Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Not at all ... you have not SHOWN anything like it, only made such interpretative false claims.
John 1 speaks about WORD in the beginning (NOT about Jesus in the beginning). This WORD was God. it was God's Word, God's plan ... and not any man's word or plan (cp also 1Pe 1:20) ... in the beginning Christ was in God's foreknowledge, in God's mind in the form of word. Later, when the time was fulfilled, this Messiah, "the seed of the woman" (cp Gen 3:15), a human being was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) and thus what had been WORD until that time "BECAME flesh" (cp John 1:14).John 1 makes very clear Jesus is the Word in that chapter.
I see that you have no real answer and it appears as if you just repeat a big fat claim thrown into the picture by many Trinity proponents.
You may think that such is an answer or comment on the scriptures pointed out to you in reference to a simple, rather straight forward understanding of what John 1 actually says ... when in reality you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you.It was NOT Jesus who became flesh, it was NOT God who became or took on flesh.
John said otherwise.
See above ... which version or translation of John 1 are you reading?
Just recently, in the neighborhood here "the word" (idea, plan) in the foreknowledge and mind of an architect "became stone and wood" when a building was built and the house was erected. Did the house as a building already exist in the beginning of the process? No! What existed in the beginning? Word, idea, plan in the mind of the architect and then in drawings and word on the paper plans ... and only with the actual building process did that word, idea, plan become the reality of stone and wood.
Nowhere does it say the Word is merely an idea.
Nobody was talking of "merely an idea" ...
However, what do you think the regular normal definition of the term "WORD" is? "WORD" is an expressed THOUGHT ... held and processed in the mind, the means of how a plan and idea is formulated and communicated, etc ....
I suggest you do a simple search to find other occurrences of the Greek word "logos" and its English translation "word" ... it just might enlighten your understanding of the term.The truth in John 1 is very simple ... unfortunately, the truth of John 1 has been replaced for many centuries by complicate illogical unreasonable "christology theology" by which its proponents achieved their goal of misleading believers into believing their "Trinity Godhead" instead of believing in the only true God (the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, YHWH) and His Messiah, Whom this God has sent as His Son (cp John 17:3)
Is this too simple for you ? If so, why ?It's not too simple, it is wrong.
Hmn ... I see once again your manner of answering questions and engaging with Biblical facts that have been presented to you.
-
A study of the passages below will show how the early church applied Scripture. One would readily see that many key Old Testament passages were used in the early sermons in Acts. Among others, the following are included:
- Joel 2:28-32 (see Acts 2:17-21).
- Psalm 16:8-11 (see Acts 2:25-28).
- Deuteronomy 18:15, 19 (see Acts 3:22, 23).
- Psalm 2:1, 2 (see Acts 4:25, 26). (Forthcoming post)
Consider the names/titles used for Jesus in the book of Acts:
Ac. 1:1— Jesus
Ac. 1:6— Lord
Ac. 1:21— Lord Jesus
Ac. 2:22— Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God Ac. 2:27.
Ac. 3:14— Holy One
Ac. 2:30— Christ
Ac. 2:36— Jesus, both Lord and Christ Ac. 2:38—Jesus Christ
Ac. 3:6— Jesus Christ of Nazareth Ac. 3:13—Son Jesus
Ac. 3:15— Prince of lifeI wonder how my nontrinitarian friends think how the early church regarded the nature of Jesus?
This composite Background to Acts 10, hopefully, will prove to be helpful to the discussion. "A text with a context is a pretext."
Peter, itinerant ministry throughout Judea and the surrounding regions in Acts, tells of two brief miraculous stories, the healing of Aeneas and the resurrection of Tabitha (Dorcas), which are then followed by the story of Cornelius in chapter 10. The conversion of Gentiles was the most controversial issue in the apostolic church. The truth was made clear that the blessings of the gospel were not restricted to Jews. There is a universality of the gospel message. It's wrong for Christians to harbor prejudice against any group based on ethnicity (See especially, Titus 2:11, Galatians 3:26–28, and Ephesians 2:11–19).
In Joppa, Peter stayed with a certain Simon, a tanner by trade (Acts 9:43). Meanwhile, in Caesarea, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Joppa, there lived a Roman centurion named Cornelius (the third Gentile convert to be identified in the Book of Acts-- Ethiopian eunuch (Ac. 8.27); Nicolaus, the proselyte Ac. 6.5). Cornelius and his household were devout worshipers of God, though they had not yet formally adhered to Judaism, meaning that Cornelius was still an uncircumcised Gentile. In a God-given vision, he was instructed to send messengers to Joppa and invite Peter to visit him (Acts 10:1–8).
Peter was hungry, fell asleep and had a vision of eating, but not about food. God used the vision, to teach Peter about the inclusive character of the gospel and not to remove the distinction between clean and unclean animals as do many people mistakenly purports. The vision was explicitly intended to break Peter’s resistance against Gentiles.
Peter’s view was that if he entered Cornelius’s house and fellowship with him, he would defile himself and so become unfit to worship in the temple or to come before God’s presence. First-century Jews from Judea and the surrounding areas did not associate with uncircumcised Gentiles. In short,
the story tells us how God broke down the walls of partition between Jew and Gentile so that one united body of Christ could emerge. Divisive factors—Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, white or black, rich or poor—have no place in the communion of the crucified and risen Savior.
Peter’s very first words in Cornelius’s home were oneness in the gospel: God shows no partiality between Jew and Gentile, and Jesus Christ is Lord of all (Acts 10:34–36). Where oneness and unity become an essential insistence of the gospel, it is the most affirmative signal that the Holy Spirit is in action. And so it was, even before Peter could finish his preaching, “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” -- Gentiles, Cornelius, his household, and friends (Acts 10.24, 44, 45 NKJV)).
The passage of Acts 10:34-42, show unity and yet, diversity in The Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and among his church believers. Oneness in differences. Here you will see the contrast between the relationship to mankind of the Lord, as "the Son of God", and as "the Son of man" in John 5:25-27. Compare Acts 10:40-42; 17:31. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Not at all ... you have not SHOWN anything like it, only made such interpretative false claims.
John 1 speaks about WORD in the beginning (NOT about Jesus in the beginning). This WORD was God. it was God's Word, God's plan ... and not any man's word or plan (cp also 1Pe 1:20) ... in the beginning Christ was in God's foreknowledge, in God's mind in the form of word. Later, when the time was fulfilled, this Messiah, "the seed of the woman" (cp Gen 3:15), a human being was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) and thus what had been WORD until that time "BECAME flesh" (cp John 1:14).John 1 makes very clear Jesus is the Word in that chapter.
I see that you have no real answer and it appears as if you just repeat a big fat claim thrown into the picture by many Trinity proponents.
Prove otherwise. The plain reading shows Jesus is the Word.
You may think that such is an answer or comment on the scriptures pointed out to you in reference to a simple, rather straight forward understanding of what John 1 actually says ... when in reality you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you.
It was NOT Jesus who became flesh, it was NOT God who became or took on flesh.
John said otherwise.
See above ... which version or translation of John 1 are you reading?
Any translation.
Just recently, in the neighborhood here "the word" (idea, plan) in the foreknowledge and mind of an architect "became stone and wood" when a building was built and the house was erected. Did the house as a building already exist in the beginning of the process? No! What existed in the beginning? Word, idea, plan in the mind of the architect and then in drawings and word on the paper plans ... and only with the actual building process did that word, idea, plan become the reality of stone and wood.
Nowhere does it say the Word is merely an idea.
Nobody was talking of "merely an idea" ...
You have said repeatedly, including the post I quoted, (idea, plan).
However, what do you think the regular normal definition of the term "WORD" is? "WORD" is an expressed THOUGHT ... held and processed in the mind, the means of how a plan and idea is formulated and communicated, etc ....
I suggest you do a simple search to find other occurrences of the Greek word "logos" and its English translation "word" ... it just might enlighten your understanding of the term.Yes, but you also have to look at context. Here, the term is being used as a name/title.
The truth in John 1 is very simple ... unfortunately, the truth of John 1 has been replaced for many centuries by complicate illogical unreasonable "christology theology" by which its proponents achieved their goal of misleading believers into believing their "Trinity Godhead" instead of believing in the only true God (the Creator, the Almighty, the Father, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, YHWH) and His Messiah, Whom this God has sent as His Son (cp John 17:3)
Is this too simple for you ? If so, why ?It's not too simple, it is wrong.
Hmn ... I see once again your manner of answering questions and engaging with Biblical facts that have been presented to you.
I've already engaged all of your bogus claims that have no substance in truth or reality.
-
@reformed said:
We have shown you repeatedly John 1 says Jesus is God.I think it's fair to say you have claimed repeatedly that John 1 says Jesus is God, just as Wolfgang and I have claimed repeatedly that John 1 does not say Jesus is God. To accompany our claims, each of us, I'm sure, has offered the supporting evidence we believed necessary.
What you have NOT shown, however, is why to four consecutive audiences in the book of Acts Peter describes Jesus in clearly non-deity terms. As I posed the issue in my previous post....
You've argued previously that Peter chose not to mention Jesus' deity for fear of turning off his audience (though there is no textual support for your contention). I've just shown that Peter presented the same "no deity" characterization of Jesus to three consecutive subsequent audiences. When did Peter ever overcome his fear of turning off his audience? When he tells four consecutive audiences that Jesus is a person/servant - not a deity - God raised, don't we almost have to acknowledge that Peter actually believed Jesus was a person/servant - not a deity - God raised?
I look forward to your exegesis of the four passages in Acts, and to your direct responses to my questions.
-
@C_M_ said:
A study of the passages below will show how the early church applied Scripture. One
Consider the names/titles used for Jesus in the book of Acts:
Ac. 1:1— Jesus
Ac. 1:6— Lord
Ac. 1:21— Lord Jesus
Ac. 2:22— Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God Ac. 2:27.
Ac. 3:14— Holy One
Ac. 2:30— Christ
Ac. 2:36— Jesus, both Lord and Christ Ac. 2:38—Jesus Christ
Ac. 3:6— Jesus Christ of Nazareth Ac. 3:13—Son Jesus
Ac. 3:15— Prince of lifeI wonder how my nontrinitarian friends think how the early church regarded the nature of Jesus?
Well, the only reference to "the nature" of Jesus in the above list of how the early church regarded Jesus is found in Acts 2:22,27 ... "the MAN". The early church believed Jesus to be a human being, who was the only begotten Son of God, who had been promised to come and be the Messiah.
In addition, I would think that the expression "of Nazareth" rather clearly indicates that Jesus was regarded to be a human being, a man, who was "from Nazareth". Does anyone think that the expression "of Nazareth" would be used in reference to God being from Nazareth ???...
...
The passage of Acts 10:34-42, show unity and yet, diversity in The Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and among his church believers.Where does Acts 10:34-42 speak of a Trinity Godhead ??? Yes, in v. 34 "God" is mentioned, in v. 36 "Jesus Christ" is mentioned, etc. .. BUT nowhere in the whole passage is there any mention or talk about a "Trinity Godhead".
In V. 38 we read that "God" anointed "Jesus of Nazareth" with "the holy spirit and power". Does anyone want to fabricate something like one person of the Godhead anointed the 2nd person of the Godhead with the 3rd person of the Godhead ?????
Also, in none of these verses 34-42 did I read something about "the Father" or "the Son"?? Could someone please point out where the Father in the Godhead is even mentioned in these verses?I am expecting direct answers to my direct questions ... if you have none, then admit that you have none and acknowledge that your claims about Trinity Godhead in Acts 10:34-42 have been shown to be false
-
@reformed
I've already engaged all of your bogus claims that have no substance in truth or reality.I have switched from smiling at your comments to straight forward laughing ... because I decided to take your replies as a joke rather than something far more serious.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
We have shown you repeatedly John 1 says Jesus is God.I think it's fair to say you have claimed repeatedly that John 1 says Jesus is God, just as Wolfgang and I have claimed repeatedly that John 1 does not say Jesus is God. To accompany our claims, each of us, I'm sure, has offered the supporting evidence we believed necessary.
What you have NOT shown, however, is why to four consecutive audiences in the book of Acts Peter describes Jesus in clearly non-deity terms. As I posed the issue in my previous post....
You've argued previously that Peter chose not to mention Jesus' deity for fear of turning off his audience (though there is no textual support for your contention). I've just shown that Peter presented the same "no deity" characterization of Jesus to three consecutive subsequent audiences. When did Peter ever overcome his fear of turning off his audience? When he tells four consecutive audiences that Jesus is a person/servant - not a deity - God raised, don't we almost have to acknowledge that Peter actually believed Jesus was a person/servant - not a deity - God raised?
I look forward to your exegesis of the four passages in Acts, and to your direct responses to my questions.
I've already explained this to you. Consider the audience.
-
I look forward to your exegesis of the four passages in Acts, and to your direct responses to my questions.
@reformed said:
I've already explained this to you. Consider the audience.I asked you to respond to my question directly and without evasion. Unfortunately, you chose to respond with evasion. For you have NOT "already explained" the fact that to four consecutive audiences in the book of Acts Peter characterizes Jesus as a person who was NOT God.
You ask me to "consider the audience." Which one?! The first? The second? The third? The fourth? To how many consecutive audiences does Peter have to characterize Jesus as a person, not God, before you will conclude that Peter must believe Jesus is a person, not God?
And please cite for me the NT passage(s) in which Peter...
- ...declares ANY intention/need to correct or recast the characterization of Jesus he presents to the four consecutive audiences in Acts
- ...no longer protects his audience out of what you have called his concern that they might "immediately (turn) off" to his preaching if he tells them Jesus is God
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I look forward to your exegesis of the four passages in Acts, and to your direct responses to my questions.
@reformed said:
I've already explained this to you. Consider the audience.I asked you to respond to my question directly and without evasion. Unfortunately, you chose to respond with evasion. For you have NOT "already explained" the fact that to four consecutive audiences in the book of Acts Peter characterizes Jesus as a person who was NOT God.
You ask me to "consider the audience." Which one?! The first? The second? The third? The fourth? To how many consecutive audiences does Peter have to characterize Jesus as a person, not God, before you will conclude that Peter must believe Jesus is a person, not God?
And please cite for me the NT passage(s) in which Peter...
- ...declares ANY intention/need to correct or recast the characterization of Jesus he presents to the four consecutive audiences in Acts
- ...no longer protects his audience out of what you have called his concern that they might "immediately (turn) off" to his preaching if he tells them Jesus is God
Bill, you have to take the whole Bible, not just parts. If you refuse to do that we have nothing further to discuss.
-
@reformed said:
Bill, you have to take the whole Bible, not just parts. If you refuse to do that we have nothing further to discuss.
Yet again you evade a question, reformed, this time by raising an issue I have dealt with explicitly in other posts.
What "the whole Bible" says about Jesus is NOT IN ANY WAY GERMANE to what Peter's audiences understood about Jesus as a result of what he told them in his sermons. Why is "the whole Bible" not germane? Because as they decided how to interpret Peter's messages and drew conclusions about who Jesus was, there was NO "whole Bible" for them to take! They had to decide about the relationship between God and Jesus on the basis of what Peter, an apostle, told them. They couldn't pull up John 1 on their Logos installations to analyze that Gospel's prologue because the Gospel of John wasn't available to them, and wouldn't be for decades.
You tell me that I "have to take the whole Bible," not just its parts. What were Peter's audiences supposed to take? I contend they had Peter's sermons, and the message Peter gave in those sermons was that Jesus was a person - not a deity - whom people had killed, but God had raised. The fact that you don't dispute my summary of Peter's sermons, though you've had several opportunities to do so, is in my view your silent acknowledgement that I'm right: In the book of Acts, on four consecutive occasions Peter told an audience that Jesus was a person - not a God - whom they had killed, but God had raised. THE PEOPLE OF PETER'S AUDIENCES left the room having no reason to believe anything else because Peter had chosen to give them no reason to believe anything else.
In other posts, you've claimed Peter did that because he didn't want his audiences to "immediately (turn) off." In your latest post, however, you abandon even that explanation, replacing it with a word about "the whole Bible" that is completely irrelevant to Peter's audiences.
SO....
- Did Peter's audiences leave his sermons with an accurate picture of Jesus' relationship with God? I say yes, but given your view of the deity of Jesus, I don't know how you can say anything other than no.
- Did Peter lie to his audiences on the question of whether Jesus was God? I don't think so.
- Did he intentionally leave Jesus' deity out of his sermons for fear of his audiences' reaction? In my view, the fact that he willingly told them they had killed their Messiah shows that Peter didn't fear crowd reactions. The fact that he gave the same basic message about Jesus to four consecutive audiences in the book of Acts shows that he had one message about Jesus - not a different one for each audience he addressed.
- Will you now directly and without evasion answer the questions I've asked about Peter's message to his audiences in Acts? I doubt it, but am eager to be proven wrong.
-
Bill, your understanding makes sense in the isolation with which you interpret it.
Sort of like chemistry, you can take a molecule of CH3 or O and you can make it anything you want, even connect it to 1000's of attachment points to invent all kinds of new things. That practice applied to Biblical text makes absurd hermeneutics as is often demonstrated. Yet you just insist. Doesn't inspire much confidence.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill, your understanding makes sense in the isolation with which you interpret it....That practice applied to Biblical text makes absurd hermeneutics as is often demonstrated. Yet you just insist. Doesn't inspire much confidence.
Whether my practice inspires much confidence is not relevant to the questions I've asked about Peter's message concerning Jesus' relationship to God as offered during four consecutive presentations in the book of Acts, questions you evade completely with your mini chemistry lesson.
Rather than merely asserting that my practice "makes absurd hermeneutics" when "applied to Biblical text," why don't you prove your claim by providing - directly and without evasion - your exegesis on the messages Peter's audiences took from his sermons in the following four passages. I know you highly value the whole of Scripture, but Peter's audiences did not have the whole of Scripture to refer to as they considered the meaning of his words. So show us your exegetical method and the conclusions it reaches concerning the message about Jesus and God that Peter gave to his audiences in each of the following passages, as well as the four passages taken as a whole:
Acts 2.14-36
Acts 3.11-26
Acts 4.1-12
Acts 10.34-43 -
@GaoLu said:
Bill, your understanding makes sense in the isolation with which you interpret it."Sorry, Charlie" ... it seems rather clear that it is not Bill or I who are isolating texts or interpret texts in isolation; rather the opposite is true.
We have pointed out passages and whole lists of scripture passages regarding the topic at hand, which give an overall scope of what Scripture teaches about the topic ... you and other "Holy Trinity dogma" inspired forum participants basically disregard the scriptures presented which show the fallacy of your position and evade answering detailed questions which we asked about the points you and others raised in your posts.
Sort of like chemistry, you can take a molecule of CH3 or O and you can make it anything you want, even connect it to 1000's of attachment points to invent all kinds of new things. That practice applied to Biblical text makes absurd hermeneutics as is often demonstrated. Yet you just insist. Doesn't inspire much confidence.
The ones who insist by simple repeating over and over again without providing any detailed evidence for their position are you and your Trinity comrades.
Even with this post to which I am replying, you are only evading engaging the texts which Bill provided and asked that others comment in detail to the points he raised and questions he asked ... Actually, your reply here seems to indicate at least that you realize that Bill's understanding is the one that "makes sense", but you then are not really willing to really admit it by trying to overrule this realization in your own mind and in the view of others by quickly adding the incorrect false accusation of "in the isolation with which you interpret it."
See, neither Bill or I want the type of generalization comment, evading comment, unrelated statements, etc to questions we ask or points we make with scriptures ... we expect that others at least have the courtesy of answering in detail and engaging texts in detail just as we do with your and others' posts when they ask a question of us or provide an interpretation of a verse or passage of scripture. Is this asking too much of participants in a DISCUSSION forum?
-
Repeating the same article 4x makes no difference ... 1 x would have been plenty.
The Greek simply says "... the appearing of the glory of our great God, even our savior Jesus Christ."
Have a look at the many places in English translations where the Greek word "kai" in similar expressions is translated not as an "and" but as "even"In addition: Make sure not to take just one isolated text into your considerations
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Whether my practice inspires much confidence is not relevant to the questions I've asked about Peter's message concerning Jesus' relationship to God as offered during four consecutive presentations in the book of Acts, questions you evade completely with your mini chemistry lesson.
Wrong. It does matter. Falsehood is a poor basis for truth. Your practice is to take a seed of truth, isolate it, twist it and shine colored light on it and then demand others discuss it in such isolation.
That is deceit.
-
@Wolfgang said:
We have pointed out passages and whole lists of scripture passages regarding the topic at hand, which give an overall scope of what Scripture teaches about the topic ... you and other "Holy Trinity dogma" inspired forum participants basically disregard the scriptures presented which show the fallacy of your position and evade answering detailed questions which we asked about the points you and others raised in your posts.
We are not evading, but there is no substance to which we can respond.
If I take a trunk off of an elephant and call it a garden hose and insist it is, would you bother to respond to my arguments that it has a hole and is wet inside? Dude, just leave the trunk on the elephant and look at the magnificent creature! Same sort of deal with your passages--which are all fine, by the way.
The ones who insist by simple repeating over and over again without providing any detailed evidence for their position are you and your Trinity comrades.
Yeah, I have to agree. Please also consider that you are doing much the same with your arguments--with perhaps a bit more elegance.
Even with this post to which I am replying, you are only evading engaging the texts which Bill provided and asked that others comment in detail to the points he raised and questions he asked ... Actually, your reply here seems to indicate at least that you realize that Bill's understanding is the one that "makes sense", but you then are not really willing to really admit it by trying to overrule this realization in your own mind and in the view of others by quickly adding the incorrect false accusation of "in the isolation with which you interpret it."
I sense your sincerity here yet appeal to the elephant note above.
See, neither Bill or I want the type of generalization comment, evading comment, unrelated statements, etc to questions we ask or points we make with scriptures ... we expect that others at least have the courtesy of answering in detail and engaging texts in detail just as we do with your and others' posts when they ask a question of us or provide an interpretation of a verse or passage of scripture. Is this asking too much of participants in a DISCUSSION forum?
See the elephant note above. I am not dissing you, but we have covered this ground at length and don't see the point in repeating answers over and over. We need to get the foundation stones right and then we can build. I can't build on what I see as a broken foundation.
-
@Gao_Lu ... you can indeed keep your elephant all day along and everywhere you go.
What you refuse to realize is that Bill and I have replied and pointed out with further context and overall scope details WHY an elephant trunk is not a water hose ... YOU and your Trinity comrades however seem to be the ones insisting on your elephant trunk to be a water hose
-
@GaoLu said:
Wrong. It does matter. Falsehood is a poor basis for truth. Your practice is to take a seed of truth, isolate it, twist it and shine colored light on it and then demand others discuss it in such isolation.
That is deceit.
And your post is evasion.
The issue is and always has been the texts, Gao Lu. What do the texts in Acts report as Peter's message to his audiences about Jesus' relationship with God? My interpretive practices produce my answer to that question, of course - and I have been quite clear about my approach and its results. But my practices can't answer for you. Only YOU can tell us the results of YOUR interpretive practices.
It was YOUR interpretation of the Acts texts that I sought in my previous post to you. Your criticism of what you consider to be the deceitful use of falsehood in MY interpretation of the texts communicates your evaluation of MY approach, but it says NOTHING about how YOU understand the texts themselves.
So I ask you yet again: Please provide - directly and without evasion - YOUR exegesis on the messages Peter's audiences took from his sermons in the following four passages. I know you highly value the whole of Scripture, but Peter's audiences did not have the whole of Scripture to refer to as they considered the meaning of his words. So show us YOUR exegetical method and the conclusions it reaches concerning the message about Jesus and God that Peter gave to his audiences in each of the following passages, as well as the four passages taken as a whole:
Acts 2.14-36
Acts 3.11-26
Acts 4.1-12
Acts 10.34-43I'm NOT asking you to describe what in response to Wolfgang you called the whole "magnificent creature," by which I think you refer to the message of the whole of Scripture about Jesus and God. I'm asking you specifically, exclusively, and ONLY about the message Peter's audiences took from his presentations when the "magnificent creature" of the New Testament had yet to be written, let alone accepted and canonized. What do YOU believe Acts reports as Peter's message to people about Jesus and God?
-
Evasion is what @Bill_Coley and @Wolfgang claim. The problem is that they are the ones evading topics. They evade John 1 and other passages that clearly show Jesus is God. Even his name, Emmanuel, means GOD WITH US.
-
@reformed said:
Evasion is what @Bill_Coley and @Wolfgang claim. The problem is that they are the ones evading topics. They evade John 1 and other passages that clearly show Jesus is God. Even his name, Emmanuel, means GOD WITH US.Your above "They evade John 1 ..." makes YOU a bold high degree LIAR and FALSE ACCUSER!
I can't even count how many times and in how many posts I have IN DETAIL discussed and presented and quoted what the text in John 1 says.You indeed are not worth another second of my time ...
Mt 7:6 (AV)
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Evasion is what @Bill_Coley and @Wolfgang claim. The problem is that they are the ones evading topics. They evade John 1 and other passages that clearly show Jesus is God. Even his name, Emmanuel, means GOD WITH US.Your above "They evade John 1 ..." makes YOU a bold high degree LIAR and FALSE ACCUSER!
I can't even count how many times and in how many posts I have IN DETAIL discussed and presented and quoted what the text in John 1 says.You indeed are not worth another second of my time ...
Mt 7:6 (AV)
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.You evade the fact that it says the Word is God. That can't be an idea. An idea cannot be God. Therefore it must be a person. It then later in the chapter tells us who that person is, Jesus Christ.
So now I am a dog and swine? I've seen people complain about name-calling here, is there a double standard?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Repeating the same article 4x makes no difference ... 1 x would have been plenty.Absolutely agreed !!!!!
This, somewhat older, post is from page 22 of this discussion.
My apologies, as there is no reason I would purposely and repeatedly post.
Is there anyway to delete these 4 unnecessary posts? The original post is sufficient.
I'm baffled by this. I hope this is a one time occurrence.
-
Let me add to the collection of Scripture we already have on the question.
Isaiah 43:11 "I myself am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides me!"
And we already had the following one, albeit in a different context.
2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith equal in value to ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
-
@Jan said:
Let me add to the collection of Scripture we already have on the question.
Isaiah 43:11 "I myself am Yahweh, and there is no savior besides me!"Exactly ... only YHWH, the Father of Messiah Jesus, is THE SAVIOR ... there are no other saviors / gods that can save. YHWH gave his only begotten Son, Messiah Jesus, so that all who trust in Jesus' completed work of redemption and salvation will be saved and receive eternal life.
So then, is there a problem with this truth?And we already had the following one, albeit in a different context.
2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith equal in value to ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
Here, Messiah (Christ) Jesus is described as "Savior" ... pointing out the truth that it was Messiah Jesus who was sent as savior and redeemer from the only God to accomplish the needed work of redemption and salvation so that the righteousness of God could be imparted to those who believe in Messiah Jesus.
That the man Jesus who perfectly obeyed God even unto death in giving his life a ransom for many is called "savior" does NOT mean that he is YHWH/God .... no more than the fact that David is called "king" and YHWH is called "King" makes David to be God. God is the Savior, the only Savior, in that He authored the plan of salvation and provided the sacrifical lamb (the man Jesus) so that His salvation could be realized. The man Jesus is called "savior" in NT scriptures because he - as the lamb of God, the second Adam - by his own free choice in obedience to God, YHWH, his Father completed/fulfilled this salvation.
-
Please note-- The Centrality of Jesus Christ
As Peter begins his second epistle, he continues his emphasis on the centrality of Jesus Christ that we saw in his first epistle. In the first 15 verses, there are six explicit references to Jesus Christ, usually either as Lord or as God, plus many other references to Him through the use of personal pronouns:
- In verse 1, through a Greek grammatical construction, Jesus is called both our God and Savior.
- In verses 2, 8, 11, and 14, Jesus is designated as our Lord.
- In all but verse 2, He is called Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah.
- In verse 11, He is our Lord and Savior.
Clearly, Peter has a very high Christology and wants to communicate this interpretation to his readers. He is proud to bear the name that Jesus gave him, Simon Peter (“the rock”) and to be a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1).
2 Pe 1:1 --- "To those" -- This is from 1 Pe 3:1, these are the same people who received 1 Peter, who have obtained like precious faith with us. As an apostle and eyewitness of Jesus’ majesty (1:16), Peter’s faith was just as precious before God as that of the readers who had not seen Jesus (John 20:29). Faith is something believers “obtain” from God who is righteous—that is, fair and impartial. When it comes to salvation, all of us have the same opportunity and standing before God.
To make clear, Peter's letter is addressed to those who “have obtained like precious faith with us” (2 Pet. 1:1, KJV); or “a faith of equal standing with ours” (RSV). The word translated as “precious” means “of equal value” or “of equal privilege.” He says that they have “obtained” this precious faith; not that they earned it or deserved it but that they have received it, a gift from God. Or, as Paul has written: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8, NKJV). It’s precious because “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6). It’s precious because by this faith we lay hold of many wonderful promises. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
2 Peter 1:1 "Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith equal in value to ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
That the man Jesus who perfectly obeyed God even unto death in giving his life a ransom for many is called "savior" does NOT mean that he is YHWH/God .... no more than the fact that David is called "king" and YHWH is called "King" makes David to be God.
Can you point me to any place in Scripture where it says that God is the only King, or that there is no King besides God, or something similar?
I don't think this passage exists, and therefore there is no contradiction between David being king, and God being King.
God is the Savior, the only Savior, in that He authored the plan of salvation and provided the sacrifical lamb (the man Jesus) so that His salvation could be realized. The man Jesus is called "savior" in NT scriptures because he - as the lamb of God, the second Adam - by his own free choice in obedience to God, YHWH, his Father completed/fulfilled this salvation.
Exactly.
God is the author of salvation. Christ is also the author of salvation.Hebrews 5:9 (KJV) "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."
Therefore Christ = God.
-
I understand how 2 Peter 1.1 CAN be read to support a Trinitarian Christology. As I have noted several times in my CD posts over the years, I freely acknowledge the existence of a small collection of such verses in the New Testament. In my view, however, the challenge with reading 2 Peter 1.1 as evidence of a Trinity is ALL THE OTHER VERSES/PASSAGES attributed to or about Peter of which the most reasonable interpretation is opposition to a Trinitarian view. (emphasis added)
1 Peter 1.3: "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Pe 1:3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Peter says God is not only the "Father" of Jesus Christ, God is also "the God" of Jesus Christ. One who is God (Jesus) can have a God?
1 Peter 1.20-21: "20 He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Pe 1:20–21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
God (Christ) foreknew God "before the foundation of the earth"?
Christ was made manifest for the sake of those who believe in the God who...
- raised Jesus from the dead
- gave Jesus glory
The distinction between God and the Christ God foreknew, between God and the Christ God raised from the dead, between God and the Christ to whom God gave glory, is in clear relief in this passage.
1 Peter 3.21-22: "21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Pe 3:21–22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Baptism appeals to God through the resurrection of Jesus, who has gone (NOT returned) to heaven, to a place at God's right hand. In his place of glory at God's right hand, angels et al "have been subjected to him." Did Jesus subject the angels et al to himself? That's not the meaning of Peter's word choice. In my view, Peter clearly means that God subjected them to Jesus.
2 Peter 4.11: "...whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Pe 4:11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Another distinction, this one between God and the Jesus Christ through whom Peter wants God to be glorified.
2 Peter 1.16-18: "16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Pe 1:16–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
A distinction between God and the Son who received honor and glory from God, between God and God's Son, with whom God is pleased.
And finally, there are the four presentations about Jesus which Peter makes in Acts, consecutive audiences to whom Peter clearly describes Jesus as a person, not a deity, whom the Jews had killed but God had raised from the dead:
Acts 2.14-36
Acts 3.11-26
Acts 4.1-12
Acts 10.34-43To my awareness, no Trinity advocate in these forums has yet to explain how Peter's audiences in those four presentations could have left the room thinking anything other than that Peter did not believe Jesus was God.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
And finally, there are the four presentations about Jesus which Peter makes in Acts, consecutive audiences to whom Peter clearly describes Jesus as a person, not a deity, whom the Jews had killed but God had raised from the dead:
Acts 2.14-36
Acts 3.11-26
Acts 4.1-12
Acts 10.34-43To my awareness, no Trinity advocate in these forums has yet to explain how Peter's audiences in those four presentations could have left the room thinking anything other than that Peter did not believe Jesus was God.
Were the Jews expecting God and not a man in their Messiah?
"... the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up." https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2911/were-the-jews-expecting-god-incarnate
So it makes sense that Peter needed to sell the Messiah to the Jews as a lowly man whose divinity was not apparent. But in comparing these passages with those that reveal Christ's divinity, the whole picture of who Christ is develops.
-
@Jan said: Exactly.
God is the author of salvation. Christ is also the author of salvation.Hebrews 5:9 (KJV) "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."
Therefore Christ = God.
Heb. 5:9 -- having been perfected. Jesus’ death on the cross “perfected” Him to be our High Priest in the sense that it fully equipped Him for this task. He was made perfect and complete through suffering.
“Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered,” (Hebrews 5:8) Although Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was eligible to enjoy the fullness of riches, glory, and peace, He sacrificed Himself as sin offering. Jewish high priests killed animals, brought the blood, and sprinkled it on the altar. They neither sacrificed themselves nor were hurt in any way for the offering. However, Jesus Christ as the High Priest completely sacrificed Himself and greatly suffered on the cross, which exemplified His obedience. Jesus Christ as the High Priest did not only theoretically sympathize with the human suffering of death but really felt the pain by becoming a human being and dying on the cross.
He is fundamentally different with Jewish high priests regarding that point. In other words, they neither knew the suffering of human beings nor realized the obedience God received because they had not experienced death themselves.
- “And, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:9- 10).
Jewish high priests were only human beings. Even though people believed them and submitted to them, they could not receive eternal salvation. But Jesus Christ is only the source of eternal salvation for all who believe in and obey Him. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
And finally, there are the four presentations about Jesus which Peter makes in Acts, consecutive audiences to whom Peter clearly describes Jesus as a person, not a deity, whom the Jews had killed but God had raised from the dead:Acts 2.14-36
Acts 3.11-26
Acts 4.1-12
Acts 10.34-43@Dave_L said:
Were the Jews expecting God and not a man in their Messiah?"... the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up." https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2911/were-the-jews-expecting-god-incarnate
So it makes sense that Peter needed to sell the Messiah to the Jews as a lowly man whose divinity was not apparent. But in comparing these passages with those that reveal Christ's divinity, the whole picture of who Christ is develops.
How can it be argued that Peter sold his audiences Jesus as "a lowly man whose divinity was not apparent," when to those audiences Peter made no mention of Jesus' divinity whatsoever? Where in ANY of his four presentations found in Acts does Peter give people even a hint or suggestion that Jesus was God as well as human?
The problem with your argument, Dave, is that to his audiences in Acts, he sold Jesus as a man and nothing more. Your suggestion that we compare the Acts passages with "those that reveal Christ's divinity" fails to address the central question I've asked repeatedly about Peter's presentations in Acts: What message about Jesus did Peter's audiences take from Peter's presentations?
Your latest post seems to acknowledge the message they took was that Jesus was a man whom they had killed, but God had raised. If Peter believed Jesus was God - which sure sounds like an important claim - why would he fail to give even a hint of that divinity in those four presentations? Why would he permit four consecutive audiences to walk away thinking Jesus was not God?. . . unless he genuinely didn't believe Jesus was God?
And finally, remember that Peter's audiences in those Acts presentations had little or no access to what you call the passages "that reveal Christ's divinity" - John's Gospel, for example. So Peter gave them no hint of Jesus' divinity, and there was no written record from which those audiences could have obtained what you call "the whole picture of who Christ is." In my view, it's clear that from Peter's words, his audiences (correctly) concluded Jesus was not God.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
