A SCRIPTURE based discussion of the Trinity
Comments
-
I generally supposed this to be a Christian forum and not an antichrist forum. To me it seems clear that the few writers here have at a reasonable grasp of Scripture and ideas Christian. To arrive at conclusions above based on the Scriptures supporting those conclusions takes far more than lack of understanding or misunderstanding--to arrive so far off the map would require a dedicated and deliberate effort. I am beginning to realize the nature of this forum and its denizens.
-
@byGeorge posted:
I generally supposed this to be a Christian forum and not an antichrist forum. To me it seems clear that the few writers here have at a reasonable grasp of Scripture and ideas Christian. To arrive at conclusions above based on the Scriptures supporting those conclusions takes far more than lack of understanding or misunderstanding--to arrive so far off the map would require a dedicated and deliberate effort. I am beginning to realize the nature of this forum and its denizens.
I'm glad you're beginning to realize the nature of this forum and its denizens. I wish I could say I was beginning to realize how you understand any of the seven New Testament texts I cited in my previous post. Unfortunately, your post offers no assistance toward that end.
I welcome you to the conclusions of your choice regarding this forum, its denizens, and their "dedicated and deliberate effort(s)" to "arrive so far off the map." But if you want substantive engagement with me on the subject of the divinity of Christ, you'll have to give me something substantive to respond to. Characterizing this as an "antichrist forum" doesn't tell me how you read Peter's declarations in Acts 2 or what the writer of 1 Timothy means when he calls "the man Jesus Christ" the one "mediator" between the "one" God and humanity. I presume you believe those texts and the five others I cited all support your belief about the divinity of Christ, but I can't know that for sure until you give me more information.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 23 Concur weak argument "The MAN Jesus" is not compelling for believing Jesus is NOT God. In contrast, truthful words by Jesus about Jesus should be compelling as no other human spoke as Jesus spoke with good Godly miracles for validation, which includes physical body resurrection.
@Bill_Coley September 24 Given the length, substance, and history of our exchanges on the matter, I've backed away from engaging you on the wider issue of Jesus' divinity. But since I did rejoin the fray to address your comments about my "this MAN Jesus" argument, I offer the following:
@Bill_Coley September 24 So that the record is accurate, the argument I labeled "not strong" was NOT my argument that New Testament writers refer to Jesus as a "man." Rather, what I labeled "not strong" was an argument I created to be an analogous counterpart to your contention that I had "overemphasized" the Jesus as a "man" claim - namely that you had "overemphasized" John 17.5. I labeled that created analogous counterpart as a "not strong" argument.
@Bill_Coley September 24 You are, of course, free to assess my "man" argument as you see fit. But your assessment of it cannot accurately be stated as your concurrence with my view because you and I don't agree as to the strength of my "man" argument.
Fascinating for "not strong" assessment is the spirit inside the man Jesus knowing God's Glory and Love BEFORE physical realm existed: had not been created by plural אלהים God => "Let US make humankind in OUR image and according to OUR likeness" (Genesis 1:26 LEB)
Noted no comment about my next paragraph on September 23: (silence infers concurrence)
We agree the man Jesus had a male human physical body (flesh) while we disagree about spiritual nature dwelling inside that body. My learning from John 1:1-18 is The Word (quality was being אלהים God, which was in beginning with אלהים God) dwelling inside human body that is consistent with Matthew 1:18-25 description of Jesus being אלהים God with us (Emmanuel), who will save His people from sin. Jesus knew He was unique => So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me and will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come!” Then the Jews began to say, “Perhaps he will kill himself, because he is saying, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ ” And he said to them, “You are from below; I AM from above. You are from this world; I AM not from this world. Thus I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:21-24 LEB with "I AM" for ἐγώ εἰμι and he - translation addition)
@Bill_Coley September 26 In my view, the overwhelming majority of the New Testament's witness about Jesus is that he was not God. He was God's chosen one - the Christ/Messiah - the savior of the world, and both the Son of God and Son of Man, but he was not God. I've posted scores, probably hundreds, of lengthy responses to this question, posts in which I dealt specifically and in detail with many of the issue's frequently cited texts. I stand by those posts, which are available in these threads. I can't possibly summarize all of that content, but for this post, here are some of the passages I find compelling (in no particular order; there are MANY, MANY, MANY more):
Our faith belief ideas about New Testament witness of Jesus Christ currently disagree, which affects how Biblical Truth is personally intepreted.
@Bill_Coley September 26 * Matthew 4.8-10: Satan invites Jesus to worship him in exchange for "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." Jesus tells Satan to leave because the Scriptures say "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him." THE POINT: Satan asks for Jesus' worship. Jesus says he is commanded to worship only the Lord his God. One who thought himself to be God would not have reported his need to worship his God.
If The Father & Jesus are truly One Lord יהוה, then Scripture command to Satan: "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him." is commanding Satan to worship The Father & Jesus as יהוה Lord אלהים God. If Jesus is NOT Lord יהוה, why did Satan obey command to leave ? (as did every demon when Jesus commanded them to get out of humans, which demonstrated being יהוה Lord אלהים God over Satan, demons, ...)
Acts 19:11-20 describes what happens to humans trying to cast out demons in the name of Jesus while not believing Jesus is יהוה Lord (the seven sons of a Jewish chief priest knew about Jesus while not knowing Jesus in an intimate loving relationship so were humiliated by demons in a man).
@Bill_Coley September 26 * John 20.15-17: In his instructions to Mary at the empty tomb, the resurrected Jesus tells her to inform his "brothers" that he is "ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." THE POINT: Jesus believes the one he calls his "Father" is ALSO his disciples' "Father," and the one he calls his "God" is ALSO their God. How could Jesus have thought of himself to be God if he believed he had a God, and that he and his followers had the same God?
How many voice(s) can One God have ? If believe God has only one voice, please provide scripture showing plural אלהים God only has one voice.
While being יהוה Lord, Jesus can truly worship Father as יהוה Lord (two voices in One plural אלהים God Spiritual Being sharing One Holy Name)
FWIW: my personalization of Matthew 6:9-13 prayer begins with: Our יהוה Lord who art in heaven (as The Father & Jesus are One יהוה Lord in heaven now). Thankful for immense Holiness of יהוה ❤️
@Bill_Coley September 26 * John 17.3: In his chapter-long prayer, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing his Father - whom Jesus characterizes as "the only true God" - and Jesus Christ, whom "the only true God" has sent. THE POINT: Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and the "only true God." God is the sender. Jesus is the one God sent.
If The Father & Jesus are truly One Lord יהוה, then Jesus truly knows the One True אלהים God (eternally beyond human knowledge & wisdom), which includes Jesus being one voice in the unique plural אלהים God. Faulty human wisdom that the one sent cannot be the one sending is showing again. In John 17:5 & John 17:24 Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love in a spiritual way since physical realm had not yet been created by God. How can Jesus not be a voice in One God's commUnity of Love ? (Jesus existed when the only being in existence was One plural אלהים God)
FWIW: physical aspect of παρά para (alongside, beside, to the side) in John 17:5 is challenging to describe in a spiritual only setting.
@Bill_Coley September 26 * 1 Timothy 2.5: The writer makes a clear distinction between the "one God" and "the man Jesus Christ," whom he characterizes as the "one mediator between God" and people. THE POINT: A "man" who is the mediator between God and people isn't God.
I give thanks to the one who strengthens me, Christ Jesus our יהוה Lord, because he considered me faithful, placing me into ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, but I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our יהוה Lord abounded with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and worthy of all acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But because of this I was shown mercy, in order that in me foremost, Christ Jesus might demonstrate his total patience, for an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life. Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, to the only אלהים God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:12-17 LEB)
Jewish writer of 1 Timothy believed Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord. The Messiah (Christ) is the human descendent of King David, who eternally rules on God's throne, per יהוה covenant with King David in 1 Samuel 7. Septuagint translation of Hebrew into Greek shows יהוה translated as Lord (so Jewish tradition of saying Adonai "Lord" for יהוה appears in Septuagint, which predates Jesus humanly walking on earth by over a century).
@Bill_Coley September 26 * Luke 18.18-19: Jesus asks a religious leader why he describes him as "good" when "[n]o one is good except God alone." THE POINT: Jesus rejects the leader's adjective on the grounds that it is reserved for God, a rejection which in my view clearly means he doesn't understand himself to be God
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good Teacher, by doing what will I inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ” And he said, “All these I have observed from my youth.” And when he heard this, Jesus said to him, “You still lack one thing: Sell all that you have, and distribute the proceeds to the poor—and you will have treasure in heaven—and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things he became very sad, because he was extremely wealthy. (Luke 18:18-23 LEB)
Humanly not know if wealthy ruler was a religious leader. Thankful for wealthy ruler and Jesus discussion, which showed wealthy ruler loved personal riches on earth more than obeying God's Words spoken through Jesus for treasure in heaven. Every person chooses what to love most. Thus, question to wealthy ruler shows God knew inside heart motivation of wealthy ruler so correctly questioned: "Why do you call me good? ..."
@Bill_Coley September 26 * Matthew 26.38-39ff: In the garden at Gethsemane, Jesus three times asks God (the one he calls "Father") to take the cup of suffering from him, but on each occasion ALSO says he wants God's will to be done, not his own. THE POINT: If Jesus believed himself to be God, his will would have been God's will, and he would have had no cause to express the surrender of his own will. How could one who was God have had a will that was in any way different from God's will?
Intriguing dialog between The Will (Father) and The Word (Son) about searching for any other way than Jesus (Son) dying as Holy Sacrifice for Sin (so Jesus went below to experience awfulness of Hell torment away from God's Love ❤️ as substitute for sin, which is Holy way to heaven for those who choose to repent from sin and believe Jesus is יהוה Lord, physically raised from the dead). Parallel account in Luke 22:39-46 includes: And being in anguish, he began praying more fervently and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Thankful for reading "Climbing into Eternity: My Descent in Hell and Flight to Heaven" by Michele Pulford, described torments in Hell so now appreciate anguish more)
@Bill_Coley September 26 * Acts 2.22-25: Peter tells a Jerusalem audience that Jesus was the "man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him," as wells as the man they had crucified, but whom God had raised. THE POINT: One whom God attested to by doing deeds through him is not God. Similarly (and grammatically), one whom God raised was not God. The one raised is different from the one who raised him or her.
THE POINT reads to me as a variation of John 10:33 reason for Jewish Religious Leaders wanting to kill Jesus (while remembering "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of humankind, that he should change his mind." in Numbers 23:19 LEB). Your "overemphasized" basis for doubting Jesus being a voice in One God Spiritual Being is the phrase "the MAN Jesus" (we agree Jesus had a male human body). Jesus is unique in being the Son of God (Holy), but Jesus is NOT the spiritual descendent of Adam so did NOT inherit a sin-stained spirit housed in a human body.
Missing from your Acts 2 description is Jewish context. Leviticus 23 includes three annual feasts in Jerusalem. In 2021 (Hebrew year 5781), Pesach (Passover) was Sunset 26 March to Sunset 27 March (14 Nissan). Shavout (Pentecost) started at Sunset 16 May (6 Sivan). Anticipate most, if not all, of the Acts 2 Jewish audience had been in Jerusalem & part of the Jewish crowd demanding crucifixion of the man Jesus almost two months earlier => “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. God raised him up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 is two Greek sentences, whose purpose is convicting Jewish audience about executing Jesus)
Thankful for plural אלהים God resurrecting Jesus. Humanly not know if Jesus alone could have resurrected self from Hell (substitute for our sins) without the rest of plural אלהים God. The intense pain & agony of The Word portion in plural אלהים God being separated at the crucifixion was followed by Incredibly Immense JOY of Resurrection. Personally believe the Shroud of Turin shows demonic (dark) forces pushing against entire human body of Jesus in instense attempt to keep Jesus from being resurrected. Wonder about three dimensional negative image of entire body in the Shroud of Turin being proof of spiritual singeing as demonic (dark) forces were unable to keep Holy Light of Jesus from bursting forth all over.
Thankful for Alpha Film Series: How Can I Resist Evil ? including "The devil wants us to doubt our beliefs & believe our doubts" at 7:53 in video (like context of important things in life require faith, trusting). Thankful for God's immense faithful ❤️Love for every human.
Thankful God's Love ❤️ requires free will choice (cannot be forced). Every human individually chooses what to ❤️ Love most: One God OR something else: e.g. self, deceiving spirit(s), drugs, idols, other human(s), personal study results, political loyalty, religious appearance, ... while remembering that our spiritual adversary always wants to steal/destroy ❤️Love relationship between every human and God. Thankful God's Love ❤️ is stronger than the evil one. Thankful for humans that chose narrow path to Holy living in God who kept choosing to stay in God's Holiness. Thankful (& sad) for my own life journey including being disobedient to God after several years of spiritual growth (allowed cares of this world to become thorns choking out my awareness & dependence in God). Thankful God's Love ❤️is always faithful so every human alive can choose to repent from their sins to Holy Right Love ❤️ in One God => If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins and will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:9-10 LEB)
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Fascinating for "not strong" assessment is the spirit inside the man Jesus knowing God's Glory and Love BEFORE physical realm existed: had not been created by plural אלהים God => "Let US make humankind in OUR image and according to OUR likeness" (Genesis 1:26 LEB) et al.
As I made clear in my previous post, "[g]iven the length, substance, and history of our exchanges on the matter, I've backed away from engaging you on the wider issue of Jesus' divinity." Hence, I will not address the vast majority of your reply to my posted response to @byGeorge in this thread. I re-engaged you in this thread only to disprove your claim that I had characterized my own "this MAN Jesus" argument as "not strong." Your response quoted here does not engage the issue of my claims about my argument, so I find no reason to reply.
Noted no comment about my next paragraph on September 23: (silence infers concurrence)
In our exchanges, on multiple occasions I have reminded you of the difference between inference and implication, two words you have confused in multiple posts. Your latest post in this thread moves me to try again.
- Readers and listeners - that is, recipients of communication - infer; they DON'T imply.
- Writers and speakers - that is, sources of communication - imply; they DON'T infer.
In the instance included in your post, my silence in response to a paragraph in your September 23 post might have implied something, but since it came from me, the source of the silence, it did not infer anything. YOU, as the recipient/consumer/observer of that silence, drew an inference about it. The correct forms of your parenthetical claim, then, would be either "(silence implies concurrence)", or "(from your silence, I infer concurrence").
For the record, by my silence in my previous post I did not mean to imply either concurrence or disagreement. I did not comment on that paragraph because, as I stated, I reengaged you in this thread only to address your comment about my "this man Jesus" argument. So my silence implied only that I thought your paragraph was not about whether I had labeled my "this man Jesus" argument as "not strong."
The remainder of your post returns to the broader issue of Jesus' divinity, an issue on which, as I noted, I no longer wish to engage you. As always, I welcome you to your points of view on the issues you raised - most of which I have addressed multiple times during our many exchanges - and celebrate your faith that undergirds them.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Missing from your Acts 2 description is Jewish context. ....
Actually, if you'd adhere to any Jewish context in Scripture, you would have put your "Jesus is God" belief into the theological trash bin long time ago ... as such binitarian and/or trinitarian "YHWH God" ideas are completely foreign to all Jewish thought and context.
-
I think you overstate the matter. Jews believed in one God, not three. Trinity is one God, not three--that is the point of the term trinity. The Acts 2 description reveals that the Jews could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God, who came to live among us in the form of a man. to become the perfect sacrifice to redeem us from our sins.
I say, much like the Jewish disciple Thomas said when He understood, now, that's my God!
-
Jews believed in one God, not three. Trinity is one God, not three--that is the point of the term trinity.
Jews are not fooled nor fool themselves by labeling three entities into "one trinity" ... they do NOT think of anyone other than YHWH (whom the man Jesus claimed to be his father) as their God.
-
Right. Same with most trinitarians, I think.
-
@byGeorge posted:
The Acts 2 description reveals that the Jews could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God, who came to live among us in the form of a man. to become the perfect sacrifice to redeem us from our sins.
I believe Acts 2 is a pivotal NT text in our efforts to understand who Jesus was, but I don't find anything in the chapter to support your claim that the Jews could, and in some cases did, understand Jesus to God living among us in human form. Specifically:
- Peter describes Jesus to the crowd as a "man" to whom God had "attested" "with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him," a man "delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God," crucified, and then raised by God (Acts 2.22-24, 32).
- Peter tells the crowd that the resurrected Jesus had been "exalted to the right hand of God," and had "received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father" (Acts 2.33).
- And Peter declares that God had "made" Jesus both "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.38).
A man to whom God attested and through whom God did miracles, a man raised to new life, exalted to God's right hand, and who received the Holy Spirit from God in no way sounds to me like God who lived among us in human form. Peter's message to his Jerusalem audience on multiple occasions refers to Jesus as the recipient of God's actions, and at no time identifies him as (or even raises the possibility that he was) God in human form.
But that's my reading of the text! Please identify where in Acts 2 you find support for your claim.
-
Our understanding of any passage will result from our presumptions. The best presumption is that which is informed by context. I assert that we may not properly interpret any biblical passage in a way that contradicts other biblical passages. Because I have read other parts of the Bible which clearly identify Jesus as God, then I read Acts 2 with this knowledge. Given that knowledge, Acts 2 clearly speaks to me of the deity of Christ and the notion many call trinity.
The passages you cite for your conclusion indicate your presumptions and do not indicate accepted hermeneutics.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Our understanding of any passage will result from our presumptions. The best presumption is that which is informed by context. I assert that we may not properly interpret any biblical passage in a way that contradicts other biblical passages. Because I have read other parts of the Bible which clearly identify Jesus as God, then I read Acts 2 with this knowledge. Given that knowledge, Acts 2 clearly speaks to me of the deity of Christ and the notion many call trinity.
In your previous post, you contended that "[t]he Acts 2 description reveals that the Jews could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God, who came to live among us in the form of a man. to become the perfect sacrifice to redeem us from our sins." You made no reference to any other passage or "parts of the Bible" as the sources of your claim.
Since you based your contention on what you called "the Acts 2 description," and in your latest post report that "Acts 2 clearly speaks to [you] of the deity of Christ," I rephrase my question: Where in "the Acts 2 description" do you find support for your claim that the Jews "could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God who came to live among us in the form of a man"?
Or by your latest post are you acknowledging that there is nothing in Acts 2 itself to support your claim, and that your claim about Acts 2 is actually informed by conclusions you draw from passages in other parts of the Bible? If your answer to each of those questions is no, then please cite for me the specific verses of Acts 2 which speak clearly to you of the deity of Christ and "the notion many call trinity."
The passages you cite for your conclusion indicate your presumptions and do not indicate accepted hermeneutics.
Here you offer a headline, but no story, a charge, but no evidence.
In my view, all I did in my previous post was to quote from verses and give what seemed to me to be reasonable and common sense interpretations of them. So that I understand how my interpretations did not "indicate accepted hermeneutics," please take one - just the first one, Acts 2.22-24 - and show how the cited verses don't say what I said they say:
22 “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—23 this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. 24 God raised ⌊him⌋ up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
I summarized those verses this way: "Peter describes Jesus to the crowd as a "man" to whom God had "attested" "with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him," a man "delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God," crucified, and then raised by God."
To convey my interpretation of those specific verses I wrote, "A man to whom God attested and through whom God did miracles, a man raised to new life... in no way sounds to me like God who lived among us in human form. Peter's message to his Jerusalem audience on multiple occasions refers to Jesus as the recipient of God's actions, and at no time identifies him as (or even raises the possibility that he was) God in human form."
Please demonstrate how either my summary or my interpretation of those verses is a) incorrect, and b) does not "indicate accepted hermeneutics."
-
Please demonstrate how either my summary or my interpretation of those verses is a) incorrect, and b) does not "indicate accepted hermeneutics."
No thanks. I simply state it as my observation. We know a duck when we see one. That is enough.
Since you based your contention on what you called "the Acts 2 description," and in your latest post report that "Acts 2 clearly speaks to [you] of the deity of Christ," I rephrase my question: Where in "the Acts 2 description" do you find support for your claim that the Jews "could (and some did) understand who Jesus was--one God who came to live among us in the form of a man"?
I perceive that you are inclined to isolate passages or words away from context and then go about changing the meaning. Doing so is illegitimate hermeneutics. The path to ruin is doubt, denial, distortion, and destruction. This is a path we would all do well to avoid.
However, if that is not your intent, then for simplicity, let me offer no more than verses 22-32 which speak clearly of the Father, the Son, the Father validating who Jesus is (God) including a quoted passage from Ps 16. The latter verses refer to the Holy Spirit. There you have the trinity referred to in Acts 2, and clearly preached as such. These passages isolated would not be great proof for defending trinity or deity of Christ, but as a whole they are powerful, and taken in context of the book of Acts and other Scripture, they are rock-solid proof.
If one will doubt, deny, distort, and destroy, then they may produce all manner of other possibilities.
-
@byGeorge posted:
No thanks. I simply state it as my observation. We know a duck when we see one. That is enough.
The point of discourse forums such as these is to engage each other on the content, logic, truth, and consistency of our respective observations, so it's actually not "enough" for you to make claims that you're not willing to back up. It is what it is! But it's not "enough."
However, if that is not your intent, then for simplicity, let me offer no more than verses 22-32 which speak clearly of the Father, the Son, the Father validating who Jesus is (God) including a quoted passage from Ps 16. The latter verses refer to the Holy Spirit. There you have the trinity referred to in Acts 2, and clearly preached as such. These passages isolated would not be great proof for defending trinity or deity of Christ, but as a whole they are powerful, and taken in context of the book of Acts and other Scripture, they are rock-solid proof.
Thank you for these comments, which offer substance to our exchange.
- Neither the word "Father" nor the word "Son" appears in Acts 2.22-32. In all of Peter's Act 2 sermon, the word "Father" appears only in Acts 2.33, and the word "Son" doesn't appear at all. On that basis, I contend there is no textual basis for your claim of trinitarian references in Acts 2.
- In the Acts 2 text - not simply in my claims about the text - Peter says Jesus was a "man" to whom "God" -- NOT the "Father" component of the Godhead -- attested by doing "deeds of power and wonders and signs" "through him." That is: God attested to Jesus by doing awesome things through him. That's what the text says. It says nothing about the Father's "validating" or otherwise affirming that Jesus is God. I welcome you to that claim, but it's not supported by the text.
- The quotation from Psalm 16 must be read carefully and first, in its original context. 1) In Psalm 16.1, the psalmist asks God for protection; 2) In Psalm 16.2, the psalmist declares Jahweh to be his Lord, apart from whom he - the psalmist - has "no good"; 3) In Psalm 16.4, the psalmist critiques those who "hurry after" other gods, something he says he won't do because Yahweh is his God (Psalm 16.5); 4) In that context the psalmist declares his confidence that God will not abandon his soul to Sheol or give him to the grave (Psalm 16.10). So in Psalm 16, the one who has hope that he will not be abandoned is a human being who seeks protection from the one he calls God, and who rejects the pursuit of other gods. THAT'S the Psalm from which Peter quotes.
- In Acts 2.25-28, Peter quotes from Psalm 16 immediately after declaring that "God" had raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24) - that is, had not abandoned his soul to the grave. Peter therefore employs a Psalm about a man who is confident that God will not abandon him to the grave to describe Jesus, whom Peter has just described as a man whom God did not abandon to the grave. AND Peter does so without referencing God and Jesus as components of a godhead.
- In Acts 2.33, the Holy Spirit is a power/presence the risen and exalted Jesus has received from the "Father," which in context is clearly Peter's designation for the one in his sermon he otherwise refers to as "God." Reference to Jesus, the "Father," and the "Holy Spirit" in the same verse (Acts 2.33) does not itself convey a trinitarian connection between them. In fact, neither the verse nor any part of Peter's Acts 2 sermon conveys such a connection.
On this basis, I contend there is no textual basis for your claims about Peter's Act 2 presentation. In fact, I claim Acts 2 directly contradicts trinitarian theology. In my view, one whom "God" raised and through whom "God" did miracles et al - and that's what the text says - cannot be God. Or at least, that's what the text says Peter said about Jesus.
A serious question: What message about Jesus and God do you believe Peter's Acts 2 audience received from his description of Jesus as a man whom God had raised and through whom God had done mighty deeds? Do you contend the audience received a trinitarian message from that description?
-
A serious question: What message about Jesus and God do you believe Peter's Acts 2 audience received from his description of Jesus as a man whom God had raised and through whom God had done mighty deeds? Do you contend the audience received a trinitarian message from that description?
Thar's a serious question. I would say, the answers are clear and simple:
(a) The audience believed Peter's plain words about what had been done to the man Jesus by Jewish leaders and what God in turn had done to that man Jesus.
(b) The audience did NOT indicate in any way even the smallest hint for tinitarian message.
-
Your interpretations are based on isolating passages, even phrases within a passage. That is not acceptable hermeneutics and not a valid conclusion. That leaves little to discuss.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Your interpretations are based on isolating passages, even phrases within a passage. That is not acceptable hermeneutics and not a valid conclusion. That leaves little to discuss.
I agree that we have little to discuss. I think that's because you've consistently refused to engage me on the texts I cite, texts which you claim must be consistent with whatever texts you would cite... were you to cite any.
Think about that: We're participants in a Christian discussion forum, in a thread dedicated to a profound matter of faith - the deity of Christ - and you won't discuss what the Bible says about the subject. You claim Jesus is God. You claim the Bible declares Jesus is God. But you won't engage another Christian over what the Bible says as to whether Jesus is God.
If Scripture agrees with you and not me, then why not engage me? Why not display your "correct" hermeneutics through posts that directly engage applicable texts, including Acts 2? Why not show me in the text that what I say Acts 2 says isn't what Acts 2 actually says? Why not show me and other CD readers that when Peter calls Jesus a "man" whom God raised and through whom God did awesome things, he means Jesus is God? And when the writer of 1 Timothy 2.5 says there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, a mediator who is the man Jesus Christ, he means Jesus is God? Why not show that not only do Acts 2 and 1 Timothy 2 agree with the rest of Scripture - in keeping with your hermeneutics - but the rest of Scripture also agrees with Acts 2 and 1 Timothy 2?
The answer is because you can't. If you could refute my claims in the text, you would. But you can't, so you don't even try, excusing your refusals via brief and unsubstantiated judgments about my hermeneutics.
Here's the bottom line: Your claim about my isolation of passages reminds me the late great Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois who in an appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in the 1960's of federal spending said "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." In our case, it's a verse here and a verse there, a passage here and a passage there (all isolated, of course... even though they all convey the same message about the divinity of Christ) and pretty soon, we're posting about real Scripture. Well, one of us is posting about Scripture.
-
I agree that we have little to discuss. I think that's because you've consistently refused to engage me on the texts I cite, texts which you claim must be consistent with whatever texts you would cite... were you to cite any.
A brief survey across recent forum posts indicates that you often experience the need to threaten disengagement with others (which does not appear to be sustained for long), or you accuse others of not engaging you according to some esoteric rules you make for yourself and others.
I am happy to engage you in reasonable, respectful, discourse used in standard communication. When you cite texts and insist on responses to those texts outside of their well-established contexts, then, in my judgment, we don't have enough logical substance to begin meaningful discourse.
-
When you cite texts and insist on responses to those texts outside of their well-established contexts, then, in my judgment, we don't have enough logical substance to begin meaningful discourse.
Hmn ... what then is the basis for what would be "well-established texts"? When Peter is recorded in Acts 2 declaring that Jesus was a human being, a man, who was approved by his Father, God, by miracles, etc. then what is the problem ? Is that text in Acts 2 not well-established? are there Greek texts which have variant readings that would suggest a different wording and a need for different rendering in English translations?
Is the truth that God is not a human being (and visa versa that a human being is not God) not textually well established?
I would appreciate if you could clarify what you actually mean with well established and how that relates to Acts 2 and also the question what being a man means in connection with being or not being God ...
-
@byGeorge posted:
A brief survey across recent forum posts indicates that you often experience the need to threaten disengagement with others (which does not appear to be sustained for long), or you accuse others of not engaging you according to some esoteric rules you make for yourself and others.
I encourage you to conduct something more substantive than a "brief" survey of my posts so as to identify the specific reasons I disengaged from certain posters in certain threads or on certain topics. If you do so, I think you'll discover that...
- For a lengthy period of time I engaged CD posters on their conspiracy theories (i.e. baseless assertions of fact), but then decided such posts were a poor investment of my time because those posters consistently chose not to respond to the posts in which I debunked their claims, and in fact, chose not even to acknowledge the existence of my posts. Hence, I decided no longer to respond to every conspiracy theory. In Wolfgang's case, as I have made clear in my responses to his conspiracy theories, every several weeks or months I engage him for a week or so, but only to remind him and the CD community of his practice of posting falsehoods.
- In another case, a CD poster on several occasions challenged me by name to reply to his conspiracy theory-based posts. But when I did - when I debunked the claims of that CD poster or in some other way satisfied the challenge - he chose time and again not to respond, not even to acknowledge the existence of my responses. I decided no longer to engage that poster's challenges should he call me out by name, again because I consider it a poor investment of my time to prepare replies to posters who won't even acknowledge my posts.
- Bottom line: I answer directly the questions put to me by other posters, and expect similar responsiveness from those to whom I respond. I have decided not to engage posters who dodge questions or refuse to acknowledge my posts, and do so as their SOP. But my practice is subject-specific. I regularly engage Wolfgang on Bible study matters because he responds to my posts as I do to his. His conspiracy theory posts produce a very different reaction from him... and as a result, from me.
If those are "esoteric rules," then I'm all for esoterism.
I am happy to engage you in reasonable, respectful, discourse used in standard communication. When you cite texts and insist on responses to those texts outside of their well-established contexts, then, in my judgment, we don't have enough logical substance to begin meaningful discourse.
I read this as a dodge. In my view, you don't want engage the texts I cite because they don't fit into what you call "their well-established contexts." Acts 2 does NOT support your Christology, and I think you know that; otherwise, you'd show me how it does. But rather than acknowledging the challenge Acts 2 presents to your Christology - rather than engaging the content of the chapter - you refuse to discuss it, apparently due to the "context" created, in your view, by what you called "other parts of the Bible." As a result, you appear willing to engage Scripture, but only those texts that concur with your view of their "well-established contexts."
At some level, I hope you will acknowledge the pattern of our Bible-related discussions. In support of my Christology, I've quoted and commented on multiple passages. You've refused to engage on those passages, choosing instead to claim the existence of unspecified "other parts of the Bible" as support for yours. So you criticize my views without a moment's engagement with their specifics. You claim I'm mistaken, but you're not willing/able to show how any my exegesis of the texts is flawed. Instead, you cling to "other parts of the Bible," the parts that you think agree with you and disagree with Acts 2 or any of the other passages I cite.
In my view, that's not "reasonable, respectful discourse" either.
-
Hmn ... what then is the basis for what would be "well-established texts"?
The common understanding of most readers and most commentators; the long-established meaning accepted across most churches over most of history.
Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ fit that. Your insistent arguments to look at passages out of context and out of the accepted meaning of well-established texts, does not. I am not saying there is no other argument, there is. But to be convincing, start with an argument with traction. I think few would be inclined to find your argument to have any traction at all. It is simply dead wrong.
If those are "esoteric rules," then I'm all for esoterism.
We have discussed that and agree.
In my view, that's not "reasonable, respectful discourse" either.
I fully respect your privilege to hold that view.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Your insistent arguments to look at passages out of context and out of the accepted meaning of well-established texts, does not. I am not saying there is no other argument, there is. But to be convincing, start with an argument with traction. I think few would be inclined to find your argument to have any traction at all.
Then show us the "accepted meaning" of Acts 2.22-36, in which Peter calls Jesus a "man" whom God raised and through whom God did awesome things! If the meaning of that passage is so widely accepted and well-established, it ought to be a simple task. What is the "accepted" meaning of Peter's declaration that "God" did "deeds of power and wonders and signs" "through" the "man" Jesus? (Acts 2.22)
Instead of labeling our arguments as "insistent," why don't you engage them and demonstrate that they indeed have no "traction at all" and are as "simply dead wrong" as you claim? Why are you so willing to criticize, but unwilling to back up your critiques?
The "traction" of my and Wolfgang's argument about the "man" Jesus, in my view, is shown by your unwillingness to engage it. If it actually had no "traction," you'd show it. But you can't show it has no "traction," so you choose to criticize it without proof.
Let the record show that I/we invited you to engage in genuine dialogue on Scripture's message about the deity of Christ, and that you chose not to accept the invitation.
-
OK.
God came as man in the form of Jesus. Jesus, did awesome things, showing that He was more than a man, but was, in fact, God. That is how God did these things through the man. The man had limits of being a man, but God was not limited by incarnating Himself. God did as He chose through the man.
Nothing difficult there. Most Christians throughout history have found that to be simple and true, and the fact that Jesus is God seems to largely be the purpose of Peter's sermon. If you miss that, one might wonder why Peter preached it at all.
-
@byGeorge posted:
God came as man in the form of Jesus. Jesus, did awesome things, showing that He was more than a man, but was, in fact, God. That is how God did these things through the man. The man had limits of being a man, but God was not limited by incarnating Himself. God did as He chose through the man.
Thanks for this response, which opens us to genuine engagement on our respective views. To wit:
- "God came as man in the form of Jesus." - Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. Instead, he says God "made" Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2.36). One who was God needed to be made "Lord"? And "God" made "Lord" one who was already God?
- "Jesus, did awesome things, showing that He was more than a man, but was, in fact, God. That is how God did these things through the man." - Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. Instead, Peter specifically credits God, not Jesus, for the awesome things done through Jesus, not BY Jesus. According to Peter, God's actions through Jesus show God's attestation to Jesus (Acts 2.22) - God's endorsement of Jesus in their midst - but there is no indication in Peter's words that he believes Jesus was God. In the structure of Peter's imagery, Jesus is a conduit for God's actions (e.g. God acted "through" Jesus); he is not God. In subsequent references, for example, Peter calls Jesus God's "servant" (Acts 3.13,26) and God's anointed "holy servant" (Acts 4.27,30).
- "The man had limits of being a man, but God was not limited by incarnating Himself. God did as He chose through the man." - Again, Peter doesn't make this claim in any of his sermons in the book of Acts. As I read the Gospels, God didn't do as God *chose* through Jesus. Rather, God did as Jesus *permitted* God to do (e.g. the temptation scene in which Jesus chooses loyalty to God and Scriptural truth over the rewards of Satan, and the Gethsemane scene in which three times Jesus concludes a poignant struggle of the soul with his surrender to God's will over his own. *How could one who was God ever have had a will that was in any way different from God's will?*)
My larger point is that at no time in his sermons did Peter declare Jesus to be God. Such a designation would have been FAR more earth-shaking to his audiences than his references to Jesus as God's "servant" or messiah. It would have attached to Jesus the most profound and astounding identity possible, and yet Peter didn't call him God. Not once. In my view, that's telling.
And about your "other parts of the Bible" argument (and I hope you will address this one directly since I've had trouble getting direct answers from other Trinity advocates): Peter's audiences in Acts didn't have access to other parts of the Bible, at least not to other parts of the New Testament. They knew about Jesus what Peter told them about Jesus in his sermons plus whatever other information they had gleaned over the years of his life. THAT'S why the question I asked but you have yet to address matters: What message did Peter's audience take from Peter's sermons when he called Jesus God's "servant" and a man to whom God had attested and through whom God had done great things?
Where in Peter's sermons is there ANY declaration that Jesus was God? And given his role in declaring the Gospel to those crowds - who again, knew nothing about other parts of the New Testament - why didn't he say it if he believed it? I contend he didn't say it because he didn't believe it. If EVER he was going to tell people that Jesus was God, the Acts 2 crowd was the audience. They had experienced the Holy Spirit. Now, Peter could have said, let me complete the triad for you! But he didn't. That HAS to be important, or so I believe.
Nothing difficult there. Most Christians throughout history have found that to be simple and true, and the fact that Jesus is God seems to largely be the purpose of Peter's sermon. If you miss that, one might wonder why Peter preached it at all.
I too have no difficulty understanding Peter's sermons in the book of Acts. I hope you will quote the verse(s) in Peter's Acts 2 sermon which in your view support your claim that Jesus as God "seems to largely be [its] purpose." I see no such verses, as I noted above.
Why did Peter preach the sermon? I think the text makes clear that he preached to interpret for the crowd what they had witnessed in the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.14-21), to witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2.29-32), and to connect their experience of the Spirit with the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God (Acts 2.33-36.).
Your turn.
-
@Wolfgang Hmn ... what then is the basis for what would be "well-established texts"?
@byGeorge The common understanding of most readers and most commentators; the long-established meaning accepted across most churches over most of history.
Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ fit that. Your insistent arguments to look at passages out of context and out of the accepted meaning of well-established texts, does not. I am not saying there is no other argument, there is. But to be convincing, start with an argument with traction. I think few would be inclined to find your argument to have any traction at all. It is simply dead wrong.
I understand that your "well-established texts" are church tradition dogmas ... even where such deviate drastically from Jesus' and the apostles' teachings recorded in the Biblical text.
My traction goes back to the Bible text itself, your traction goes to what church tradition interpreted hundreds of years later. How many or how few are inclined to or believe something is totally irrelevant in regards to whether or not something is true or false.
At least now I know that a study of Biblical text is basically not really possible between the two of us, as we are using different "measures" by which to determine what is true. 😪
-
My traction goes back to the Bible text itself, your traction goes to what church tradition interpreted hundreds of years later. How many or how few are inclined to or believe something is totally irrelevant in regards to whether or not something is true or false.
People say things. --Pelosi
we are using different "measures" by which to determine what is true. 😪
This seems to me a common malady in our world today.
-
@byGeorge .... thanks for showing your true colors ... you display a great lack of interest in Biblical matters. Some here are Christians interested in studying Scripture together, while it appears that you consider "Christian discussion" to be the place where folks share on the basis of various denominational dogmas and traditions.
-
Thank you for your admonition.
-
@Bill_Coley September 30 I did not comment on that paragraph because, as I stated, I reengaged you in this thread only to address your comment about my "this man Jesus" argument. So my silence implied only that I thought your paragraph was not about whether I had labeled my "this man Jesus" argument as "not strong."
Observation is your description ' about my "this man Jesus" argument.' (relative pronoun in phrase "this man Jesus") being a bit different than my assertion of you overemphasizing "the MAN Jesus" with unstated implication that MAN cannot be God, which reminds me of Jewish Religious leaders wanting to kill Jesus as stated in John 10:33 LEB => The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be אלהים God!”
@Bill_Coley September 30 The remainder of your post returns to the broader issue of Jesus' divinity, an issue on which, as I noted, I no longer wish to engage you. As always, I welcome you to your points of view on the issues you raised - most of which I have addressed multiple times during our many exchanges - and celebrate your faith that undergirds them.
My September 30 reply included "the MAN Jesus" in my comments replying to your POINT about Acts 2:22-25
Noted your (@Bill_Coley) reply on October 4 repeats your "man Jesus" interpretative view of Acts 2 sermon, which ignores relevant Jewish context: Jewish Peter to observant Jewish audience in Jewish Jerusalem, who had memorized The Shema that begins with: “Sh’ma (hear & obey), Yisra’el! (Israel) Adonai (יהוה Lord) Eloheinu (plural אלהים God of us) Adonai (יהוה Lord) echad (unique, one, alone) ...
Couple centuries before Christ, Jewish scholars usually translated Hebrew יהוה (God's Holy name) into Koine Greek as kurios (Lord). Hebrew lemma <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> is aligned with Greek LXX in 6,758 places (Logos Bible Search). Refining search <Lemma = lbs/he/יהוה> INTERSECTS <Lemma = lbs/el/κύριος> has 6,076 results so Jewish scholars usually translated יהוה as Lord (κύριος). Hebrew lemma <Lemma = lbs/he/אֱלֹהִים> is aligned with Greek LXX in 2,586 places. Refining search <Lemma = lbs/he/אֱלֹהִים> INTERSECTS <Lemma = lbs/el/θεός> has 2,252 results so Jewish scholars usually translated plural אלהים as singular God (θεός).
Acts 2:14-41 LEB (with Hebrew words for Jewish usual translation of אלהים & יהוה) => But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them, “Judean men, and all those who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and pay attention to my words! For these men are not drunk, as you assume, because it is the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘And it will be in the last days,’ אלהים God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. And even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. And I will cause wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and glorious day of the יהוה Lord comes. And it will be that everyone who calls upon the name of the יהוה Lord will be saved.’ “Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by אלהים God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that אלהים God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—this man, delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of אלהים God, you executed by nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. אלהים God raised him up, having brought to an end the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says with reference to him, ‘I saw the יהוה Lord before me continually, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken. For this reason my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced greatly, furthermore also my flesh will live in hope, because you will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor will you permit your Holy One to experience decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with gladness with your presence.’ “Men and brothers, it is possible to speak with confidence to you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us until this day. Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that אלהים God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, by having foreseen this, he spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he abandoned in Hades nor did his flesh experience decay. This Jesus אלהים God raised up, of which we all are witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of אלהים God and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out this that you see and hear. For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The יהוה Lord said to my יהוה Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt, that אלהים God has made him both יהוה Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified!” Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “What should we do, men and brothers?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all those who are far away, as many as the יהוה Lord our אלהים God calls to himself.” And with many other words he solemnly urged and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this crooked generation!” So those who accepted his message were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added.
The man Jesus was/is/will be one יהוה Lord voice in plural אלהים God, who is The Christ, The Messiah, Jeremiah 23:5-6 promised righteous ruler. The Father was/is/will be one יהוה Lord voice in plural אלהים God. Thankful for 3,000 souls repenting of their sin (Acts 2:41), which included many of them loudly crying out for the man Jesus to be crucified about two months earlier: obeying Jewish Religious Leaders who wanted the man Jesus put to death for blasphemy (John 19:4-7) as those Jewish Religious Leaders refused to believe Jesus is יהוה Lord אלהים God! (Luke 22:66-71)
FWIW: prior to Jesus, all humans that had appeared before Jewish Religious Leaders had been humans who inherited sin-stained spiritual nature from Adam (not a single human had been righteous, all had chosen to sin). The man Jesus is unique as the Holy spiritual quality was אלהים God inside a human male body (John 1:1-18) while The Father remained יהוה Lord אלהים God ruling as King of the Universe in Holy Heaven.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Observation is your description ' about my "this man Jesus" argument.' (relative pronoun in phrase "this man Jesus") being a bit different than my assertion of you overemphasizing "the MAN Jesus" with unstated implication that MAN cannot be God, which reminds me of Jewish Religious leaders wanting to kill Jesus as stated in John 10:33 LEB => The Jews answered him, “We are not going to stone you concerning a good deed, but concerning blasphemy, and because you, although you are a man, make yourself to be אלהים God!”...
The man Jesus was/is/will be one יהוה Lord voice in plural אלהים God, who is The Christ, The Messiah, Jeremiah 23:5-6 promised righteous ruler. The Father was/is/will be one יהוה Lord voice in plural אלהים God. Thankful for 3,000 souls repenting of their sin (Acts 2:41), which included many of them loudly crying out for the man Jesus to be crucified about two months earlier: obeying Jewish Religious Leaders who wanted the man Jesus put to death for blasphemy (John 19:4-7) as those Jewish Religious Leaders refused to believe Jesus is יהוה Lord אלהים God! (Luke 22:66-71)
As I noted in my previous post, I welcome you to your points of view on these and all other matters, and both respect and applaud your faith that undergirds them.
-
FWIW: prior to Jesus, all humans that had appeared before Jewish Religious Leaders had been humans who inherited sin-stained spiritual nature from Adam ...
Hmn .... Adam came perfect - without sin-stained spiritual nature - directly from God, just as Jesus did. And yet, being without sin, Adam chose to disobey God and commit sin. Jesus being without sin, in contrast to Adam, chose to obey God and not commit sin.
Nothing anywhere about Jesus and Adam being any different in them being a man and initially without sin ... the difference between them was in how they acted in their walk with God! Adam disobeyed, Jesus obeyed. (cp. Rom 5:12-21)
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)