PabloSerna said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this.

---

Yes. Somewhere I don't understand.

---

Would that somewhere be that you think Jesus has two distinct natures in one person?

---

I just don't get where the OP is even going with this. To prove that Jesus did/didn't study scripture or if he didn't study it is it not scripture.
These posits seem to be rather desultory. Meaning way beyond the transom of my mind.

Zobel said:

---

Yes. But David was not high priest and Christ Jesus is. He is more than David's kingship, He is both King and High Priest.

---

I don't see how your point negates Jesus' duties as king, namely to read scripture...

BluHorseShu said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this.

---

Yes. Somewhere I don't understand.

---

Would that somewhere be that you think Jesus has two distinct natures in one person?

---

I just don't get where the OP is even going with this. To prove that Jesus did/didn't study scripture or if he didn't study it is it not scripture.
These posits seem to be rather desultory. Meaning way beyond the transom of my mind.

---

Point is Jesus read scripture. And he is reading scripture now as we speak.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this.

---

Yes. Somewhere I don't understand.

---

Would that somewhere be that you think Jesus has two distinct natures in one person?

---

I just don't get where the OP is even going with this. To prove that Jesus did/didn't study scripture or if he didn't study it is it not scripture.
These posits seem to be rather desultory. Meaning way beyond the transom of my mind.

---

Point is Jesus read scripture. And he is reading scripture now as we speak.

---

Jesus is scripture. Jesus is the Word. So are you talking about OT? Jesus also referenced other sources not included in the Bible. Do I know that he read those things....probably. But he certainly could just as easily been intuitive of their content through his Divine nature.

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yes. But David was not high priest and Christ Jesus is. He is more than David's kingship, He is both King and High Priest.

---

I don't see how your point negates Jesus' duties as king, namely to read scripture...

---

If he wants to read scripture, he reads scripture. If he doesn't, he knows it all anyway so he just chills. He's cool that way

Luke 2 seems to me that he not only read and learned, etc. but he also listened (conceivably from the OT) and taught and had inspiration:

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

So,

cruiserag2020 said:

---

Luke 2 seems to me that he not only read and learned, etc. but he also listened (conceivably from the OT) and taught and had inspiration:

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

So,

---

No no no. Codker said 'read', not 'listened to'.

lol

Zobel said:

---

Who imposes duties on God?

---

Yahweh elohim...

By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance. Isaiah 45:23

EDIT clarification: God apparently swears by himself, that is, God imposes duties on God...

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Codker, you on the spectrum? Gotta be…

---

If I am, and I am right about my point, then what does that make you?

codker92 said:

---

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Codker, you on the spectrum? Gotta be…

---

If I am, and I am right about my point, then what does that make you?

---

Autistic savant?

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I said, He desires to GIVE a deeper understanding (to the Jews at the sermon on the mount) of the Law.

If Jesus is the Word, and is God, I don't buy that he had to read the law to know the law.

It is as if you are trying to understand God or impose your finite understanding on His capabilities.

cruiserag2020 said:

---

Luke 2 seems to me that he not only read and learned, etc. but he also listened (conceivably from the OT) and taught and had inspiration:

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

So,

---

During his ministry, Jesus often asked questions of his listeners, usually to provoke further though of the listener.

Listening to and asking questions of the teachers could have been more of the same.

Still, beyond reading scripture as part of participating in a scripture discussion, there is nothing to suggest Jesus needed to study scripture to understand better.

The part where everyone is amazed at his understanding and answers would suggest an advanced knowledge of scriptures at an early age, which would support the thesis that Jesus understood the scripture (or at least the underlying message from God) through Devine means.

codker92 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who imposes duties on God?

---

Yahweh elohim...

By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance. Isaiah 45:23

EDIT clarification: God apparently swears by himself, that is, God imposes duties on God...

---

St Paul says "...when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself...For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

God swearing by Himself is for our benefit and hope, not because He has need of or any imposition.

Again, Deuteronomy is about the Israelites setting a human king on their throne over themselves like the nations - the pagan gentiles. This king, like all else in the Torah and Prophets, testify of Christ, point to Christ (as He Himself says). They are shadows of good things to come, a copy and shadow of what is in Heaven, and the shadow that is cast is cast by the Body of Christ. Rather than reading the Torah as a duty or imposition on Christ, we should understand it as a shadow cast by Him. Its theomorphic, not the other way around.

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I said, He desires to GIVE a deeper understanding (to the Jews at the sermon on the mount) of the Law.

If Jesus is the Word, and is God, I don't buy that he had to read the law to know the law.

It is as if you are trying to understand God or impose your finite understanding on His capabilities.

---

Well according to my post about Jesus being on the throne of Israel, God is the one requiring Jesus to read scripture.

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

I agree - I'm not sure there is a difference between a promise and a self imposed limitation. But the point was that there is a requirement in Deuteronomy for the king of Israel to read the Torah every day.

I'm pretty sure codker is just dancing around the fact that he is not a trinitarian and doesn't think Jesus is God.

Very good point

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I said, He desires to GIVE a deeper understanding (to the Jews at the sermon on the mount) of the Law.

If Jesus is the Word, and is God, I don't buy that he had to read the law to know the law.

It is as if you are trying to understand God or impose your finite understanding on His capabilities.

---

Well according to my post about Jesus being on the throne of Israel, God is the one requiring Jesus to read scripture.

---

God and Jesus are the same. And that is the disconnect.

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Codker, you on the spectrum? Gotta be…

---

Worse, he is an attorney.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

This is a stupid thread.


OP- if you have a point to make, make it at the beginning. No one has time for all the dancing around, answering questions with questions, and obtuseness.

---

Sorry for making you think. How silly of me.

Zobel said:

---

I agree - I'm not sure there is a difference between a promise and a self imposed limitation. But the point was that there is a requirement in Deuteronomy for the king of Israel to read the Torah every day.

I'm pretty sure codker is just dancing around the fact that he is not a trinitarian and doesn't think Jesus is God.

---

Sounds like you are deciding your position based on your preconceived notions and not the evidence. I would kindly invited you to consider the possibility Jesus actually likes reading scripture and carrying out Yahweh Elohim's commands..

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

"Evidence"

powerbelly said:

---

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Codker, you on the spectrum? Gotta be…

---

Worse, he is an attorney.

---

I must admit I do have flaws.

Codker - Why did you post this question?

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

Jesus didn't need inspiration, but knew his audience. These things resonated with them as they were part of the law. Also, he was trying to clarify the law for them.

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.