Was Peter in error at Pentecost?

They did not slay God. They slayed the body that God took on to dwell with us. Just as if you were to kill me you have not really killed me, you have merely killed my body.

It is cherry-picking verses without looking at the whole of Scripture.

At the time they heard Peter's Acts 2 sermon, his audience had no information about other books and letters that would eventually be accepted into the NT canon; that audience knew about Jesus principally what Peter told them in his sermon. And what did Peter tell them about Jesus in his sermon? As Wolfgang quoted the text in this thead's OP, Peter told them that Jesus was a man whom they had killed but God had raised.

The question I ask for your direct response, reformed, is this: Where in his Acts 2 sermon does Peter give ANY indication that he believes Jesus is God as well as human? Please cite the specific verse(s) that in your view support your claim.

And a variation on that same question, one which I also hope you'll address directly: Where in the entire book of Acts does Peter give ANY indication that Jesus is God as well as human? Again, please cite the specific verse(s).

My point is that in the book of Acts I can cite for you several passages/verses in which when Peter talked to people about Jesus, he called Jesus a human, not God, AND in which Peter made a clear distinction between God and the human (Jesus) God raised. What I can't cite for you are passages/verses in the book of Acts where Peter told people that Jesus was God.

As you know from my last post, reformed, I didn't question Peter's failure to "give a full theology" in his Acts 2 sermon. I questioned whether Peter at any time in the book of Acts declared Jesus to be God. Specifically, I wrote... (emphasis added)

THAT was the reason I made two requests of you in my last post, neither of which your reply addresses. Those requests were/are:

1. Where in his Acts 2 sermon does Peter give ANY indication that he believes Jesus is God as well as human? Please cite the specific verse(s) that in your view support your claim.
2. Where in the entire book of Acts does Peter give ANY indication that Jesus is God as well as human? Again, please cite the specific verse(s).

I can cite at least four separate examples/presentations Peter gives in the book of Acts in which his CLEAR message about Jesus is that Jesus is a human being the Jews had killed but God had raised. That is, I can show at least four occasions on which Peter made a clear and undeniable distinction between Jesus and God - to the effect that the most/only reasonable interpretation of his words is that he believes Jesus is not God. I challenge you to show even ONE occasion in the book of Acts where the most/only reasonable interpretation of Peter's words is that he believes Jesus IS God.

If Peter never said Jesus was God - if every time Peter preached to people about Jesus and God he made it clear that he thought Jesus was not God - at some point, don't we have to conclude Peter didn't believe Jesus was God?

That the Apostle Peter over and over again said Jesus was not God is a "red herring"? That you can't point to a single text in the book of Acts in which Peter says Jesus is God, and in fact, every text on the subject you can point to rather clearly suggests Peter believes Jesus is NOT God, is a "red herring"? Which apostle(s)/disciple(s) would have to deny that Jesus is God before you would accept his/their denial(s) as something other than a "red herring"?

The only reason you're excusing your failure to provide examples from the book of Acts, reformed, is that you CAN'T provide examples from the book of Acts, because throughout the book of Acts Peter says Jesus is NOT God.

Which of course raises a different question: Since on multiple occasions in the book of Acts Peter declares that Jesus is NOT God, isn't ANY NT reference you offer in support of your view that Jesus IS God by definition a contradiction of Peter's view? If not, then where is the text in which Peter supports your view, and how do you square that text with all the texts in Acts in which he denies that Jesus is God?

If the thought of Jesus' being God never crossed his mind, why would Peter ever have said the words "Jesus is not God"? When Peter says "Jesus was the man you killed, but God raised," isn't he as much acknowledging that Jesus wasn't God?

By the logic of your post, if you say "That's the book I read," we can't say for sure that you're not the book. Why? Because you didn't say you're not the book. But of course you're NOT the book! How do we know that? Because your declaration told us: You told us that you read the book, and we know that those who read are different from the items they read.

In Acts, on at least four occasions Peter tells us that Jesus was a man God raised. No, Peter doesn't tell us that Peter is not God, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO! His declaration tells us for him because we know people raised from the dead are different from those who raise them (AND humans are VERY different from the God who raises them!) When Peter says Jesus was a man God raised, we know from the content of his proclamation that Peter believes Jesus is different from (i.e. not) God.

1. The questions I asked you had specifically and solely to do with Peter's theological viewpoints as expressed in the book of Acts. At no time did I ask about the proper interpretation of "the whole of Scripture" as to Peter's views about Jesus and God, whether as expressed in the book of Acts or any other part of the NT. In my view, "the whole of Scripture" is not germane to understanding Peter's views about Jesus and God. The relevant passages in Acts are those that report Peter's spoken words, passages, in my view, where the clear and recurring meaning of his words is that Peter does not believe Jesus is God. But perhaps you can correct my view: In your view, how does "the whole of Scripture" help us understand Peter's view of Jesus and God?
2. The "you lie" meme of your post is a retreat toward the juvenile behavior from which I think you've declared your intention to turn (in THIS POST, you reported your efforts "to turn a new leaf," away from your "old ways").

You've called upon Jesus' word to Jewish leaders in John 2.19 in other threads. What you've never done - principally because I've never asked you to do so! - is explain the impact of John 2.22 on your understanding of v.19. In v.22, John explicitly uses the passive voice to report Jesus' resurrection: (emphasis added)

The grammar of that clause - its use of the passive voice - means Jesus was the object of the raising, NOT its cause. If in v.19 Jesus means that he will raise himself, why three verses later does John say Jesus was the object of the raising, not the one who executed the raising?

Jesus is the object of resurrection, not its cause, in many other NT locations:

• Romans 4.25
• Romans 6.4
• Romans 6.9
• Romans 7.4
• Romans 8.34
• 1 Corinthians 15.4
• 2 Corinthians 5.15
• 1 Peter 3.18 (a verse in which Peter also says that through his suffering, Christ brought us to God. Once again, the rules of language matter: If Jesus brought us to God, then Jesus can't be God because those who bring us to things are different from the things to which they bring us. If I take you to my brother or church or favorite park, it's obvious that I am not my not brother or church or favorite park.)

In Acts, Peter doesn't use the passive voice. Peter simply says God raised the man Jesus, which makes Jesus the object, not the cause, of his own resurrection.

But there's more to John's Gospel than just the neighboring passive voice. There's the discourse in John 6 in which Jesus describes those he will raise up:

• John 6.38 - Jesus has come from heaven not to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (again the object of divine action, not its cause)
• John 6.39 - The will of the one who sent him is that he raise up on the last day what has been given to him (Note: Jesus sees himself as the object of divine action yet again - people have been given to him)
• John 6.40 - The father's will is that Jesus will raise up on the last day those who believe in the Son
• John 6.46 - No one except the one who is from God has seen the Father. Yet again, Jesus is the object of divine action, not its cause.

What's "not there" is ANY indication in the book of Acts that Peter believed Jesus was God. In fact, every indication that IS there suggests Peter believed Jesus was NOT God. That was and remains my point.

Actually, I do understand and care about biblical interpretation, though I don't know what interpretation "protocols" are; neither does Google. Please educate me.

In fact I DID raise new points in my last post: the contextual analysis of John 2.19, and the many of examples of Jesus' being the object of resurrection, not its cause. You choose to dispute my analysis of those texts - which, of course, is your call - but they WERE the subjects of "new points."

I don't think I twisted anything you said:

• You raised the interpretation of "the whole of Scripture," and I contended that "whole of Scripture" isn't necessary to understand Peter's view of Jesus and God in the book of Acts.
• You alluded to John 2.19, where Jesus talks about raising his body after three days, and I engaged that verse, its context, and several textual examples of a similar approach to the resurrection of Jesus.
• You asserted that Peter never said Jesus wasn't God, and I pointed out that if he genuinely didn't believe Jesus was God, we wouldn't expect Peter to say Jesus wasn't God.
• You accused me of lying, and I noted that your decision to make such a claim represented a retreat from your stated intention "to turn a new leaf... away from (your) old ways."

Where in the rhetorical flow did I twist anything you said, reformed? Please be specific.

And my book analogy wasn't coherent?! Remember: You can't just judge a book by its coherence!

And STILL there's the matter of Peter's Christology. You've told me what he DIDN'T say, in your view. I still don't know what you think he DID say. Care to share? Verse citations would be helpful.

No, I didn't lie. I simply disagreed with you. It happens.

Not anywhere in the text? Of course it is, as I have shown multiple times in our exchange. You disagree with my conclusion that it's in the text. Your call. But I don't think you're lying when you say it's not in the text. I just think we disagree.

Calling people liars is not a return to your old ways? That's right, it's not. In the old ways, you called people "stupid," "pigs," and "idiots." You've advanced all the way to "liars"! I take back my critique, reformed. Your approach to engagement with posters who disagree with you is growing up fast. By the end of the month, I predict your approach will be walking high school hallways. No more "juvenile" for you. Adolescence, here you come!

Actually this thread has already provided Scripture that said Jesus raised himself from the dead: "Tear this temple down and I will rebuild it in three days"

Actually verse 22 CONFIRMS that Christ raised himself from the dead.

@Wolfgang said:

Whoa, Mr. Wolfgang! There is a Scripture passage that states "Jesus raised himself from the dead". It's not the one Reformed suggested:

This verse is future. You wanted a verse in past tense.

Wolfgang, if a verse in the past tense is given, would it change your view of Jesus? Would it make a difference in your life? Or would you rationalize it away? CT

PS. I am still trying this new format. CM

Actually v.22 does NOT confirm that Christ raised himself from the dead. Linguistically, support for v.19's assertion would have to come in a similarly active voice: "When therefore he raised himself from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken."

As the verse stands, by definition, v.22's passive voice takes responsibility for Jesus' raising away from him.

Consider this set of expressions:

• "I drove myself to the store."
• "I was driven to the store."

By definition, I drove myself to the store ONLY in the first statement. If I "was driven" to the store, someone else did the driving. Similarly, if Jesus "was raised," he didn't raise himself.

So which option do we choose? I think we choose the option that occurs over and over and over again (see examples in THIS POST of mine) From what I have observed in this and other CD threads we've created on the subject of the Trinity, there is exactly one NT verse that can be read to suggest Jesus raised himself from the dead, while there are perhaps as many as a dozen or more NT verses that suggest someone other than Jesus - usually identified in those verses as God - accomplished the raising. Why accept the one verse and deny the many verses?

But Jesus was God, so when we do the word substitution, those verses say Jesus raised himself! The problem with that rationalization is that in its context, none of the "was raised" verses supports it.

• Peter, for example, NEVER says Jesus is God, so there is no textual rationale to conclude that for him, "was raised" means Jesus raised himself.
• And John 2.19 lies in such close proximity to John 2.22 that it defies logic to believe John wants us to believe Jesus' words in v.19 meant that he raised himself. Why would John sow rhetorical confusion by almost immediately following up a claim that Jesus raised himself with an assertion that Jesus did not raise himself? AND there's John's OTHER testimony to Jesus' resurrection - John 21.14, for example (emphasis added): "This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead." (ESV) If John believed Jesus raised himself, why does he at least twice refuse to repeat it, and instead use the "was raised" construction?

Where are the verses where the clear meaning of "was raised" is that Jesus raised himself? And if that's the clear meaning, why do almost all references to the mechanism of Jesus' resurrection use the passive voice, which clearly suggests someone other than Jesus did the raising?

Human beings apply theological bias (filters) when studying Scripture. Serious students seek to be aware of their own bias so pray for God to open their eyes to see the Wonders of His Word (could change bias while desiring to become Holy as God is Holy). Personally Thankful for CD discussions that are helping me reflect on my own bias filter(s). For example, my translation explanation now includes bias: Translation of one language into another is the intersection of source & target word meaning(s) within bias belief filter(s).

Acts 2:1-13 describes Holy Spirit being sent to believers (as promised in John 14:15-31 that also promises I AM in believers ...). God-fearing Jews from every nation were intelligently hearing the Wonders of God in their native language (own tongues). Intelligent communication (thoughts) in many languages fits with "One Lord God Almighty = Three Persons (Voices) = CommUnity Love 💞" filter, which is consistent with parallel Romans 8:27 "the mind of the Spirit". The "One God = One Person" filter is challenged by the Holy Spirit being intelligent. Joel 2:28-32 prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21includes "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people..." so the pouring out of God's Spirit (Holy) includes communication intelligence (thoughts). If you truly want to hear the voice of Holy Spirit (God), then ask Him.

With "One God = One Person" filter firmly in place, verses having Jesus and God (e.g. Acts 2:22-24) "clearly" distinguish the MAN Jesus from God (shows eisegesis filter is "clearly" reading MAN Jesus belief into Scripture text). The exegesis understanding of Acts 2:22-24 finds parallel passage in John 5:31-47 where Jesus (God), Father (God), plus Scriptures (originally inspired by the Holy Spirit) are three credible witnesses for Jesus of Nazareth. The "One God = Three Persons (Voices) = One Lord Almighty = CommUnity Love 💞" filter reflects Jesus being an eternal Person (The Word in John 1:1 was being eternally God), who is intimately sharing God's nature, essence, being, ... with two other Persons: Father & Holy Spirit. Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:22 "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you ..." reflects "One God = Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) = CommUnity Love 😍" witnessing about the Son (Jesus). If you sincerely want to hear the voice of Jesus (God), then ask Him.

Acts 2:23 mentions wicked men, which refers to High Priest (Caiaphas) & others in the Jewish Sanhedrin who clearly understood "Jesus = God" so had Jesus put to death for blasphemy. Parallel passages Matthew 26:62-68, Mark 14:60-65, and Luke 22:66-71 show Caiaphas had "One God = One Person" filter firmly in place. Jesus responded to Caiaphas using words that communicated "Jesus = God" to Caiaphas, which was interpreted as blasphemy that ought to be put to death (50 days earlier in Jerusalem where Peter is addressing the crowd in Acts 2, which included a number of Jews who had been in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified).

Using "One God = Three Persons (Voices) = One Lord Almighty = CommUnity Love 💘" filter for Acts 2:24 & 2:32 shows all of God raised Jesus from the dead. Also Peter knew Jesus = God = Holy One in Acts 2:27 plus The Messiah to Peter was both "Son of God" (King David's human descendant) and "Son of Man" (God in Daniel 7:13-14 vision), which is reflected in Acts 2:33-34 fulfillment of Psalms 110:1

Three in One command from God (to every human) is: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Deuteronomy 6:5 was quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:30 with addition to Love the LORD your God with all your mind. Essentially humans are to Love the LORD our God with everything we are, which includes our bodies (physical strength) plus more. Human body of Jesus was brutally killed, which fulfilled vivid prophetic descriptions in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52:13-53:12 that allows us to ask (believe) God for Holy Healing from our sins. Every human has a choice for eternal destiny of their heart, soul & mind: Heaven OR Hell. Recommend reading "Heaven is for Real", "Flight to Heaven", "90 Minutes in Heaven", and "23 Minutes in Hell" for insights about eternal destiny (using words that fail to impart intensity of either place). While not liking sin choices by humans, have no desire for any human to choose Hell. Thankful for vision change to see every human as someone special to God, who desires an intimate Love relationship with each person, but will not force any human to Love Him. God did not create robots in the Garden of Eden, but breathed life into Adam that included free will to choose what to Love. 💟

Keep Smiling 😀

With all due respect, I don't follow your argument, principally because it includes assertions of, what they call in American courts, facts not in evidence.

• "Intelligent communication (thoughts) in many languages fits with "One Lord God Almighty = Three Persons (Voices) = CommUnity Love 💞" filter" I don't really know what this sentence means, but still ask what difference it makes that "thoughts" fit with some filter? It seems to me that what matters is whether there is biblical support for the contention that Jesus is God.
• "The "One God = One Person" filter is challenged by the Holy Spirit being intelligent." Again, I don't understand the relevance of this observation to the question of whether there is biblical support for the claim that Jesus is God.
• "With "One God = One Person" filter firmly in place, verses having Jesus and God (e.g. Acts 2:22-24) "clearly" distinguish the MAN Jesus from God (shows eisegesis filter is "clearly" reading MAN Jesus belief into Scripture text)." I contend that it is the biblical text, not we, who "distinguish the MAN Jesus from God." In Acts 2.22, according to my Logos installation, the Greek word which when translated refers to Jesus as a "man" clearly and cleanly means "man," a male human being. It's not a word with multiple meanings that could be subject to dispute. In that verse, Peter clearly says Jesus was a male human being. We didn't read that into the text; Peter put it there for us.
• "Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:22 "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you ..." reflects "One God = Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) = CommUnity Love 😍" witnessing about the Son (Jesus). If you sincerely want to hear the voice of Jesus (God), then ask Him." To me, this reads like a claim without a foundation. Since nowhere in the book of Acts does Peter EVER say Jesus was God, what is the biblical foundation for your claim that by his word choice Peter means "three Persons"? I see absolutely nothing in the text that supports such a conclusion.

There are many others I could cite, but the trend is likely clear by now: Your post makes claims whose connection to the question of whether Jesus is God is not at all clear to me, and whose biblical foundation is not apparent to me.

A new insight your post helped me come to, however: "The exegesis understanding of Acts 2:22-24 finds parallel passage in John 5:31-47 where Jesus (God), Father (God), plus Scriptures (originally inspired by the Holy Spirit) are three credible witnesses for Jesus of Nazareth." At the end the John passage, Jesus says this: (emphasis added)

• "45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 5:45–47). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

What word of Moses does Jesus refer to in the highlighted sentence? I suggest it's Deuteronomy 18.15-19: (emphasis added)

• "15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen — 16 just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the LORD said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. " The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Dt 18:15-19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

What kind of being does Moses refer to? A divine being or a human being? Clearly, it seems to me, Moses refers to a human being - prophets were NOT divine, and "brothers" is a word for fellow citizens or "countrymen." In John 5, Jesus says Moses wrote about him. Moses wrote about a human prophet to whom people would listen. Doesn't that mean Jesus believes that HE is that human prophet to whom people should listen? [Matthew 17.5: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." (ESV)]

p.s. I find responding to others posters is more personal and conversational when I can call them by a name. It's a bit cumbersome to refer to you as "Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus" every time I want to name you. Do you have any suggestions for a shorter name by which to reference you in our posts?

And here is your problem, you aren't looking at the whole of Scripture. If you ignore what Jesus said about raising himself you have a problem because he said it. If he said it and it did not turn out to be true then he was a liar and in that case would not have been able to make payment for our sins.

Again, with your John 5 example, you refuse to take account ALL of Scripture and cherry-pick verses. That's not exegesis.

That being said, I have already shown the proper interpretation of John 2. You disagree, that is your right but you are wrong on the issue if you look at the whole of Scripture.

You seem very concerned about direct quotes from people. That's not how you interpret Scripture.