Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
In the end, Wolfgang, I don't know how God will judge a person with an understanding the rejects Christ as God, but I just hope it is only a misunderstanding and not a rejection. As a person, I have come to respect you and like you a lot. I do feel deep concern when a man, a friend, knowledgeable in the Word, continues to reject the divinity of Christ. Just saying I care.
-
If I did not care, I would have long ago just left any Trinity folk alone and not bothered investing even a minute of time to try and explain in detail the error of that doctrine.
What do I get in return? Heresy calls, people concerned about my eternal welfare ... while it seems that they do not even give a thought to what is pointed out regarding their "mysterious Trinity dogma".
Interestingly, I had a person explaining to me how important it was for us as Christians to acknowledge our Jewish roots, keep the Lord's feasts like the Jews did, keep the Ceder celebration as if it were the Passah meal, etc ... When I asked the person if he also kept to the Jewish belief of a ONE PERSON GOD (YHWH) or rather believed in a different - e.g. a Trinity / Triune - God, he looked at me as if I was stupid to even ask the question ... You see, this fellow almost wants to be a Jewish Christian, and yet rejects the most fundamental truth of Biblical Israel's faith => that there are NOT Three who are each or together God, but that there is only ONE ALONE WHO ALONE IS TRUE GOD (just as Jesus stated ... cp John 17:3) ... he was a firm Trinitarian, and yet thought of himself as following the Jewish roots of Christianity.
-
Wouldn't amateurs and language buffs be an even higher risk? I can think of three independent sources that agree with Jude 5 as being Jesus and Titus 2:13 saying Jesus is God.
Here's another with multiple pros involved.
“From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
You cannot attack the message by attacking the messengers in these cases. These are bonafide pros.
-
@Dave_L said:
Wouldn't amateurs and language buffs be an even higher risk?Why? Is a falsely informed pro always more correct than an amateur who is correctly informed? or are you saying that pros are always correctly informed?
I can think of three independent sources that agree with Jude 5 as being Jesus and Titus 2:13 saying Jesus is God.
I've already mentioned more than three independent sources (and there are quite a few more Bible translations and other works) which show that Jude 5 is NOT speaking about Jesus at all but is making reference to YHWH - who is Jesus' Father (!) - as told in the respective OT record to which Jude 5 alludes.
Here's another with multiple pros involved.
“From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
Just as in 1Pe 1, Peter makes reference to both (a) God, and (b) Messiah Jesus, our Savior. One just needs to read and NOT make two into one.
You cannot attack the message by attacking the messengers in these cases. These are bonafide pros.
The problem here is not with the translators but rather with readers who misread and make out of two -- (1) God, and (2) our savior Jesus Christ -- one.
-
@Wolfgang said:
A closer look at other translations and manuscript evidence underlying the translations will show you rather clearly and plainly that a translation ".. once fully knew it, that JESUS, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt ...." is based on an awkward text reading and most likely NOT according to what the original text of Jude actually had.
I agree that Ἰησοῦς is the more difficult reading over Κύριος; however, there are five variant readings of which two read Ἰησοῦς, and a third reads θεος Χριστος. (cf. Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, Jude 5)
I do disagree with your "most likely NOT" comment; this being based on the re-assessment of textual data by the NA28 textual committee along with the two readings of Ἰησοῦς as well as θεος Χριστος, which is an interesting case of a scribe attaching Χριστος to θεος in the NT.
The NA27 text has the reading Κύριος favored by the majority of the NA27 textual committee – they considered Ἰησοῦς a too difficult a reading, which Metzger disagreed with based on what he considered a greater manuscript attestation to Ἰησοῦς. (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Jude 5)
Interestingly, sometime in 2012, the Nestle-Aland 28th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece was published and had Ἰησοῦς at Jude 5. Five years prior to 2012 Metzger had passed away.
For information regarding the NA28 textual revisions see: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/the-28-edition/revision-of-the-catholic-letters/
Institute of New Testament Textual Research: http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/index_en.shtml -
@Wolfgang said:
rather than being fooled by "Trinitarian translators'"I disagree, for the most part, that theology drives interpretation; but, rather interpretation drives one’s theology. A New Testament translator’s job is to translate source text accurately, yet understandably, into a target language – not their personal theological ideology. In other words, theology is to be based on grammar, not the other way around.
I offer, below, a comment from A.T. Robertson regarding this very same idea of one’s theology being the basis for interpreting the text.
Stranger still, he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Accordance electronic ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 785-786.)
-
While I find the NA Greek NT and its critical apparatus very helpful because much straight forward mss facts information has been collected and is thus found in one place, I also notice "the theology connections" of the committee members or perhaps more so that of the publishers (German Bible Society, Stuttgart) in certain places and in particular where the "trinity" topic is involved. Jude 5 is such a case ... as can be seen from the information given above by @Pages.
I also would point out that "mss evidence" does not always straight forwardly prove a certain text reading to be the original and true and another to be not the text of the original. The mss are not the originals but rather hand written copies (often copies of copies, etc.) and do show how in the process of copying and transmission of the text, changes happened, be it by mistake or by intent.
I personally regard consideration of harmony with the context and the overall scope of Scripture to be more important as determining factor for which reading is most likely the original than whether mss found in a particular location or being older or younger than another one.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Wouldn't amateurs and language buffs be an even higher risk?Why? Is a falsely informed pro always more correct than an amateur who is correctly informed? or are you saying that pros are always correctly informed?
I can think of three independent sources that agree with Jude 5 as being Jesus and Titus 2:13 saying Jesus is God.
I've already mentioned more than three independent sources (and there are quite a few more Bible translations and other works) which show that Jude 5 is NOT speaking about Jesus at all but is making reference to YHWH - who is Jesus' Father (!) - as told in the respective OT record to which Jude 5 alludes.
Here's another with multiple pros involved.
“From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
Just as in 1Pe 1, Peter makes reference to both (a) God, and (b) Messiah Jesus, our Savior. One just needs to read and NOT make two into one.
You cannot attack the message by attacking the messengers in these cases. These are bonafide pros.
The problem here is not with the translators but rather with readers who misread and make out of two -- (1) God, and (2) our savior Jesus Christ -- one.
It still comes down to not being able to trust amateurs when the many pros contradict them.
-
Maybe don't put all your eggs in the basket of scholars and their translations. God is good. He wants us to know Him. He is in the business of revealing himself. If you know Him--really know Him, the mystery of these questions fades away like a fraction to a Calculus student.
Example:
We can describe my wife all day from a genetics book, trying to know her by arguing her AT/CG DNA base pairs sequence. Better is to meet her and see the loving glint in her eye; hear her voice and we would all pretty much lose interest in arguing her DNA. -
The fact that @Wolfgang says he has not been shown a verse that says Jesus is God is laughable since it has been referenced to him dozens of times by multiple people.
-
Keep laughing ... I'm smiling at your attempts to produce a verse, since NOT ONE verse of those supposed "references ... dozens of times" says that Jesus is God.
@Reformed, you should do a search for the expression "Son OF GOD" as a reference for Jesus in the NT ... I haven't counted them, but there are about 50 places where this expression is used in reference to Jesus. These "Son OF GOD" (God's Son) verses all state by simple plain logic that Jesus is NOT God, because a son can NOT be his own Father.
In light of this, for someone to claim that Jesus is God seems far more laughable ... -
@Wolfgang said:
consider the word order and construction in the Greek texts, and you will find what the verse actually says
I agree.
Two observations regarding Titus 2:13 based on construction of the greek text:
“προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” (Titus 2:13 NA28)
“ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν,” (Titus 2:14 NA28)
ὃς (masc, sing, nom, definite pronoun) is the singular subject of vs. 13-14 having Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as the antecedent. Grammatically, this would argue for a single person being spoken about in v.13.
Moreover, in v.13 (“τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”) there is only one article (τοῦ). This construction, TSKS*, two nouns (θεοῦ, σωτῆρος) with καὶ, in which the first noun only is articular is speaking of one person. (cf. Granville Sharp) (cf. 2Peter 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18)
In Tit. 2:13, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, it is almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης where the one article unites closely the two substantives. Moulton quotes most pertinently papyri examples of vii/A. D., which show that among Greek-speaking Christians “our great God and Saviour” was a current form of speech as well as the Ptolemaic formula, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ εὐεργέτου καὶ σωτῆρος (G. H. 15, ii/B. C.). He cites also Wendland’s argument that the rival rendering in Titus is as great an “exegetical mistake” as to make two persons in 2 Pet. 1:1. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Accordance electronic ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), 786.)
*TSKS: article - substantive - kai - substantive
-
@Wolfgang said:
because a son can NOT be his own Father.I agree.
However, I believe, as illustrated by the above statement, there is some confusion of the Trinity Doctrine regarding the distinction between the Father, Son, Spirit.
The doctrine is explicit in that there are three distinct Persons; therefore this statement is simply a misunderstanding of the doctrine.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Keep laughing ... I'm smiling at your attempts to produce a verse, since NOT ONE verse of those supposed "references ... dozens of times" says that Jesus is God.
@Reformed, you should do a search for the expression "Son OF GOD" as a reference for Jesus in the NT ... I haven't counted them, but there are about 50 places where this expression is used in reference to Jesus. These "Son OF GOD" (God's Son) verses all state by simple plain logic that Jesus is NOT God, because a son can NOT be his own Father.
In light of this, for someone to claim that Jesus is God seems far more laughable ...If you put God in a human box you get that outcome. If he was truly a son of God, that would at least make him Deity, how do you get around that?
-
@Pages said:
The NA27 text has the reading Κύριος favored by the majority of the NA27 textual committee – they considered Ἰησοῦς a too difficult a reading, which Metzger disagreed with based on what he considered a greater manuscript attestation to Ἰησοῦς. (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Jude 5)
Clarification of this line:
...which Metzger disagreed with based on what he considered a greater manuscript attestation to Ἰησοῦς.
I ought to have written the following:
...which Metzger disagreed with, based on what he considered the greater manuscript weight of those attesting to the reading of Ἰησοῦς.
The word, greater, lacking the above clarification may give the impression of a numerically greater – i.e. a greater number of manuscripts. Rather, weight – i.e. expressed as confidence in – conveys the intention of the statement better.
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill and Wolfgang, in my next post, I will address your text of concerns (Acts 2:22–24). Stay tuned... CM
Brothers, I know it has been sometimes. This thread is too long, despite the deviations. I had a hard time finding my own words in this thread. Here is my contribution to the aforementioned text.
In his speech, the charges of drunkenness, Peter, the apostle first pointed to Scripture (Acts 2:16–21), describing the outpouring of the Spirit as the fulfillment of prophecy.
Joel’s prophecy was about the future age of salvation (Joel 2:32), which would be characterized by several signs in the natural world and a lavish outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28–31). The main point in Peter’s presentation of the gospel in Acts 2:22–32, which contain your text of concerns (Acts 2:22–24).
After highlighting the prophetic significance of Pentecost, Peter turned to the recent events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. It is the resurrection, however, that received greater emphasis, as it represented the decisive factor in the gospel story. For Peter, the resurrection was the ultimate vindication of Jesus (Acts 2:22, 27), and he quoted Scripture to help make his point about the meaning of the resurrection.
Because Jesus was the Messiah, He could not be detained by death. So for Peter and for all the writers of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus had become powerful evidence, not only of Jesus as the Messiah but for the whole Christian message of salvation.
(1) Jesus made it clear on numerous occasions that he had to go to the cross and die. This was why he came! (See, e.g., Matt. 16:21.)
(2) The fact of his death and resurrection was absolutely central in all the preaching in Acts, whether it was Peter, Stephen, or Paul who was preaching (see, e.g., Acts 2:22–24; 3:13–15; 5:30–31; 7:52; 13:26–31).
(3) Jesus himself pointed to Isaiah 53 when teaching his disciples (see Luke 22:37, which helps to explain why his disciples frequently pointed back to that portion of Scripture; see Matt. 8:17; John 12:38; 1 Peter 2:22–25).
(4) Paul, with full knowledge of Messiah’s death and resurrection, and reflecting on the Hebrew Scriptures, gave further insight into the meaning and function and power of that act of redemption, but in doing so, he only built on the words and traditions he had already received. As he wrote to the Corinthians in a well-known passage:- For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:23–26).
BiIl, asked: "What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?
Answer: In short, as stated above, Jesus is the Messiah! The resurrection is the emphasis, as it represented the decisive factor in the gospel story. Jesus was the Messiah, He could not be detained by death.
Yes, Peter's message is accurate. As the second Adam, he defeated Satan, sin, and death in the flesh. Jesus the Messiah, proof the resurrection and salvation to all humanity. Praise God! CM
-
@Pages said:
@Wolfgang said:
because a son can NOT be his own Father.I agree.
However, I believe, as illustrated by the above statement, there is some confusion of the Trinity Doctrine regarding the distinction between the Father, Son, Spirit.
The doctrine is explicit in that there are three distinct Persons; therefore this statement is simply a misunderstanding of the doctrine.
As you most likely can imagine .... I keep smiling at the attempts to uphold a confused doctrine
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Reformed, you should do a search for the expression "Son OF GOD" as a reference for Jesus in the NT ... I haven't counted them, but there are about 50 places where this expression is used in reference to Jesus. These "Son OF GOD" (God's Son) verses all state by simple plain logic that Jesus is NOT God, because a son can NOT be his own Father.
In light of this, for someone to claim that Jesus is God seems far more laughable ...If you put God in a human box you get that outcome. If he was truly a son of God, that would at least make him Deity, how do you get around that?
God Himself has revealed rather clearly What and Who He, God, Himself is, and He has equally clearly revealed what and who Jesus is ...
Some human thinkers are seemingly wanting to make God less than what He is, and on the other hand want to make Jesus more than what he is.
Why twist Scripture to make God become a man, and a man to also be God ?????? -
@C_M_ said:
Because Jesus was the Messiah, He could not be detained by death. So for Peter and for all the writers of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus had become powerful evidence, not only of Jesus as the Messiah but for the whole Christian message of salvation.The Messiah "could not" be detained by death NOT because of himself or special powers he had, but because of GOD, His Father, having promised to raise him from the dead before he would see corruption.
BiIl, asked: "What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?
Answer: In short, as stated above, Jesus is the Messiah! The resurrection is the emphasis, as it represented the decisive factor in the gospel story. Jesus was the Messiah, He could not be detained by death.
Indeed ... and neither Bill nor I have ever denied that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ.
The Trinity error and false doctrine is that the Messiah is said to have been God Himself, which he clearly was NOT!! God Himself was the One (not the other two of a supposed three) who had anointed the man Jesus with holy spirit power and declared that man to be the Messiah and confirmed it by raising him from the dead after three days and three nights.
Yes, Peter's message is accurate. As the second Adam, he defeated Satan, sin, and death in the flesh. Jesus the Messiah, proof the resurrection and salvation to all humanity. Praise God! CM
Exactly ... and there is NOTHING about this which would state that Messiah Jesus is or was himself God
-
@C_M_ said:
BiIl, asked: "What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?Answer: In short, as stated above, Jesus is the Messiah! The resurrection is the emphasis, as it represented the decisive factor in the gospel story. Jesus was the Messiah, He could not be detained by death.
Yes, Peter's message is accurate. As the second Adam, he defeated Satan, sin, and death in the flesh. Jesus the Messiah, proof the resurrection and salvation to all humanity. Praise God! CM
I concur with the basic thrust of Wolfgang's response to your post, CM. (a post for which I thank you, by the way) While you offer an insightful and devotional take on the Acts 2 passage I raised to your attention, you also offer no evidence from the text to support the view that Peter believed Jesus was God. That's NOT a criticism!! It's simply witness to the fact that nowhere in his Jerusalem sermon does Peter contend that Jesus is God. Instead, Peter reports Jesus to be the one to whom God attested by the mighty works God did through him (Acts 2.22) the one the Jews had crucified (Acts 2.23) and the one God had raised (Acts 2.24).
My point about Peter's sermon in Jerusalem is that in it Peter gives NO indication that he believes Jesus is God, and every indication that Jesus is the one God raised.
My point about the message Peter's crowd took from his sermon is crucial in reply to the "we must interpret Scripture with the help of other Scripture" response often heard in Bible interpretation conversations. OF COURSE we must view the whole of Scripture when ask questions such as "What does the Bible say about...." But Peter's audience did not have "the whole of Scripture" - at least not the New Testament - from which to draw when they interpreted what Peter had told them. From his sermon - and this is my critical point - they knew ONLY this: Jesus was a man through whom God had done mighty works, whom they had crucified but God had raised. They knew NOTHING from Peter's sermon about Jesus' being God. In fact, I contend, they left their worship room with every reason to believe Jesus was NOT God.
Either Peter was right when he told them Jesus was a man God had raised, OR Peter gave his audience a woefully inadequate - I contend, clearly misleading - picture of Jesus' identity. In my view, Peter's sermon was neither inadequate nor misleading. He told his audience the truth, truth confirmed by Jesus himself on many occasions, as well as by Peter and Paul in their sermons and writings.
I close on a note of affirmation of your post: You ended your work with praise to God for Jesus' messianic proof of resurrection and salvation to all humanity. I join your chorus!
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Reformed, you should do a search for the expression "Son OF GOD" as a reference for Jesus in the NT ... I haven't counted them, but there are about 50 places where this expression is used in reference to Jesus. These "Son OF GOD" (God's Son) verses all state by simple plain logic that Jesus is NOT God, because a son can NOT be his own Father.
In light of this, for someone to claim that Jesus is God seems far more laughable ...If you put God in a human box you get that outcome. If he was truly a son of God, that would at least make him Deity, how do you get around that?
God Himself has revealed rather clearly What and Who He, God, Himself is, and He has equally clearly revealed what and who Jesus is ...
Some human thinkers are seemingly wanting to make God less than what He is, and on the other hand want to make Jesus more than what he is.
Why twist Scripture to make God become a man, and a man to also be God ??????The only one changing God in this conversation are you and Bill.
-
@reformed said:
The only one changing God in this conversation are you and Bill.Reading this reply to detailed arguments showing your ideas to be inaccurate, I keep smiling
-
@reformed said:
The only one changing God in this conversation are you and Bill.This post of yours, reformed, is probably much less constructive or insightful to me - certainly - and Wolfgang - highly likely - than it is to you.
And I'm still waiting for you to respond to a response I posted in reply to a post of yours earlier in this thread:
In response to your claim that while Peter "needed" to tell his Jerusalem audience that they had killed their long-awaited messiah, he didn't tell them Jesus was God because they might "immediately" "(turn) off)" from his sermon, and such Christological information could be shared "later," I reminded you of a previous post in which you said people who deny the deity of Jesus are "not Christian." My question is this:
- Many people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ after Peter's sermon knowing ONLY that Jesus was a "man" they had killed but God had raised. They heard NOTHING from Peter about Jesus' being God, a truth without which, you claim, they could not have been Christians. Yet Peter assured them the baptism was for the forgiveness of their sins, and because of it they would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) Were those baptized people Christians? Did they die as Christians if at their deaths they knew/believed about Jesus only what Peter told them, that he was a man whom they had killed, but God had raised? And why would Peter have risked not telling his audience details about Jesus as fundamental as you claim his deity is?
-
You have yet to show one idea inaccurate. All you have shown is you do not accept basic grammar and literary evidence of Jesus' Deity.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The only one changing God in this conversation are you and Bill.This post of yours, reformed, is probably much less constructive or insightful to me - certainly - and Wolfgang - highly likely - than it is to you.
And I'm still waiting for you to respond to a response I posted in reply to a post of yours earlier in this thread:
In response to your claim that while Peter "needed" to tell his Jerusalem audience that they had killed their long-awaited messiah, he didn't tell them Jesus was God because they might "immediately" "(turn) off)" from his sermon, and such Christological information could be shared "later," I reminded you of a previous post in which you said people who deny the deity of Jesus are "not Christian." My question is this:
- Many people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ after Peter's sermon knowing ONLY that Jesus was a "man" they had killed but God had raised. They heard NOTHING from Peter about Jesus' being God, a truth without which, you claim, they could not have been Christians. Yet Peter assured them the baptism was for the forgiveness of their sins, and because of it they would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) Were those baptized people Christians? Did they die as Christians if at their deaths they knew/believed about Jesus only what Peter told them, that he was a man whom they had killed, but God had raised? And why would Peter have risked not telling his audience details about Jesus as fundamental as you claim his deity is?
There is a difference between not knowing, and openly denying.
-
@reformed said:
There is a difference between not knowing, and openly denying.
Does this mean you believe Peter's audience members who were baptized and received the Holy Spirit believing Jesus was a "man" whom they killed but God raised were in fact Christians? In his sermon Peter had given them NO REASON to believe or even speculate that Jesus was God. Common sense would have directed them to deny Jesus' deity simply because Peter had made a clear, unmistakable distinction between the human they had killed and the God who had raised him.
And we should note Peter's consistency on this issue in succeeding chapters in Acts: (quoted verses are excerpted from the longer cited passages; emphasis added)
- Acts 3.11-26 - To a temple crowd whose attention Peter had garnered by healing a lame man Peter says...
12“Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.... 17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.... 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” ...
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
- Acts 4.1-12 - To a collection of religious leaders who ask him about the source of his healing power, Peter says..
9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 4:9–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
- Acts 10.34-43 - To Cornelius, as part of an explanation of the meaning of a vision Peter says...
37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 10:37–42). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Three additional audiences - a curious crowd, a collection of religious leaders, and a Roman centurion - all to whom Peter makes precisely the same distinction between God and the one God raised, and in one passage, between God and the "servant" God raised up.
You've argued previously that Peter chose not to mention Jesus' deity for fear of turning off his audience (though there is no textual support for your contention). I've just shown that Peter presented the same "no deity" characterization of Jesus to three consecutive subsequent audiences. When did Peter ever overcome his fear of turning off his audience? When he tells four consecutive audience that Jesus is a person/servant - not a deity - God raised, don't we almost have to acknowledge that Peter actually believed Jesus was a person/servant - not a deity - God raised?
I've asked critically important questions in this post, reformed, questions I don't think I've ever raised in four years in CD forums. I ask you to deal directly and without evasion with them and the texts that spawn them.
-
@reformed said:
You have yet to show one idea inaccurate. All you have shown is you do not accept basic grammar and literary evidence of Jesus' Deity.
You bring on more smiles with your hot air claims ... because that of which you accuse me actually is what you are doing in your posts.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Three additional audiences - a curious crowd, a collection of religious leaders, and a Roman centurion - all to whom Peter makes precisely the same distinction between God and the one God raised, and in one passage, between God and the "servant" God raised up.Well, it seems that we just "can't get it", that God was His own servant, His own Father, by His own council had Himself killed and then as a dead God raised Himself again, and a few other "impossibilities" ....
Perhaps one has to be "Trinity Spirit" filled in order "to get it and understand these things" ...
I've asked critically important questions in this post, reformed, questions I don't think I've ever raised in four years in CD forums. I ask you to deal directly and without evasion with them and the texts that spawn them.
I would predict - without being a prophet - that you will definitely NOT get an answer in which he deals directly and without evasion with your questions and the biblical texts that spawn your questions ....
But then, I may be wrong ... and Reformed will admit to what his Trinity theology really leads and that those early "Christians" were in fact not really Christians?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You have yet to show one idea inaccurate. All you have shown is you do not accept basic grammar and literary evidence of Jesus' Deity.
You bring on more smiles with your hot air claims ... because that of which you accuse me actually is what you are doing in your posts.
We have shown you repeatedly John 1 says Jesus is God.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You have yet to show one idea inaccurate. All you have shown is you do not accept basic grammar and literary evidence of Jesus' Deity.You bring on more smiles with your hot air claims ... because that of which you accuse me actually is what you are doing in your posts.
We have shown you repeatedly John 1 says Jesus is God.
Not at all ... you have not SHOWN anything like it, only made such interpretative false claims.
John 1 speaks about WORD in the beginning (NOT about Jesus in the beginning). This WORD was God. it was God's Word, God's plan ... and not any man's word or plan (cp also 1Pe 1:20) ... in the beginning Christ was in God's foreknowledge, in God's mind in the form of word. Later, when the time was fulfilled, this Messiah, "the seed of the woman" (cp Gen 3:15), a human being was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) and thus what had been WORD until that time "BECAME flesh" (cp John 1:14).
It was NOT Jesus who became flesh, it was NOT God who became or took on flesh.
Just recently, in the neighborhood here "the word" (idea, plan) in the foreknowledge and mind of an architect "became stone and wood" when a building was built and the house was erected. Did the house as a building already exist in the beginning of the process? No! What existed in the beginning? Word, idea, plan in the mind of the architect and then in drawings and word on the paper plans ... and only with the actual building process did that word, idea, plan become the reality of stone and wood.
The truth in John 1 is very simple ... unfortunately, the truth of John 1 has been replaced for many centuries by complicate illogical unreasonable "christology theology" by which its proponents achieved their goal of misleading believers into believing their "Trinity Godhead" instead of believing in the only true God (the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, YHWH) and His Messiah, Whom this God has sent as His Son (cp John 17:3)
Is this too simple for you ? If so, why ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You have yet to show one idea inaccurate. All you have shown is you do not accept basic grammar and literary evidence of Jesus' Deity.You bring on more smiles with your hot air claims ... because that of which you accuse me actually is what you are doing in your posts.
We have shown you repeatedly John 1 says Jesus is God.
Not at all ... you have not SHOWN anything like it, only made such interpretative false claims.
John 1 speaks about WORD in the beginning (NOT about Jesus in the beginning). This WORD was God. it was God's Word, God's plan ... and not any man's word or plan (cp also 1Pe 1:20) ... in the beginning Christ was in God's foreknowledge, in God's mind in the form of word. Later, when the time was fulfilled, this Messiah, "the seed of the woman" (cp Gen 3:15), a human being was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) and thus what had been WORD until that time "BECAME flesh" (cp John 1:14).
John 1 makes very clear Jesus is the Word in that chapter.
It was NOT Jesus who became flesh, it was NOT God who became or took on flesh.
John said otherwise.
Just recently, in the neighborhood here "the word" (idea, plan) in the foreknowledge and mind of an architect "became stone and wood" when a building was built and the house was erected. Did the house as a building already exist in the beginning of the process? No! What existed in the beginning? Word, idea, plan in the mind of the architect and then in drawings and word on the paper plans ... and only with the actual building process did that word, idea, plan become the reality of stone and wood.
Nowhere does it say the Word is merely an idea.
The truth in John 1 is very simple ... unfortunately, the truth of John 1 has been replaced for many centuries by complicate illogical unreasonable "christology theology" by which its proponents achieved their goal of misleading believers into believing their "Trinity Godhead" instead of believing in the only true God (the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, YHWH) and His Messiah, Whom this God has sent as His Son (cp John 17:3)
Is this too simple for you ? If so, why ?
It's not too simple, it is wrong.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
