Was Peter in error at Pentecost?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
Again, with your John 5 example, you refuse to take account ALL of Scripture and cherry-pick verses. That's not exegesis.
A subtle, oft-overlooked consequence of your recurring use of the "ALL of Scripture" meme, reformed, is that by its use, you totally evade questions. I asked for your take on the John 5 text to which I referred in my previous post. What you gave was instead a two sentence, twenty word dismissal of my exegetical method that contains no response at all to the John 5 text. (Though I give you credit for including the words "John 5" in your reply.)
Among the many challenges to your dismissive approach to the John 5 text - aside from the aforementioned total evasion of it! - is that your approach seems not to acknowledge that John 5.45-47 is every bit as much a part of "ALL of Scripture" as is John 2.19, the single, solitary verse on which you depend for support for your assertion that Jesus predicted he would raise himself from the dead. If you're willing to ground your claim that Jesus raised himself on a single verse in John 2, why won't you at least discuss three verses in John 5? And if I'm guilty of "cherry picking" verses when I call attention to three verses in John 5, what are you guilty of when you isolate a single verse in John 2?
Another challenge to your dismissive approach toward John 5 has to do with your view of the whole of Scripture. If, as I assume is the case, you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible, then you must believe there is nothing in John 5.45-47 that contradicts with any other part of Scripture. So why NOT discuss it? In the passage, Jesus says Moses wrote about him. Well, in your view, where did Moses write about Jesus? Am I correct when I identify a passage from Deuteronomy? If not, what passage(s) do you identify as the subject of Jesus' claim? What do you think Jesus believes Moses said about him?
Those aren't hard questions. They are simple, even elementary, for Bible students as well-versed in Scripture as you. So why not answer them? My default answer to such a question is that people don't answer questions in discussion forums when truthful answers to those questions raise uncomfortable challenges to their points of view.
@reformed said:
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 have "shown" what you believe to be the "proper interpretation" of John 2.
If there are no contradictions in the Bible, then what we find in John 2 - that Jesus "was raised" from the dead - ought not contradict with anything in "the whole of Scripture." And it doesn't. For time and time again, NT writers tell us that Jesus "was raised" from the dead (passive voice: the object of the raising, not its cause). Therefore, it is your interpretation of the single, solitary verse John 2.19 that seems to be "wrong on the issue if you look at the whole of Scripture."
@reformed said:
You seem very concerned about direct quotes from people. That's not how you interpret Scripture.
I have no clue what this observation and assertion mean. When it comes to Jesus' word about raising the temple of his body in three days (John 2.19) you seemed quite "concerned about direct quotes from people." Please explain your point.
-
With regard to the John 5 passage, yes Moses was referring to a human, but again, Jesus was both God and man. God took on human flesh and dwelt among us. John 1.
-
@reformed wrote
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.
Actuallly, you have shown an interpretation of John 2:19 which contradicts all the other scripture references which declare that Jesus did not raise himself but was raised by someone else, that is, by GOD, Whom Jesus in many places declared to be his FATHER !!
Thus you contradict Jesus with your claim that Jesus is God and that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Also note, if your idea that Jesus was God were true and Jesus' statements that his Father in heaven was God, then your interpretation actually says that Jesus was his own Father .
-
There is not a single verse that says Jesus did not raise himself from the dead because Scripture explains Jesus is God. So no contradiction there.
-
@reformed wrote
There is not a single verse that says Jesus did not raise himself from the dead because Scripture explains Jesus is God. So no contradiction there.
All verses concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead make clear and plain statement that Jesus was raised by God, his Father.
Your manner of interpretation here is to take the one difficult verse and disregard all other clear verses concerning the same subject. You then use an equally false assumption to supposedly give an understanding of that one verse. And in doing so you actually make one supposed part of Jesus ( the "God" part) to have raised another part of Jesus (the "man" part) ...
And you mean to tell us that God (who of the three Gods was that? Father? Son? Holy Ghost? all together in a heavenly board meeting?) was that confused when He inspired the writers of the Scriptures to write what they wrote?
-
@reformed said:
With regard to the John 5 passage, yes Moses was referring to a human, but again, Jesus was both God and man. God took on human flesh and dwelt among us. John 1.
Thanks for a direct engagement with the Deuteronomy text, but I don't think you've addressed its fullness. In Deuteronomy 18, Moses quotes God directly. Deuteronomy 18.17-19, where God says...
- "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." (ESV)
The one God will raise up is a human being who will not speak his own words, but rather will speak the words God puts in his mouth. Now compare that to John 5.19...
- "19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (ESV)
Thematically, aren't the restrictions Jesus believes are on him akin to those God says will be on the prophet God raises up in Deuteronomy 18?
- In Dtr, the prophet will speak the words God provides. (Deuteronomy 18.15) In John, Jesus can do only what he sees God doing.
- The prophet can't speak on his own accord. Jesus can't act on his own accord.
- In Dtr, the prophet is one people should listen to; at the transfiguration, God identifies Jesus as the one to whom people should listen (Mark 9.7).
Aren't the connections between Jesus of John 5 and God's prophet of Deuteronomy 18 obvious?
But there's a final step in the analysis. In Deuteronomy 18, God's prophet is CLEARLY not God: he will not speak his own words; he will come from among the people; he will be like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18.18) In John 5, Jesus says what Moses reported about God's prophet was about him (Jesus). There is EVERY indication in John 5 that Jesus believes himself to be the prophet God promised in Deuteronomy 18 to raise up. There is NO indication in John 5 that Jesus believes himself to be BOTH God's promised prophet AND the God who raised up that prophet.
@reformed said:
There is not a single verse that says Jesus did not raise himself from the dead because Scripture explains Jesus is God. So no contradiction there.
There also is not a single verse that says Jesus was not a zebra. Does that mean you believe Jesus was a zebra? After all, if it can be true that Jesus "was raised" AND he raised himself - an outcome that linguistically is impossible - it surely must be possible for Jesus to be both human AND zebra - an outcome that biologically is impossible.
And the larger question: If Jesus raised himself, why does NO other NT writer or witness say that's what happened? Why is there one and only one verse that possibly be read to say Jesus raised himself, but there are many verses that directly say Jesus did NOT raise himself? (the phrase "he was raised" BY DEFINITION means he did not raise himself, so yes, those verses directly say Jesus did not raise himself)
-
It's not difficult at all. I simply take the whole of Scripture where you clearly do not. And I do not believe in three gods so I wish you would stop spreading that falsehood. And the Scriptures were exactly right as I have already shown. No confusion unless you deny Jesus' Deity.
-
1 John 5:7 states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
The fact God did not inspire the writers of Scripture to use the modern word "Trinity" does imply that it is not a biblical truth. However, there are many words and phrases that Christians use to express biblical doctrines that are not found in the Bible. One is the word "rapture." This word also is not found in Scripture, but the phrase “shall be caught up” (harpagēsometha) is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and means to “catch away” or in Latin “rapiēmur” meaning to be snatched away. In fact, the word "Bible" is also not found in the Scriptures. Would we dismiss the existence of the Bible because the word is not found in Scripture? The word “scripture” graphe is found fifty-three times in the Bible.
1 John 5:7 says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Some Bible critics have stated that this passage is not authentic because it is not found in some older manuscripts. This verse is found in mss, 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome mention it. However, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on one verse of Scripture, but is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. This verse accurately states the doctrine of the Trinity that God is One God in three Persons. This, too, makes the whole of Scripture. CM
-
@Wolfgang said
All verses concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead make clear and plain statement that Jesus was raised by God, his Father.
Contrary to your statement regarding "all verses" please check Jesus’ words recorded by John in his gospel at Jn. 10:17-18, specifically v. 18b.
-
@C_M_ said:
1 John 5:7 says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Some Bible critics have stated that this passage is not authentic because it is not found in some older manuscripts. This verse is found in mss, 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome mention it. However, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on one verse of Scripture, but is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. This verse accurately states the doctrine of the Trinity that God is One God in three Persons. This, too, makes the whole of Scripture.
For the record, the NLT note on this verse reads (emphasis added) "A few very late manuscripts add 'in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And we have three witnesses on earth.'" And the NIV note on the verse reads (emphasis added) "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate 'testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth: the' (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)"
So I think it's fair to say that critical skepticism about the presence in the verse of the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" is significant and worthy of serious consideration.
As for your claim that the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is found throughout the Old and New Testaments, I disagree strongly about the Old Testament. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6.5) establishes what I believe is meant to be an inviolable truth, one that in fact is not reversed in the OT.
As for the New Testament, again I disagree strongly. Over the years in the CD forums, Wolfgang and I have shown dozens, perhaps scores, of verses/passages whose most sensible - often, ONLY - meaning is that the speaker or writer believes Jesus is not God, that Jesus is a human being God called to his earthly ministry, then glorified into his heavenly ministry. In light of the many, many verses that conflict - often, directly contradict - with trinitarian thought, I don't think it's possible for the Trinity doctrine to be found "throughout the Old and New Testaments."
-
I am having a time adjusting to this new format. CM
Contrary to your statement regarding "all verses" please check Jesus’ words recorded by John in his gospel at Jn. 10:17-18, specifically v. 18b.
Pages,
This is the text I had in mind. Note especially, the Gk word the says, "I lay down my life "... and I have authority to take possession of it again" (Harris).
ἔχω ĕchō, ekh´-o (includ. an alt. form
σχέω sehĕō, skheh´-o; used in certain tenses only); a prim. verb; to hold (used in very various applications, lit. or fig., direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):—be (able, × hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can (+ -not), × conceive, count, diseased, do, + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, return, × sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.
Please note: 2983. λαμβάνω lambanō, lam-ban´-o; a prol. form of a prim. verb, which is used only as an alt. in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, lit. and fig. [prop. obj. or act., to get hold of; whereas 1209 is rather subj. or pass., to have offered to one; while 138 is more violent, to seize or remove]):—accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, × when I call, catch, come on (× unto), + forget, have, hold, obtain, receive (× after), take (away, up).
138. αἱρέομαι hairĕŏmai, hahee-reh´-om-ahee; prob. akin to 142; to take for oneself, i.e. to prefer:—choose. Some of the forms are borrowed from a cognate ἕλλομαι hellŏmai, hel´-lom-ahee; which is otherwise obsolete.
So, you see, Jesus voluntarily lay down his life and took it up again. Is not this is what the Bible says about Jesus and resurrection, Wolfgang? CM
SOURCES:
-- Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Jn 10:18). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
-- Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, pp. 34, 44, 8). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
prol. prolongation, prolonged
prim. primary
alt. alternate, alternately
lit. literal, literally
fig. figurative, figuratively
obj. objective, objectively
act. active, actively
subj. subjective, subjectively
pass. passive, passively
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
