be found in the scriptures. It sounds more like your own reasoning. I don't say that to be critical. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught. Unfortunately orthodox Christendom has taught error pretty much from before the apostle Paul died, 2,000+ years ago (2 Tim 1:15). As such, the things he taught have been mangled beyond recognition. It's not easy to wade through all the tradition and get back to the actual truth, but it can be done. If you want any help on that, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If Jesus is God, Luke 2:40-56 could (should?) be read as,

"Now the parents of God went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when God was twelve years old, they went up according to custom and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, God stayed behind in Jerusalem. The parents of God did not know it, but supposing God to be in their company they went a day's journey, and they sought God among their kinsfolk and acquaintances and when they did not find God, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking God. After three days they found God in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions and all who heard God were amazed at the understanding of God and His answers. And when they saw God they were astonished and the mother of God said to him, "God, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." And God said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?" And they did not understand the saying which God spoke to them. And God went down with them and came to Nazareth and God was obedient to them and the mother of God kept all these things in her heart. And God increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man."​

​

I'm still curious how Mosaic law allows you to kill a bratty kid and Jesus made it to adulthood after this.

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Some minds can be blown with the simplest of ideas.

God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Then why does He feel the need to tell us how to act? He has no frame of reference, right?

He has hidden these things from the wise and prudent but revealed them unto babies.

The taste of feet is profound to babies.

If it was so easy to understand who the Father or the Son is then why would Jesus say that only the Son can show people who the Father is?

Jesus is not burdened with excess humility.

You are correct that it is not hard for those with God's spirit to understand him. Rather it is the ones without the spirit that don't.
Matthew 16:13-17
13 When he had come into the region of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did.

The spirit of the father revealed that Jesus is the son of God.
That's not wrong, is it?

And it's impossible that Jesus' ego is massaged by Peter's constant butt kissing?

Peter clearly wants to be more than Jesus' Number Two. It infuriates him when he tries to copy the "miracles" of Jesus only to fail. He runs off instead of standing up for what he believes on a fairly consistent basis. Peter considers himself just as important as Jesus and yet it is Peter, not Judas, who Jesus calls Satan.

Jesus always did his father's will.

He breaks several commandments and other holy laws. People were threatened with death if they disobeyed. Why does Jesus get a pass?

Jehovah's witnesses and others who do not pray to Jesus cannot receive the holy Spirit. You have to ask Jesus to receive the holy Spirit.

What is the point of the middle man?

He came to save the humans specifically.

He specifically said he came to save Jews. Are you one? Me neither.

If I went back in time, he would no doubt treat me like the gentile woman asking him for some help, calling me a dog and ignoring me until I shamed him into helping, like how you have to guilt-trip megachurches to open doors during hurricanes.

I think you are referring to Exodus chapter 33. God is spirit (John 4:24). A spirit can not be seen and does not have a face, arms, or a back. Those terms are a figure of speech, specifically anthropomorphism. John 1:18 on the other hand is speaking literally so it in no way contradicts Exodus. To this day, no man has seen God.

God's vague nature was not always so. Originally He was very anthropomorphic, just as Everyone else in the pantheon was. Judaism has tried hard to ignore its polytheistic past, but they can't erase it totally.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Deut 6:4,

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
​

Just leave it at that without going into man's wisdom. God is not two different individuals with the same title. As Deuteronomy says, He is one.

the word for one is echad which is also used in the marriage of Adam and Eve... "The two shall be one [echad] flesh" also used on one clump of grapes brought back by Joshua and Caleb from the promised land. It allows for a unity of a plurality

 

[whirlingmerc]

I looked for "hypostatic union" in a concordance and couldn't find it anywhere. I don't think it's scriptural. I went to Catholic school for 12 years with religion class 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. I know the verbiage. Most of it is from the Catechism, not the scriptures. They are more often than not at odds with one another. I choose to believe the scriptures, so I don't believe in a hypostatic union of any sort. Many of the Roman/Greek mystery religions had god-men, but the scriptures are void of any such idea.

Jesus was tempted just like you and me (Heb 4:15). How could that be if he knew he was part God but you and I have no such notions floating around in our mind? Seems like if I knew I was half God, I'd have a different view on things. Temptations certainly wouldn't affect me the way they do now.

The world was indeed made through and for Jesus, but God did the creating.

Catholics and Protestants both believe in the hypostatic union which is Jesus has two natures divine and human

You can see an example in John 1:19 where Jesus says "tear down this temple and in three days I will rase it again" Human enough to die. Divine enough to raise his dead human body.

I would say the hypostatic union is also portended in Psalms 111 and Psalms 112 the blessed God Blessed man psalms
Adjacent psalms that tell a story part 4 - the blessed God ad the b…

 

[rrobs]

the word for one is echad which is also used in the marriage of Adam and Eve... "The two shall be one [echad] flesh" also used on one clump of grapes brought back by Joshua and Caleb from the promised land. It allows for a unity of a plurality

I may be misunderstand you, but are you saying Adam and Eve were somehow really one person? All the grapes in the bunch were really one grape? I don't see either as a good argument for making Jesus God, especially when the scriptures say almost 50 times he is the son of God.