rhutchin

The Jews have a lot but they deny the NT. The NT sets Jew and Christian apart, does it not? What exactly do you see as debatable about this?

rhutchin

Not exactly. In Luke's two earlier references, he distinguishes them by saying. "as written in" or " that which is said in." Luke also writes, "according to the Law of Moses" in v22 but "according to the Law of the Lord" in v39. So, the issue is whether Luke meant to distinguish the Law of Moses from the Law of the Lord when he wrote it this way. If Luke sees Christ as Lord, which he must have done, then the "Law of Moses" would mean something different to him than the "Law of the Lord." If we argue the plain meaning of the scripture than we should take notice first when the author plainly uses different terms so close together and then clarifies references by saying written in or said in all instances except one.

Perhaps v 23,24 were clarifying notes offered by a later scribe that were then incorporated into the text.

Perhaps Luke intended to tell readers that Joseph and Mary adhered to the Jewish law (the Law of Moses) in v22 and then that they adhered to the Law of the Lord (Christ) in v39 even when they did not know that it was Christ who was instructing each of them.

Amaleq13

Bullshit. Ben has already pointed out that the author "distinguishes" nothing with the different wording here. The author is consistently referring to Hebrew Scripture with every variation and you continue to have no evidence support your wishful thinking.

Except for your clearly strong desire for it to be so, there is no reason to think it. That means there is no good reason to even suspect this to be true let alone to assume that it is.

He also sees God as Lord and differentiates between the two. This does nothing to make your wishful thinking appear more credible.

And we would expect the context and his usage to reflect this but it doesn't. Instead, the author gives every indication that the phrases mean the same thing.

Notice has taken and the varying wordings have been shown to be irrelevant because the varying contexts indicate the same meaning was intended.

Again, the only "evidence" that points to your conclusion is your personal preference for it. Your ability to imagine "what if" scenarios in no way constitutes supporting evidence or even a logical argument for your preferred conclusion but that is, apparently, all you have.

Luke describes no trip to Egypt and his story has no room for it. His version of the story is incompatible with Matthew's. :wave:

rhutchin

To Luke, Christ and God would be the same.

kcdad

The Jews don't "deny" the NT. I know lots of Jews who read the NT. They just don't necessarily believe Jesus was the ONE AND ONLY messiah... (they have had lots of them). Since Jesus and ALL of the early church were Jewish, it seems kinda crazy to suggest that there is any difference between Jews and Christians... UNLESS you want to say that Christians have little to do with Jesus... which is certainly an argument to be made.

kcdad

Think so? So Jesus praying to himself, crying in despair to himself or talking about himself in third person wouldn't be weird to Luke?

rhutchin

To LUKE Christ and God would be the same. For Luke, to pray to Christ was to pray to God. For Luke, to say, "Jesus is Lord," was to say that "Jesus is God."

It's a NT thing that the Jews did not accept. For the Jew, Christ was NOT, and is NOT, God.

rhutchin

Jews do not accept the NT message that God took the form of a man named Jesus and walked on the earth. They refuse to accept that Jesus is God. There is a real difference between Jews and Christians in that they serve two entirely different gods. Christians serve Jesus who they claim is God. The Jews do not serve Jesus who they claim is not God.

Jayrok

Link?

kcdad

Apparently neither did the disciples... Jesus told them to worship GOD alone, not to call him good, and when they pray not to pray to Jesus but to OUR FATHER. OUR Father... OUR... that means Jesus and the disciples share a Father, making them BROTHERS.