Is Jesus Deity?

Bill_Coley

@Dave_L said:
You and Wolfgang would be jailhouse buddies if you suppressed evidence in a court of law like you do on this forum.

I don't know how to make this clearer, Dave: To answer the question I posed about Peter's presentations to four audiences in Acts, the ONLY "evidence" needed is what Peter said to those audiences in Acts. The reason we need no other "evidence" is that the question I asked is this:

What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

What "other NT Scriptures" say about Jesus and God is totally, completely, inarguably irrelevant to that question because NO NT SCRIPTURE HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET WHEN PETER MADE HIS PRESENTATIONS! The ONLY data Peter's audiences had to go on as they left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak were the words Peter had spoken to them. That said, yet again I ask you...

What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

[Even if you dislike the question, or its punctuation marks, or the way I used ALL CAPS, or simply the ellipsis at its close - my goodness, even if you think it's the most poorly-informed question you've EVER read, heard, or had nightmares about - please answer it directly and without further evasion.]

[Deleted User]

@Jan said:

@Wolfgang said:
So God is the lamb of God? God is the man whom God sent? God obeyed (which) God even unto death? God died? {plus numerous other illogical and unreasonable items which your equation produces}

The Son is the Lamb of the Father. The Son is the man whom the Father sent. Etc.
The NT frequently uses God as a synonym for the Father.

So then you agree that Jesus CAN NOT be God? You recognize that God is only the Father, but that the Son is a human being, the man Jesus of Nazareth?
This is what I've said and written all along ...

Did you recognize that Heb 5:9 and its context speaks of "Jesus ... being made perfect"? How can God be made perfect? Please note what this "being made perfect" refers to in the context of Heb 5:8 ("though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered") ... are you telling us that God learned obedience? Since when does God have to learn obedience? to whom is God supposed to be obedient?

The son is obedient to the Father.

Indeed ... and this truth alone shows plainly that the son CAN NOT be God, because God is not obedient to anyone since there is none who is above Him to Whom He could be obedient.

The son having "learned" obedience doesn't imply that he had been disobedient.

The point is not whether Jesus had been disobedient. the point is that "being obedient" proves that the Son CAN NOT be God, since God can not be obedient to anyone (see above)

Reading the NASB95 translation (as well as some others) solves your difficulty easily from a translation standpoint:

Heb 5:9 (NASB95)
9 And having been made aperfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

Jesus is NOT "the author" of salvation, but he is "the source" of salvation unto those who obey him.

159 αἴτιος [aitios /ah·ee·tee·os/] adj. From the same as 154; GK 165; AV translates as “author” once. 1 that which is the cause of anything resides, causative, causing. 1A the author. 1A1 of a cause. 1A2 of crime or offence.

SOURCE:
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Clearly the verse describes the causality between Jesus and the salvation of "those who obey him".

Indeed ... but Jesus did NOT "author" the salvation, he was the essential part and thus source for God's plan of salvation to become reality ... and those "who obey him" are now granted that salvation which the man Jesus made possible by his obedience to God's will (not his own will) and the God authored plan of salvation.

To be clear, this means, without Jesus there can't be any salvation.

I agree ... had Jesus not carried out in obedience to God's will what God had planned, there would not be any salvation

From various passages however we know that salvation is predetermined from the beginning of time (Romans 8:29-30 for example, or Ephesians 1:4) in a sense that it has already happened (the Romans passage is written in the past tense).

God's plan of salvation already existed from the beginning, and in God's plan, God had indeed determined that all those who would believe on His Messiah would receive redemption and salvation.
One should note that all who believed on the promise of the Messiah before the Messiah actually had accomplished salvation and paid the price for redemption by giving his life a ransom, did so with a view toward, without themselves having actually received the promise ... their faith was accounted to them as righteousness and they were granted eternal salvation with Christ's completed work in the resurrection.
Those who now live after Christ has already completed his work of salvation believe on him with a view back no his accomplished work.

A cause must logically precede the effect. How could a human being be the cause for something that was a done deal before the foundation of the world?

See above ... there is nothing about precede before a done deal ... Heb 5:9 speaks about Christ's obedience having made eternal salvation available to all who obey him ... of course, his accomplished work of redemption and salvation thus preceded anyone who obeys him receiving eternal salvation.

As I already stated, God (Jesus' Father, YHWH -- Who also is said in Scripture to be Jesus' God) authored the plan of salvation and provided what was needed to get it accomplished. Jesus BECAME the source of salvation "unto them that obey him".

It is a logical impossibility to "become the cause/source" of something that has already happened.

See above ... you are linking items mentioned incorrectly. Eternal salvation did NOT "happen / was not realized" already before the foundation of the world, God's plan for it existed from before the foundation of the world (cp 1Pe 1:20) and was revealed progressively during OT times and then it was accomplished when the Messiah accomplished it by his obedience to God in giving his life as a ransom.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
But you apparently explain and comprehend God and even can explain and comprehend the "more" in Scripture which no one as of yet has really put forth

Wolfgang, what I appear to explain, comprehend of God and the "more" in Scripture are basic to faith in the God of the Bible.

I am sorry to say that this is only what you deem to be the case ... as NONE of what you have put forth from Scripture in fact does support the idea of Jesus = God, and, in truth, has been shown to you on the basis of numerous other Scripture passages to be false.
Your ideas are basic to faith in the Trinity dogma, not the God of the Bible.

So, my faith in the God who inspired "Holy men" to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It's my view of Scripture, its message, and how I mine it for truth is why I believe what I believe.

Certainly, you do think and are convinced that the Trinity dogma is "God-inspired" and written by "holy men who wrote as they were moved by the holy spirit". BUT, please note, even Trinitarians (all I have ever encountered) freely acknowledge that the doctrine of the Trinity is not written in Scripture and was not even part of the initial early church teaching. Thus, it is obvious to them, that "holy men of God writing as they were inspired by God" did not know or write something about "Trinity" in their writings.

In sum, it's my approach to Scripture.

Certainly ... just as anyone else also has their approach to Scripture and subsequently their understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

This is key to any discussion of the Bible. In addition, we can eliminate desperate crying for someone to answer anti-trinitarians' questions and avoid the sometimes biblical buffoonery, that raises its ugly head in this part of the forum.

So in other words, you presuppose and regard your (and perhaps the majority) view as truth, anti-trinitarian views as false and not worthy of an answer ??

The truth be told, I would like to know your approach to Scriptures if you don't find it to be a distraction or evading an answered question. If you do, my peace I bid to you, just the same.

C_M, I am astonished to no end that you here play the ignorant who has not as of yet known my approach to Scripture ... should I take the time to copy and paste all my posts for you so you can read them again and see first hand my approach to Scripture ???

I will point out to you one big difference between our each approach that I have seen from your posts => you constantly and extensively do not quote Scripture but articles of commentators, theologians, and secondary authors and comparatively little of your own reasoning and logical conclusions, while I hardly ever quote commentators, theologians, etc and provide extensive and detailed examinations of the Scripture passages giving my understanding, my reasoning, my logical conclusions as to why I arrive at the understanding I have.

Since you seem to express no interests in my biblical method of interpretation, then, we don't have a foundation or platform to have a mutual discussion of substance. If not now, maybe later. If you say never, Wow! CM

I do not see "interest in people's methods of interpretation" as the main thing but take things from the outcome / result of their interpretation. In addition, I would say that I do not recall many posts in which you detailed your method and gave details about how and why you arrive at your understanding/interpretation.

PS. I'll see you around the forums. You can't go wrong with a Biblical Faith Study. CM

If you only knew ..... I was involved in a study group doing a rather extensive study on the topic of the kinds of faith spoken of in the Bible, here particularly the NT. In other words, all verses and passages in the NT where the Greek words πίστις (faith, believing, trust) and πιστεύω (to believe, to have faith, to trust) were examined and from overall scope and context consideration was given as to what the word in the particular verse and context referred.

Dave_L

@Bill_Coley said:

@Dave_L said:
You and Wolfgang would be jailhouse buddies if you suppressed evidence in a court of law like you do on this forum.

I don't know how to make this clearer, Dave: To answer the question I posed about Peter's presentations to four audiences in Acts, the ONLY "evidence" needed is what Peter said to those audiences in Acts. The reason we need no other "evidence" is that the question I asked is this:

What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

What "other NT Scriptures" say about Jesus and God is totally, completely, inarguably irrelevant to that question because NO NT SCRIPTURE HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET WHEN PETER MADE HIS PRESENTATIONS! The ONLY data Peter's audiences had to go on as they left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak were the words Peter had spoken to them. That said, yet again I ask you...

What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

[Even if you dislike the question, or its punctuation marks, or the way I used ALL CAPS, or simply the ellipsis at its close - my goodness, even if you think it's the most poorly-informed question you've EVER read, heard, or had nightmares about - please answer it directly and without further evasion.]

How crazy is this? To build a case on incomplete evidence? As I said, the Jews knew the Messiah was God, they just didn't know he was a man too. Thus Peter selling them on the idea.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
How crazy is this? To build a case on incomplete evidence?

No incomplete evidence exists ... instead four fairly detailed records together provide a rather conclusive evidence concerning the case of what Peter (and other apostles) actually taught during the early days of the church

As I said, the Jews knew the Messiah was God, they just didn't know he was a man too. Thus Peter selling them on the idea.

yes, you wrote that already before and I showed from a more complete evidence of Scripture that your idea is a false assumption and idea.

The Jews knew from the OT Scriptures available to them that the Messiah was A MAN (cp. Gen 3:15 for starters in the collection of Scripture evidence). The idea that the Messiah would be God was loony tunes crazy nonsense to the Jews ... They knew very well that the Messiah was a human being, a man, born of a woman etc. And the idea of a "God-man" or "man-God" (as indicated by your description of "was a man TOO") was only known by the Jews as something other nations believed concerning their many Gods.

Bill_Coley

@Dave_L said:
How crazy is this? To build a case on incomplete evidence? As I said, the Jews knew the Messiah was God, they just didn't know he was a man too. Thus Peter selling them on the idea.

Thanks for your response, Dave. Some comments:

• There is no textual support in the four passages I cited for your claim that "Peter [was] selling them on the idea" that the Messiah "was a man too."
• Perhaps the clearest rebuttal of your claim is in Acts 3.17-26, where Jesus is a) the Jews' appointed Messiah whom God will eventually send back to earth (Acts 4.20) but who must stay in heaven for now (Acts 4.21) b) the prophet Moses promised his people (Acts 4.22) and c) the servant God raised (Acts 4.26). [cf Acts 3.13 for another reference to Jesus as servant] Prophets and servants are human, not divine, positions.
• In each of the four presentations, Peter says God raised Jesus. From that simple declaration Peter's audiences would have inferred that Jesus was not God, since they would have believed - as do all of us - that God cannot be killed, and hence, could not have been raised from the dead.
• My point is that there is NO indication in any of the four passages that Peter believes he is adding humanity to what his people already believe is a divine Jesus. For Peter, Jesus is always and exclusively human.
• But I might be wrong! Please cite verses in any of Peter's four Acts presentations which show that he (or his audience!) believes Jesus is God and therefore his presentations are adding humanity to an otherwise divine figure.
• As for the broader claim I think you're making, that the Jews expected their Messiah to be God, I encourage you to do a search for the OT's use of the term "messiah" or "anointed." I think you'll discover that there are few grounds upon which to base your claim. For the most part in the OT, the Messiah is a human figure God chooses/anoints/raises up - often one of the kings. In Jesus' day, the most common expectation was that the messiah would restore Israel as an earthly dominion. That is, the Messiah was widely expected to be a military/political leader God would raise up, NOT a divine figure.

C Mc

@Bill_Coley said:

What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

It is notable that Acts 2 specifically, made clear, doing away with the idea that saints ascend to God immediately after death, as is evident in Peter's proclamation of the resurrection on the day of Pentecost. Peter based his case on a premise to which he seems to have assumed that the large crowd of listeners would not object. He said, "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day" (Acts 2:29 NIV). A little later, Peter specifically asserts that regardless, "David did not ascend to heaven" (v. 34). David had died but was not yet ascended to heaven. If we understand Peter's thinking to be aligned with that of Jesus and Paul, then the ascension was to occur at the second coming of Jesus.

Stephen declared Jesus the "Son of man" (Acts 7:56), a title Paul never uses.
Peter's sermons in Acts 2,3 call Jesus Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36).
Paul's designation of Jesus in Acts 9:20 (Jesus is the Son of God).

In Peter's sermon at Pentecost, he preached repentance and forgiveness. In Acts 13, Paul preaches forgiveness and justification.

• Both offered salvation only in Christ.
• Both presented human sinfulness and the divine provision for a right relationship with God.

Neither overlooked the need for holy living after the individual had been justified by God in Jesus Christ.

The apostle's appeal to Old Testament prophecies and his declaration that these had been fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth carried conviction to many a soul longing for the advent of the promised Messiah. And the speaker's words of assurance that the 'glad tidings' of salvation were for Jew and Gentile alike, brought hope and joy to those who had not been numbered among the children of Abraham according to the flesh.

Many key Old Testament passages were used in the early sermons in Acts. Among others. I won't say it all here, but look them up, these truths were in the minds of the people and Peter, as he preached his sermons. Old Testament passages included:

• Joel 2:28-32 (see Acts 2:17-21)
• Psalm 16:8-11 (see Acts 2:25-28)
• Deuteronomy 18:15, 19 (see Acts 3:22, 23)
• Psalm 2:1, 2 (see Acts 4:25, 26).

I assure you a study of these passages will show how the early church applied Scripture.

Acts 4:1-12 -- "NO OTHER NAME"

The tremendous response to Peter's sermons created danger for the disciples. Because the rulers of the Jews realized that the movement could not otherwise be contained, they sought to restrain the disciples' work. The Christian message met a challenge from those who fear its thrust and success Acts 4:7. (Compare Matt. 16:19; 28:19, 20.)

Peter appealed to the rulers to cease their objections. But opposition continued Unbelieving people find no reason in their way of thinking to respond to what Christ can do for them. It's clear that Peter's bold defense before the council (Acts 4:8-12).

All of us must face the challenge of the statement of truth that Peter made. "No other name" exists whereby we find salvation. It's true today, we must all make the name of Jesus the focus of our loyalty, devotion, and salvation.

This, Bill, what was preached and understood. I hope this helps in light of other posts earlier in this thread. Can we agree on something? CM

Jan

@Bill_Coley said:
What message about Jesus and God did Peter give to his audiences in his presentations to four audiences in the book of Acts? That is, when those audiences left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak, what did they think he had told them about Jesus and God?

Even if they did think that Jesus was a man, that would still not contradict the trinitarian view, since the trinitarian view includes that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature. In his human nature, he is fully man.

Besides, the talks in Acts are likely to be summaries, so we can't really know whether they contained the message of Jesus being God.

What "other NT Scriptures" say about Jesus and God is totally, completely, inarguably irrelevant to that question because NO NT SCRIPTURE HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET WHEN PETER MADE HIS PRESENTATIONS! The ONLY data Peter's audiences had to go on as they left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak were the words Peter had spoken to them. That said, yet again I ask you...

No Scripture might have been written at that time, but I don't see the relevance of it. Jesus had uttered all his I AM statements before Peter made his presentations.

In fact, three of the four Gospels had likely been written prior to Luke writing down Peter's talks in Acts.

Are you trying to say that earlier Scripture is "more inspired" than later Scripture?

@Wolfgang said:
So then you agree that Jesus CAN NOT be God? You recognize that God is only the Father, but that the Son is a human being, the man Jesus of Nazareth?

I agree that the Son is fully human. Where we disagree is that I additionally believe that the Son is fully God.

I have the impression that your view of God is somehow based on that of a human (who is always one person in one being). Since it is unimaginable that a human is anything other than one person in one being, you automatically assume the same to be true for God - right?

The son is obedient to the Father.

Indeed ... and this truth alone shows plainly that the son CAN NOT be God, because God is not obedient to anyone since there is none who is above Him to Whom He could be obedient.

The son having "learned" obedience doesn't imply that he had been disobedient.

The point is not whether Jesus had been disobedient. the point is that "being obedient" proves that the Son CAN NOT be God, since God can not be obedient to anyone (see above)

Are you restricting God's omnipotence? Of course he can be obedient if he wants to.

Clearly the verse describes the causality between Jesus and the salvation of "those who obey him".

Indeed ... but Jesus did NOT "author" the salvation, he was the essential part and thus source for God's plan of salvation to become reality ... and those "who obey him" are now granted that salvation which the man Jesus made possible by his obedience to God's will (not his own will) and the God authored plan of salvation.

To be clear, this means, without Jesus there can't be any salvation.

I agree ... had Jesus not carried out in obedience to God's will what God had planned, there would not be any salvation

From various passages however we know that salvation is predetermined from the beginning of time (Romans 8:29-30 for example, or Ephesians 1:4) in a sense that it has already happened (the Romans passage is written in the past tense).

God's plan of salvation already existed from the beginning, and in God's plan, God had indeed determined that all those who would believe on His Messiah would receive redemption and salvation.
One should note that all who believed on the promise of the Messiah before the Messiah actually had accomplished salvation and paid the price for redemption by giving his life a ransom, did so with a view toward, without themselves having actually received the promise ... their faith was accounted to them as righteousness and they were granted eternal salvation with Christ's completed work in the resurrection.
Those who now live after Christ has already completed his work of salvation believe on him with a view back no his accomplished work.

Thanks for actually bringing up this point. Together with the passage from Hebrews (Jesus being the CAUSE of salvation), this proves that Jesus existed prior to Abraham and all other OT saints.

Christ's redemptive sacrifice cannot have caused their salvation, because it does not precede it. The person of Jesus itself is the cause of their salvation as well.

Let me give you another passage.

John 12:41 speaks of Isaiah having seen "his" glory. Can we agree from context that "his" refers to Jesus?

Whose glory did Isaiah see?

Dave_L

@Bill_Coley said:

@Dave_L said:
How crazy is this? To build a case on incomplete evidence? As I said, the Jews knew the Messiah was God, they just didn't know he was a man too. Thus Peter selling them on the idea.

Thanks for your response, Dave. Some comments:

• There is no textual support in the four passages I cited for your claim that "Peter [was] selling them on the idea" that the Messiah "was a man too."
• Perhaps the clearest rebuttal of your claim is in Acts 3.17-26, where Jesus is a) the Jews' appointed Messiah whom God will eventually send back to earth (Acts 4.20) but who must stay in heaven for now (Acts 4.21) b) the prophet Moses promised his people (Acts 4.22) and c) the servant God raised (Acts 4.26). [cf Acts 3.13 for another reference to Jesus as servant] Prophets and servants are human, not divine, positions.
• In each of the four presentations, Peter says God raised Jesus. From that simple declaration Peter's audiences would have inferred that Jesus was not God, since they would have believed - as do all of us - that God cannot be killed, and hence, could not have been raised from the dead.
• My point is that there is NO indication in any of the four passages that Peter believes he is adding humanity to what his people already believe is a divine Jesus. For Peter, Jesus is always and exclusively human.
• But I might be wrong! Please cite verses in any of Peter's four Acts presentations which show that he (or his audience!) believes Jesus is God and therefore his presentations are adding humanity to an otherwise divine figure.
• As for the broader claim I think you're making, that the Jews expected their Messiah to be God, I encourage you to do a search for the OT's use of the term "messiah" or "anointed." I think you'll discover that there are few grounds upon which to base your claim. For the most part in the OT, the Messiah is a human figure God chooses/anoints/raises up - often one of the kings. In Jesus' day, the most common expectation was that the messiah would restore Israel as an earthly dominion. That is, the Messiah was widely expected to be a military/political leader God would raise up, NOT a divine figure.

We need to consider the background of Peter's teaching. And it does not match your hypothesis. It does tie in with mine however. The Jews knew the Messiah was God. But they did not know he was a man too until Peter set them straight.

How far would you get if you only considered the gas in your car's tank, and not the money in your wallet? Yet this is what you are doing in this case. And it does not reflect anything approaching common sense.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
How crazy is this? To build a case on incomplete evidence?

No incomplete evidence exists ... instead four fairly detailed records together provide a rather conclusive evidence concerning the case of what Peter (and other apostles) actually taught during the early days of the church

As I said, the Jews knew the Messiah was God, they just didn't know he was a man too. Thus Peter selling them on the idea.

yes, you wrote that already before and I showed from a more complete evidence of Scripture that your idea is a false assumption and idea.

The Jews knew from the OT Scriptures available to them that the Messiah was A MAN (cp. Gen 3:15 for starters in the collection of Scripture evidence). The idea that the Messiah would be God was loony tunes crazy nonsense to the Jews ... They knew very well that the Messiah was a human being, a man, born of a woman etc. And the idea of a "God-man" or "man-God" (as indicated by your description of "was a man TOO") was only known by the Jews as something other nations believed concerning their many Gods.

You are using typical Christian understanding that the Jews have nothing to do with.

Bill_Coley

@C_M_ said:

This, Bill, what was preached and understood. I hope this helps in light of other posts earlier in this thread. Can we agree on something? CM

I applaud the effort you obviously put into your exegetical and interpretive posts, CM. Thank you.

I offer no objections to the content of your post. In my view, your post accurately reports and distills the content it seeks to summarize. Very well done!

So we certainly agree as to the content of the passages you cite. What we may not agree on is whether any of that content in any way supports the view that Jesus was God. I believe it does not.

Recall that without qualification, limitation, or additional identification Peter tells his audiences that God raised Jesus. From his proclamation, in my view there was no reason for audience members to infer anything other than that Peter believed Jesus was wholly different from the God who had raised him. Nothing in any of the verses you identify argues against my view, or so I contend.

Thanks again for your great work.

Bill_Coley

@Jan said:
Even if they did think that Jesus was a man, that would still not contradict the trinitarian view, since the trinitarian view includes that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature. In his human nature, he is fully man.

But the issue here is not only what message Peter's audiences took from his presentations. It's also what message Peter gave in his presentations. I contend that the message he gave was that Jesus was a man, not a deity, whom the Jews had killed, but God had raised.

So in the Acts passages I cited, the challenge to the Trinitarian view is that in every one of them, Peter's presentation offers it no hint of support. In a short time span, Peter had four opportunities to report - or at least mention - what I think in your view is a critically important component of the Christian faith - that Jesus was God - but he didn't. You and I disagree as to the significance of Peter's omission of Trinitarian imagery from his presentations

Besides, the talks in Acts are likely to be summaries, so we can't really know whether they contained the message of Jesus being God.

Given the direct and continuous quotations Luke includes in the passages I cited, I don't read the Acts passages as summaries. No doubt, in each of them there were other things said by Peter and many others, but Peter's core message about Jesus is consistent throughout the four presentations, and it comports with the view he communicates in his epistles. In my view, that's a strong case as to why we should accept the Christology therein reported, and not import to the passages Trinitarian formulations that simply aren't there.

From a broader perspective, concluding that Bible writers believed things their writings seem clearly to suggest they didn't believe seems to me to be a treacherous hermeneutical approach. I get it that we might infer an author's response to a given issue from his or her other writings if those other writings don't rule out the inference. But in this case, I think the importation of a Christology the texts seem to reject cannot be defended.

What "other NT Scriptures" say about Jesus and God is totally, completely, inarguably irrelevant to that question because NO NT SCRIPTURE HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET WHEN PETER MADE HIS PRESENTATIONS! The ONLY data Peter's audiences had to go on as they left the rooms in which they had heard Peter speak were the words Peter had spoken to them. That said, yet again I ask you...

No Scripture might have been written at that time, but I don't see the relevance of it. Jesus had uttered all his I AM statements before Peter made his presentations.

I'm perplexed that this is a sticking point.

The issue I've raised is that for Peter's audiences, his presentations were "the Gospel." What they knew about Jesus, in large measure, was what he told them about Jesus. They might have welcomed other presenters, of course, but at the time they listened to Peter they didn't have other NT Scripture to add to their image of who Jesus was. What Peter told them - according to Acts - was that Jesus was a man they had killed, but God had raised. What John 1 said about Jesus could not have figured into their interpretation of Peter's words.

In fact, three of the four Gospels had likely been written prior to Luke writing down Peter's talks in Acts.

When the Synoptic Gospels were written doesn't matter nearly as much as when Peter's presentations occurred. Mark's Gospel was written, at the earliest, in the mid-60's ACE, at least 25-30 years after the resurrection, and, according to the account in Acts, nearly that many years after the Pentecost event at which Peter preached. Therefore, I contend the Synoptics could not have contributed to the conclusions Peter's audiences drew from his presentations.

Are you trying to say that earlier Scripture is "more inspired" than later Scripture?

Not at all.

[Deleted User]

@Jan said:

@Wolfgang said:
So then you agree that Jesus CAN NOT be God? You recognize that God is only the Father, but that the Son is a human being, the man Jesus of Nazareth?

I agree that the Son is fully human. Where we disagree is that I additionally believe that the Son is fully God.

(a) Now, the point of what we each believe is totally irrelevant to the truth revealed in Scripture. Or do you think God is actually "Pentinity" (5 Person Godhead) because you or I say that there is (1) God, the Creator, (2) God, the Almighty, (3) God, the Ancient of Days, (4) God, the Father and (5) God, the Holy One of Israel ?

(b) Where does Scripture state or teach that a living being can be TWO KINDS (such as a God-man, man-God, Angel-man, man-Angel, Animal-man, man-Animal) ?? It seems rather clear that Scripture throughout knows only ONE KIND living beings, thus your idea that Jesus is a TWO KIND living being (fully MAN & fully God) is contradictory to a most basic truth of Scripture.

I have the impression that your view of God is somehow based on that of a human (who is always one person in one being). Since it is unimaginable that a human is anything other than one person in one being, you automatically assume the same to be true for God - right?

NO, not true!! See above, where I pointed out that Scripture only knows ONE KIND living beings and absolutely NO DUAL/MIXED KIND living beings. Forgot to mention above that Gen 1:24ff establishes this truth very plainly and simply. A human is ONLY a human, never a God-man, a monkey-man, an elephant-man. God is ONLY God, never an elephant-God, a monkey-God, a man-God.

The point is not whether Jesus had been disobedient. the point is that "being obedient" proves that the Son CAN NOT be God, since God can not be obedient to anyone (see above)

Are you restricting God's omnipotence? Of course he can be obedient if he wants to.

Ah, really ..... which other God would be above God to whom God could learn to be obedient??
Do you really not realize how your idea is not only unreasonable and illogical but contradicts the most basic premise revealed in Scripture, that God is THE MOST HIGH and there is NO GOD above Him??

Those who now live after Christ has already completed his work of salvation believe on him with a view back no his accomplished work.

Thanks for actually bringing up this point. Together with the passage from Hebrews (Jesus being the CAUSE of salvation), this proves that Jesus existed prior to Abraham and all other OT saints.

Only in your fantasy which seems to disregard the timing and step by step revelation of God's plan of redemption and salvation.

Christ's redemptive sacrifice cannot have caused their salvation, because it does not precede it.

Ever considered what Rom 4 says concerning Abraham and how God accounted that Abraham believed in the promised Messiah to him for righteousness? Had the Messiah already come prior to Abraham and did Abraham believe in a Messiah who already had accomplished redemption and salvation? or did Abraham believe in what had been promised to him by God, that the Messiah was yet to come and actually be his descendant?

The person of Jesus itself is the cause of their salvation as well.

Why then did Jesus have to give his life in sacrifice if salvation was already "caused" prior to his sacrifice? Have you never read that the shedding of blood is what was necessary??

Let me give you another passage.

Instead of throwing in another passage you think supports your view, rather consider a little more carefully the passages you were already shown which show how your view contradicts Scripture ...

John 12:41 speaks of Isaiah having seen "his" glory. Can we agree from context that "his" refers to Jesus?

Now how did the prophet Isaiah SEE things that were centuries in his FUTURE ?? How did any of the prophets of the OT SEE things that related to persons in their future ?? Or do you want to tell us that the people whom they saw already lived in their day and time? Isaiah's words in John 12 are applied to the unbelieving generation who lived in Jesus' day and time and who rejected him ... since you mean to imply that Jesus already lived in Isaiah's time, then I suppose that you must also believe that the other folks involved in John 12 already lived at that time?

[Deleted User]

wow ... in recent posts in this thread with various comments by Trinity adherents, I have noticed like never before how the doctrine of the Holy Trinity not only is in reality a belief in more than one true God (actually "tritheism"), but how it does away with God's plan for man's salvation and redemption and how that plan was realized throughout the centuries.

Those false teachers and antichrists of whom already the apostle John warned in 1John and whose deceptive work is later seen also in some of what the writings of the early church fathers describe as happening in their time indeed cause havoc to the true faith once delivered to the early church by Messiah Jesus himself and his apostles, and they achieved with mythological fantasy and political power behind them an apostasy which has had its grasp on by far most of Christianity for the centuries ever since.

[Deleted User]

@Jan said:
Even if they did think that Jesus was a man, that would still not contradict the trinitarian view, since the trinitarian view includes that Jesus has both a divine and a human nature. In his human nature, he is fully man.

Believers in Christ as human beings both have "a human nature" (they have flesh and blood) and "a divine nature" (cp 2Pe 1:4 - "partakers of the divine nature"; Eph 3:19 - "filled with all the fulness of God"). Now, pray tell ... does such make you as a believer in Christ both God and man? Having a divine nature obviously does not mean that such makes one "fully God", does it?

Pages

@Wolfgang said:

Have a look at the many places in English translations where the Greek word "kai" in similar expressions is translated not as an "and" but as "even"

Thank you for your suggestion. I want to share the results found in one English translation.

First:
In searching the ESV where kai has been translated in English as even I found eighty-one occurrences; however, none of these were in Titus. In sixty-six of the eighty-one instances kai (even) is taken adverbially.

Second:
Since Titus 2:13 reads kai twice, καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος, I then searched for the structure of kai being used twice in a verse where the ESV has translated the first kai as and with the second kai as even. This produced twenty verses in which the second kai is translated as even. Within these twenty results of even fourteen are read adverbially, six are read as a conjunction (coordinating, copulative); it is these six verses which are of most interest because here even is performing the same grammatical function as and in Titus 2:13. The verses are: Luke 8:25; John 12:13; Rom. 15:12; 1Cor. 6:8; Gal. 2:13; Rev. 1:7.

Two observations from the above:
The above results demonstrate a limited usage in English of even, as a copulative conjunction, being translated from kai in the ESV. Only John 12:13 is somewhat similar in expression to Titus 2:13 though falling short grammatically and syntactically.

So we are left with six instances in the ESV which meet the second search criteria; however, in none of the verses cited above am I persuaded of a direct parallel comparable to Titus 2:13 that would support changing the reading and to even.

Third – moving to the Greek text:
More to the point, not one of the above eighty-one occurrences were found to conform to the grammatical syntax of article, noun, kai, noun, no proper names, first noun only is articular, all singular, agreeing in gender and case including the referent as found in Titus 2:13 – the text being referenced, specifically “τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος...“. This Greek syntax denotes a single person, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as the referent of the phrase θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος.

This same syntax is also found in verses that have came up for discussion throughout this thread; so, I am interested in understanding if you also read even for kai at 2Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18?

@Wolfgang said:

The Greek simply says "... the appearing of the glory of our great God, even our savior Jesus Christ."

Appealing as this reading may be to you, it brings to mind an issue worth considering; that being God’s appearing (ἐπιφάνεια).

In the NT ἐπιφάνεια is found six times. ἐπιφάνεια is only used of Jesus’ appearing (2Thes. 2:8; 1Tim. 6:14; 2Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 8) not the Father’s; which lends further support for the reading of a single person in view at Titus 2:13.

@Wolfgang said:

Make sure not to take just one isolated text into your considerations

Agree. Solid advice.

[Deleted User]

@Pages said:

@Wolfgang said:
The Greek simply says "... the appearing of the glory of our great God, even our savior Jesus Christ."

Appealing as this reading may be to you, it brings to mind an issue worth considering; that being God’s appearing (ἐπιφάνεια).

Actually, it is irrelevant whether this reading is appealing or not appealing to me or anyone else ... it simply is what the word order and words in the Greek text says (literally translated into English, of course)

How would this reading bring to mind "God’s appearing (ἐπιφάνεια)"? The word ἐπιφάνεια simply means "appearing", and it is the context which will point out to who or what ἐπιφάνεια refers, in other words who or what appears. The term by itself does NOT mean "God’s appearing".

In the NT ἐπιφάνεια is found six times. ἐπιφάνεια is only used of Jesus’ appearing (2Thes. 2:8; 1Tim. 6:14; 2Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 8) not the Father’s; which lends further support for the reading of a single person in view at Titus 2:13.

As your listing shows, in the NT the term "appearing (ἐπιφάνεια)" is used in reference to the return / coming of the resurrected man Jesus Christ ... and this is exactly what the term also refers to in Tit 2:13.

Titus is NOT talking about "the glorious appearing of God", rather it is talking about "the appearing of the glory of God", and God's glory is seen in the appearing of our savior Jesus Christ (cp. for example Col 1:27 ... "Christ in you, the hope of glory").

Jesus Christ is NOT our great God and Savior ... he is God's only begotten Son, the man, whom God sent to be the redeemer and savior of all who obey him, believe in him.

GaoLu

@Pages
I always learn interesting tidbits from your posts. Thanks.

Pages

@GaoLu
Thank you for your kind words.

Pages

@Wolfgang

Just a quick comment to clarify.

Appealing was in reference to your choices made in quoting the verse – the additional our – ἡμῶν only occurs once.

The term by itself does NOT mean "God’s appearing".

Agree – I ought to have been more careful with my wording so as to not give that impression.

Jan

Guys,

This thread is getting too long and too complex. Let's draw a line here, and for all open issues, create new (more specialized) threads.

Instead of appending new posts here, please open a new thread with a suitable subject line, and copy a quote and a link to the post you're referring to into the new thread, as well as a tag to the person you're replying to (so that they receive a notification).

You can get the link to a specific post by right clicking the **date **in the post header.

Once you have created a new thread, please link it here in this thread as well (but nothing more except a link, and possibly a very short explanation or quote what you're replying to - no more discussion in this mega thread).

theMadJW

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/37#Comment_37

I have noticed how you trinnies will spin any scripture to look like it supports your Trine Gods. He's conning you.

Zech 12:10- And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

That wasn't Jehovah- it was his SON!

theMadJW

God never sent anyone to become a man, according to CHURCHIANTY, but came HIMSELF...or should it be THEMSELVES?

theMadJW

C Mc

End! CM