Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Jan said:
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.So God is the lamb of God? God is the man whom God sent? God obeyed (which) God even unto death? God died? {plus numerous other illogical and unreasonable items which your equation produces}
The simple truth is that God, YHWH, Jesus' Father is the author of salvation in a different manner or in regard to a different aspect from that in which Jesus is "the author of salvation" as stated in Heb 5:9 !
Did you recognize that Heb 5:9 and its context speaks of "Jesus ... being made perfect"? How can God be made perfect? Please note what this "being made perfect" refers to in the context of Heb 5:8 ("though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered") ... are you telling us that God learned obedience? Since when does God have to learn obedience? to whom is God supposed to be obedient?
Reading the NASB95 translation (as well as some others) solves your difficulty easily from a translation standpoint:Heb 5:9 (NASB95)
9 And having been made aperfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,Jesus is NOT "the author" of salvation, but he is "the source" of salvation unto those who obey him.
As I already stated, God (Jesus' Father, YHWH -- Who also is said in Scripture to be Jesus' God) authored the plan of salvation and provided what was needed to get it accomplished. Jesus BECAME the source of salvation "unto them that obey him".
-
You can make scripture say almost anything you want. But it is no different from withholding evidence in court. Think about how dishonest this is. We have many scriptures proclaiming Christ's divinity and many proclaiming his humanity. But to build a case against one while ommitting the other is dishonest.
-
@Bill_Coley said: 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 10.34-43The Bible speaks for itself.
Ac. 4:10 you crucified … God raised. Peter bluntly confronts the Sanhedrin for their role in condemning and crucifying Jesus. He wants them to know that they have not destroyed Jesus. Christ is alive and still performs miracles.Ac. 4:11 Peter quotes Ps. 118:22, cited frequently in the NT as a messianic prophecy (e.g., Matt. 21:42; see also Rom. 9:33).
- -- Christ as Cornerstone or Foundation is an important image elsewhere in the NT and is joined to the idea of the church as God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:9–17; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:4–8).
Ac. 4:12 -- "no other name." This exclusive claim for Jesus doesn't sit well in our age, which imagines many pathways to salvation (see John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5).
What changes is not Peter’s diet, but the people with whom he is willing to associate. He now understands that “God shows no partiality” and that Jesus Christ is “Lord of all” (Ac. 10:34–36). Truth speaks...CM
-
@Dave_L said:
We have many scriptures proclaiming Christ's divinity and many proclaiming his humanity.I wish you would actually make a count of both and let us know the results ... I suspect there are by far (by VERY far) more sciptures which declare that Jesus is a human being, a man than there are that would declare that Jesus is God.
An example: There are about 50 places in the NT scriptures which refer to Jesus as the Son of God or only begotten Son of God ... but there are 0 (zero!) places where Jesus is referred to as God ... which of course is only reasonable and logical, because how can someone be the son of himself?
But let's see your list ...But to build a case against one while ommitting the other is dishonest.
Actually, in what you try to do, one would first have to define what you mean with "divinity" and with "humanity" ...
Something that may surprise you .... I do believe that Jesus is divine, the divine Son of God. I also believe that the Scriptures are divine, the divine God-inspired Word of God. But neither Jesus nor the Scriptures are in a literal sense themselves God.
-
@Bill_Coley said: 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@C_M_ said:
The Bible speaks for itself....
Thanks for taking the time to engage some verses in one of the four Acts passages I cited, CM. But your purpose in doing so is not clear to me.
The portion of one of my posts that you included in yours asked for the message about Jesus and God - more specifically, as to the question of whether Jesus was God - Peter gave to his audiences in the four cited texts. For whatever reason, I don't see a connection between the results of your engagement with verses from Acts 4 and my request for Peter's message about Jesus and God to those four audiences.
Could you more directly address this question: What message as to whether Jesus was God do you believe Peter gives to his audiences in each of the four Acts passages I cited? Highlighting verses that in your view convey that message would, of course, be helpful.
-
““While I was watching, thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His attire was white like snow; the hair of his head was like lamb’s wool. His throne was ablaze with fire and its wheels were all aflame. A river of fire was streaming forth and proceeding from his presence. Many thousands were ministering to him; Many tens of thousands stood ready to serve him. The court convened and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:9–10)
This is what the Jews expected in their Messiah. Is it no wonder that Peter and others stressed the Messiah's humanity? Jesus did not match their expectations as a man so Peter needed to sell them on the idea. The Messiah's deity was already fixed in Jewish thinking. It was the manhood that threw them.
-
@Dave_L said:
You can make scripture say almost anything you want. But it is no different from withholding evidence in court. Think about how dishonest this is. We have many scriptures proclaiming Christ's divinity and many proclaiming his humanity. But to build a case against one while ommitting the other is dishonest.Both Wolfgang and I have directly and without evasion engaged nearly every verse/passage you and other advocates Trinitarian theology have proffered in this thread, Dave; presumably, the many verses you've cited included some of the ones you believe proclaim Christ's divinity. Hence, I reject your assertion that we have omitted texts as we have built our case.
On the other hand, you have engaged few - I think, none - of the dozens of texts Wolfgang and I have proffered in our posts. By the logic of your post, Dave, do you say that it has been "dishonest" of YOU to build your case for the Trinity by using texts of your choosing while omitting the the texts we have cited?
-
@Bill_Coley said: The portion of one of my posts that you included in yours asked for the message about Jesus and God - more specifically, as to the question of whether Jesus was God - Peter gave to his audiences in the four cited texts. For whatever reason, I don't see a connection between the results of your engagement with verses from Acts 4 and my request for Peter's message about Jesus and God to those four audiences.
Could you more directly address this question: What message as to whether Jesus was God do you believe Peter gives to his audiences in each of the four Acts passages I cited? Highlighting verses that in your view convey that message would, of course, be helpful.
Thanks for your response.
With all due respect, Bill, try accepting the message conveyed in the passages than imposing your question on it. If something is understood, I or Peter doesn't have to repeat the obvious every time a message of truth is conveyed.
God is revealed through nature, prophets, providential acts, the Bible (Scriptures) and through Jesus, the most effective means.
What I say is what Peter preached to his audiences. However, there are other passages (shared previously) of Christ's divinity. Readout of the Scriptures, not into them. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
You can make scripture say almost anything you want. But it is no different from withholding evidence in court. Think about how dishonest this is. We have many scriptures proclaiming Christ's divinity and many proclaiming his humanity. But to build a case against one while ommitting the other is dishonest.Both Wolfgang and I have directly and without evasion engaged nearly every verse/passage you and other advocates Trinitarian theology have proffered in this thread, Dave; presumably, the many verses you've cited included some of the ones you believe proclaim Christ's divinity. Hence, I reject your assertion that we have omitted texts as we have built our case.
On the other hand, you have engaged few - I think, none - of the dozens of texts Wolfgang and I have proffered in our posts. By the logic of your post, Dave, do you say that it has been "dishonest" of YOU to build your case for the Trinity by using texts of your choosing while omitting the the texts we have cited?
If we engage each other's texts the solution and harmony is in Christ's divinity.
-
@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your response.With all due respect, Bill, try accepting the message conveyed in the passages than imposing your question on it. If something is understood, I or Peter doesn't have to repeat the obvious every time a message of truth is conveyed.
And on several occasions, now, CM, I have asked you: What WAS the message Peter conveyed to his audiences in each of those four consecutive presentations? Are you saying that said message was this?...
God is revealed through nature, prophets, providential acts, the Bible (Scriptures) and through Jesus, the most effective means.
If so, that message does NOT say Jesus was God. It says Jesus revealed God... as do nature, the prophets, Scripture, and providential acts! For what it's worth, I agree that Jesus et al reveal God. But I also believe REVEALING God is NOT the same as BEING God. (e.g. nature reveals God, but nature is not God)
What I say is what Peter preached to his audiences. However, there are other passages (shared previously) of Christ's divinity. Readout of the Scriptures, not into them. CM
As I have pointed out several times in my efforts to get an advocate of Trinitarian theology to address my question directly, Peter's audiences DID NOT HAVE ACCESS to "other passages... of Christ's divinity." They knew what Peter, an apostle of Jesus, told them when he spoke to them. And what he told them, in four consecutive presentations found in Acts, was that Jesus was a man, not a deity, whom they had killed but God had raised. Isn't THAT the message about Jesus and God Peter conveyed to his audiences?
We clearly disagree about the meaning of the passages which you believe speak of Christ's divinity, CM, but those other passages are NOT relevant to the question I'm asking because Peter's audience had no access to them. So again I ask you: What message about Jesus and God did Peter give his audiences in the four Acts passages I cited? What message would his audiences have taken from what they heard Peter say?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Actually, in what you try to do, one would first have to define what you mean with "divinity" and with "humanity" ...Something that may surprise you .... I do believe that Jesus is divine, the divine Son of God. I also believe that the Scriptures are divine, the divine God-inspired Word of God. But neither Jesus nor the Scriptures are in a literal sense themselves God.
Wolfgang, it appears you don't believe the revelation (of the Bible) or accept its teachings (God- Who he says he is):
- Faith is action.
- Faith believes.
- Faith goes beyond human reasoning and comprehension.
- Faith is MORE THAN A MENTAL ASSESSMENT (pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment)!
This is why you having so much trouble with the Trinity and accepting other biblical truths. May I suggest an in-depth study of faith from God's Word?
Humility, surrender, believe, and acceptance -- new life, awaits you. There will always be more in the Holy Scriptures that you are able to comprehend:
- It's the nature of God (Infinite) and humanity (finite-limited).
- It's the nature of Scripture revelation to know God and Illumination (to understand his revelation).
Who can know God except he reveals himself? God is a Spirit. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
As I have pointed out several times in my efforts to get an advocate of Trinitarian theology to address my question directly, Peter's audiences DID NOT HAVE ACCESS to "other passages... of Christ's divinity." They knew what Peter, an apostle of Jesus, told them when he spoke to them. And what he told them, in four consecutive presentations found in Acts, was that Jesus was a man, not a deity, whom they had killed but God had raised. Isn't THAT the message about Jesus and God Peter conveyed to his audiences?
No, what I said before. This was Peter's message:
CM said: The Bible speaks for itself.
Ac. 4:10 you crucified … God raised. Peter bluntly confronts the Sanhedrin for their role in condemning and crucifying Jesus. He wants them to know that they have not destroyed Jesus. Christ is alive and still performs miracles.Ac. 4:11 Peter quotes Ps. 118:22, cited frequently in the NT as a messianic prophecy (e.g., Matt. 21:42; see also Rom. 9:33).
-- Christ as Cornerstone or Foundation is an important image elsewhere in the NT and is joined to the idea of the church as God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:9–17; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:4–8).
Ac. 4:12 -- "no other name." This exclusive claim for Jesus doesn't sit well in our age, which imagines many pathways to salvation (see John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5).
What changes is not Peter’s diet, but the people with whom he is willing to associate. He now understands that “God shows no partiality” and that Jesus Christ is “Lord of all” (Ac. 10:34–36). Truth speaks...CM
You stated...
We clearly disagree about the meaning of the passages which you believe speak of Christ's divinity, CM, but those other passages are NOT relevant to the question I'm asking because Peter's audience had no access to them. So again I ask you: What message about Jesus and God did Peter give his audiences in the four Acts passages I cited? What message would his audiences have taken from what they heard Peter say?
See above, Bill. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
No, what I said before. This was Peter's message:CM said: The Bible speaks for itself.
Ac. 4:10 you crucified … God raised. Peter bluntly confronts the Sanhedrin for their role in condemning and crucifying Jesus. He wants them to know that they have not destroyed Jesus. Christ is alive and still performs miracles.Ac. 4:11 Peter quotes Ps. 118:22, cited frequently in the NT as a messianic prophecy (e.g., Matt. 21:42; see also Rom. 9:33).
-- Christ as Cornerstone or Foundation is an important image elsewhere in the NT and is joined to the idea of the church as God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:9–17; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:4–8).
Ac. 4:12 -- "no other name." This exclusive claim for Jesus doesn't sit well in our age, which imagines many pathways to salvation (see John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5).
What changes is not Peter’s diet, but the people with whom he is willing to associate. He now understands that “God shows no partiality” and that Jesus Christ is “Lord of all” (Ac. 10:34–36). Truth speaks...CM
So in your view, Peter's message about Jesus and God to his audiences in the four presentations found in Acts is that Jesus was a man whom they killed but God raised. Jesus was also the Messiah (Christ), the rejected (crucified) stone who became (was raised) the Cornerstone, and the name by which all are saved.
In my view, all of those are consistent with the claim that Jesus was not God. None of those require Jesus to be God. In fact, the first - that Jesus was a man God raised - requires that Jesus NOT be God since God can't raise God from the dead.
-
@Dave_L said:
““While I was watching, thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His attire was white like snow; the hair of his head was like lamb’s wool. His throne was ablaze with fire and its wheels were all aflame. A river of fire was streaming forth and proceeding from his presence. Many thousands were ministering to him; Many tens of thousands stood ready to serve him. The court convened and the books were opened.” (Daniel 7:9–10)This is what the Jews expected in their Messiah.
So you say ... however, Daniel's vision was about "the Ancient of Days" => God, YHWH, the Creator, the Almighty, and NOT about the Messiah.
The Jews expected a human being as the Messiah ... as all prophecy regarding the promised Messiah had been concerning a man, a human ... cp. Gen 3:15 .. do you want to tell us that the offspring of the woman is GOD (in other words, Mary actually was the mother of God) ???
What the Jewish leadership expected of the Messiah, that human being, that man, was that he would free them from foreign rule and establish the earthly kingdom in glory and splendor as becoming what they thought of as "the follow up kingdom" of David's kingdom before.
Is it no wonder that Peter and others stressed the Messiah's humanity?
Peter only spoke of the man Jesus, because Jesus was only the man Jesus ... very, very simple.
Jesus did not match their expectations as a man so Peter needed to sell them on the idea.
No, Jesus did not match their expectations of the type of king they desired and had envisioned ... he most definitely did match their expectation of being a human being, a man, since they knew that not two or three are "God", but knew that YHWH was One, that He dwelled in heaven, that He was Spirit (and not a being of flesh and blood), etc.
There was no need nor any intention of Peter's part to try and "sell them on the idea". No sales techniques nor deception on Peter's part, but straight forward simple plain truth.The Messiah's deity was already fixed in Jewish thinking. It was the manhood that threw them.
This is plain nonsense ... in Jewish thinking the Messiah was to be a man, NOT a deity. One of the major distinctions of Biblical Israel's faith as taught and believed since Abraham and the fathers was that it only knew of God being ONE, and not a theology as other nations around them who had more than one (often actually Three) Deity figures.
-
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, it appears you don't believe the revelation (of the Bible) or accept its teachings (God- Who he says he is):- Faith is action.
- Faith believes.
- Faith goes beyond human reasoning and comprehension.
- Faith is MORE THAN A MENTAL ASSESSMENT (pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment)!
This is why you having so much trouble with the Trinity and accepting other biblical truths. May I suggest an in-depth study of faith from God's Word?
Humility, surrender, believe, and acceptance -- new life, awaits you. There will always be more in the Holy Scriptures that you are able to comprehend:
- It's the nature of God (Infinite) and humanity (finite-limited).
- It's the nature of Scripture revelation to know God and Illumination (to understand his revelation).
Who can know God except he reveals himself? God is a Spirit. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. CM
Thanks for your sermon ... I'll pick up on your closing comment, where you state: "GOD IS SPIRIT!
So then you agree with me that Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man of flesh and blood, who was born of a woman, who died and was buried, who was raised from the dead, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD ... IF so, why try and tell me that I seem to not believe Scripture while you claim at the same time that you do ??????
-
Peter needed to convince the Jews of the Messiah's humanity. They already knew the Messiah was God. Only not in the sense you and they stumbled over.
-
@Dave_L said:
If we engage each other's texts the solution and harmony is in Christ's divinity.Dave_L ... once again, you just put forth a one liner claim instead of answering that which you had been asked. You don't even support your own big fat claims with scripture or logical and reasonable thoughts and arguments ...
Seems like you just don't want to admit your error since you can't support your claims either .... -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
If we engage each other's texts the solution and harmony is in Christ's divinity.Dave_L ... once again, you just put forth a one liner claim instead of answering that which you had been asked. You don't even support your own big fat claims with scripture or logical and reasonable thoughts and arguments ...
Seems like you just don't want to admit your error since you can't support your claims either ....You would do time for withholding evidence if you tried to prove your point in a court of law.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, all of those are consistent with the claim that Jesus was not God. None of those require Jesus to be God. In fact, the first - that Jesus was a man God raised - requires that Jesus NOT be God since God can't raise God from the dead.
Oops, slow down, read the Book of John again. Don't get ahead of your skis. God has and will reveal to man the things we should and what he wants us to know. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, all of those are consistent with the claim that Jesus was not God. None of those require Jesus to be God. In fact, the first - that Jesus was a man God raised - requires that Jesus NOT be God since God can't raise God from the dead.
Oops, slow down, read the Book of John again. Don't get ahead of your skis. God has and will reveal to man the things we should and what he wants us to know. CM
Remember that at issue in our current exchange, CM, is the message Peter gave to the audiences of his four presentations I cited from Acts, meaning that what's in the Gospel of John is not at all relevant to our discussion because Peter's audience had NO ACCESS to a book which would be written decades after they heard Peter's presentation.
I've now had a dozen or more interactions with Trinity advocates over Peter's four presentations in Acts, and STILL no one has disproven my claim that Peter's message to his audiences - the message his audiences went home with - was that Jesus was a man, not a God, whom they had killed but God had raised.
Can ANYONE challenge my claim, or should we declare CD forum consensus that such was indeed Peter's message to his audiences in Acts?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Thanks for your sermon ... I'll pick up on your closing comment, where you state: "GOD IS SPIRIT!So then you agree with me that Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man of flesh and blood, who was born of a woman, who died and was buried, who was raised from the dead, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD ... IF so, why try and tell me that I seem to not believe Scripture while you claim at the same time that you do ??????
Please do the faith study or review.
So then you agree with me that Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man of flesh and blood, who was born of a woman, who died and was buried, who was raised from the dead...
And more, but you don't want the Scriptures to say the more. God is so much bigger, stronger, wiser, embodiment than you can explain or comprehend. Your reasoning is no match for God or for what He has revealed.
Wolfgang, you have good reasoning, but NOT when it comes to God. This is not a putdown. It's the truth and a reality. Enjoy the Word. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, all of those are consistent with the claim that Jesus was not God. None of those require Jesus to be God. In fact, the first - that Jesus was a man God raised - requires that Jesus NOT be God since God can't raise God from the dead.
Oops, slow down, read the Book of John again. Don't get ahead of your skis. God has and will reveal to man the things we should and what he wants us to know. CM
Remember that at issue in our current exchange, CM, is the message Peter gave to the audiences of his four presentations I cited from Acts, meaning that what's in the Gospel of John is not at all relevant to our discussion because Peter's audience had NO ACCESS to a book which would be written decades after they heard Peter's presentation.
I've now had a dozen or more interactions with Trinity advocates over Peter's four presentations in Acts, and STILL no one has disproven my claim that Peter's message to his audiences - the message his audiences went home with - was that Jesus was a man, not a God, whom they had killed but God had raised.
Can ANYONE challenge my claim, or should we declare CD forum consensus that such was indeed Peter's message to his audiences in Acts?
You can't present partial truth and ignore later truth that has bearing on it. It would be withholding evidence in a court of law if you tried it in the real world.
-
Can ANYONE challenge my claim, or should we declare CD forum consensus that such was indeed Peter's message to his audiences in Acts?
@Dave_L said:
You can't present partial truth and ignore later truth that has bearing on it. It would be withholding evidence in a court of law if you tried it in the real world.There is no distinction between "partial" and "later" truth in this matter, Dave. The question I've asked - what, perhaps a dozen times?!! - is what message did Peter give TO HIS AUDIENCES in those presentations found in Acts.That question needs no, and by design, can make NO, use of "later" truth because the ONLY issue is what message Peter gave his audiences DURING HIS PRESENTATIONS IN ACTS.
What audience members may have learned or decided to believe a week, a month, a year, or ten years after Peter's presentations is irrelevant to the question I asked because I asked ONLY what message Peter gave DURING his presentation, what message his crowds left the room with.
-
@Dave_L said:
Seems like you just don't want to admit your error since you can't support your claims either ....
You would do time for withholding evidence if you tried to prove your point in a court of law.
wow ... one only needs to go through a forum thread here and have a look at my posts and then compare them to your post. It's clear who is on the "withholding" side, Dave_L.
And, once again, you just threw in another one-liner ... most likely for lack of evidence regarding the topic at hand?
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
Thanks for your sermon ... I'll pick up on your closing comment, where you state: "GOD IS SPIRIT!
So then you agree with me that Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man of flesh and blood, who was born of a woman, who died and was buried, who was raised from the dead, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD ... IF so, why try and tell me that I seem to not believe Scripture while you claim at the same time that you do ??????Please do the faith study or review.
C_M, please answer the questions you are asked instead of openly evading them.
So then you agree with me that Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man of flesh and blood, who was born of a woman, who died and was buried, who was raised from the dead...
And more, but you don't want the Scriptures to say the more.
I have pointed out repeatedly Scripture ... and there is NOTHING about "more" in them. You have yet to show us some of your "more" ...but, please note, I am not interested in your additions to Scripture but in what Scripture actually does say.
God is so much bigger, stronger, wiser, embodiment than you can explain or comprehend. Your reasoning is no match for God or for what He has revealed.
I am NOT talking here about "explaining or comprehending God" ... I am endeavoring to read and convey straight forward Scripture testimony concerning the man Jesus of Nazareth .... YOU could be viewed as the one who thinks that you with your Trinity idea actually are explaining God.
Wolfgang, you have good reasoning, but NOT when it comes to God. This is not a putdown. It's the truth and a reality. Enjoy the Word.
But you apparently explain and comprehend God and even can explain and comprehend the "more" in Scripture which no one as of yet has really put forth
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The question I've asked - what, perhaps a dozen times?!! - is what message did Peter give TO HIS AUDIENCES in those presentations found in Acts.That question needs no, and by design, can make NO, use of "later" truth because the ONLY issue is what message Peter gave his audiences DURING HIS PRESENTATIONS IN ACTS.What audience members may have learned or decided to believe a week, a month, a year, or ten years after Peter's presentations is irrelevant to the question I asked because I asked ONLY what message Peter gave DURING his presentation, what message his crowds left the room with.
Bill, I am pretty sure the Trinitarian folk here will not answer your question ... Perhaps they can see what the further implications of a genuine and straight forward answer would be and don't like what they see.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Bill, I am pretty sure the Trinitarian folk here will not answer your question ... Perhaps they can see what the further implications of a genuine and straight forward answer would be and don't like what they see.Given the number of times I've asked the question, Wolfgang, I think it's hard to refute your speculation.
It astounds me that for all our faults - and I'm sure they are many! - you and I regularly, directly, and without evasion engage nearly all the texts Trinity advocates cite; the same is true for the questions said advocates pose. But when we cite texts or ask questions, we're often met with protests such as "That's the wrong question," or "You need to look at the issue more broadly." The only consequential result of such responses is that they seem never to engage our texts or answer our questions. They might answer their own questions!! But not ours. They might address their own texts!! But not the ones we cite.
I spent three years on my high school debate team. One thing we were never allowed to do was to evade or distract from the questions and evidence of opposing teams, no matter what we thought of them. Hence, what you and I have experienced in this thread runs counter to a principle deeply rooted in me.
In my experience, the most common reason people in issue debates refuse to answer questions or deal with evidence presented by those who hold other views is that they CAN'T respond to the questions or evidence without acknowledging a weakness in their argument.
I don't know how else to explain the rampant refusal to engage on the part of CD Trinity advocates.
-
@Wolfgang said:
So God is the lamb of God? God is the man whom God sent? God obeyed (which) God even unto death? God died? {plus numerous other illogical and unreasonable items which your equation produces}The Son is the Lamb of the Father. The Son is the man whom the Father sent. Etc.
The NT frequently uses God as a synonym for the Father.The simple truth is that God, YHWH, Jesus' Father is the author of salvation in a different manner or in regard to a different aspect from that in which Jesus is "the author of salvation" as stated in Heb 5:9 !
Did you recognize that Heb 5:9 and its context speaks of "Jesus ... being made perfect"? How can God be made perfect? Please note what this "being made perfect" refers to in the context of Heb 5:8 ("though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered") ... are you telling us that God learned obedience? Since when does God have to learn obedience? to whom is God supposed to be obedient?
The son is obedient to the Father. The son having "learned" obedience doesn't imply that he had been disobedient. The step of obedience to death was a step he had not taken before, and therefore "new" to him.
Reading the NASB95 translation (as well as some others) solves your difficulty easily from a translation standpoint:
Heb 5:9 (NASB95)
9 And having been made aperfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,Jesus is NOT "the author" of salvation, but he is "the source" of salvation unto those who obey him.
159 αἴτιος [aitios /ah·ee·tee·os/] adj. From the same as 154; GK 165; AV translates as “author” once. 1 that which is the cause of anything resides, causative, causing. 1A the author. 1A1 of a cause. 1A2 of crime or offence.
SOURCE:
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.Clearly the verse describes the causality between Jesus and the salvation of "those who obey him".
To be clear, this means, without Jesus there can't be any salvation.
From various passages however we know that salvation is predetermined from the beginning of time (Romans 8:29-30 for example, or Ephesians 1:4) in a sense that it has already happened (the Romans passage is written in the past tense).
A cause must logically precede the effect. How could a human being be the cause for something that was a done deal before the foundation of the world?
As I already stated, God (Jesus' Father, YHWH -- Who also is said in Scripture to be Jesus' God) authored the plan of salvation and provided what was needed to get it accomplished. Jesus BECAME the source of salvation "unto them that obey him".
It is a logical impossibility to "become the cause/source" of something that has already happened.
-
@Wolfgang said:
But you apparently explain and comprehend God and even can explain and comprehend the "more" in Scripture which no one as of yet has really put forth
Wolfgang, what I appear to explain, comprehend of God and the "more" in Scripture are basic to faith in the God of the Bible. So, my faith in the God who inspired "Holy men" to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It's my view of Scripture, its message, and how I mine it for truth is why I believe what I believe.
In sum, it's my approach to Scripture. Others in CD, besides you and Bill, may disagree with my method of biblical interpretations, but at least, you would know where I am coming from and vice versa. This is key to any discussion of the Bible. In addition, we can eliminate desperate crying for someone to answer anti-trinitarians' questions and avoid the sometimes biblical buffoonery, that raises its ugly head in this part of the forum. The truth be told, I would like to know your approach to Scriptures if you don't find it to be a distraction or evading an answered question. If you do, my peace I bid to you, just the same.
Since you seem to express no interests in my biblical method of interpretation, then, we don't have a foundation or platform to have a mutual discussion of substance. If not now, maybe later. If you say never, Wow! CM
PS. I'll see you around the forums. You can't go wrong with a Biblical Faith Study. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@Bill_Coley said:
Can ANYONE challenge my claim, or should we declare CD forum consensus that such was indeed Peter's message to his audiences in Acts?
@Dave_L said:
You can't present partial truth and ignore later truth that has bearing on it. It would be withholding evidence in a court of law if you tried it in the real world.There is no distinction between "partial" and "later" truth in this matter, Dave. The question I've asked - what, perhaps a dozen times?!! - is what message did Peter give TO HIS AUDIENCES in those presentations found in Acts.That question needs no, and by design, can make NO, use of "later" truth because the ONLY issue is what message Peter gave his audiences DURING HIS PRESENTATIONS IN ACTS.
What audience members may have learned or decided to believe a week, a month, a year, or ten years after Peter's presentations is irrelevant to the question I asked because I asked ONLY what message Peter gave DURING his presentation, what message his crowds left the room with.
You and Wolfgang would be jailhouse buddies if you suppressed evidence in a court of law like you do on this forum.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
