Why would Luke word it this way?

[Elijah John]

Acts 2:22-24 New International Version (NIV)
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Note, in this passage Luke never makes the Trinitarian distinction of referring to God as "Father" and Jesus as "God the Son". Instead, Luke has Peter referring to God only as "God" and Jesus as a "man", making a clear distinction between the two.

For debate, if Jesus was God, or if Luke and Peter believed that Jesus was God, why would either of them word it this way in this passage from Acts, making a clear distinction between God and the man Jesus?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Why would Luke word it this way?

Because Peter said it this way.

And because it is this way.

Jesus is the promised Messiah sent by the only true God, and is the Son of God, not God the Son.

He is a man who called himself the Son of Man and is now the mediator between God and man; "the man Christ Jesus".

He called the only true God "my God and your God".

[brianbbs67]

I can only agree that Peter and James' words about Christ should be headed. As should their words about Paul. They seemed to know them both.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Because he is trying to get them to agree to anything. Arguments build up. Honestly, when I talk to atheists today I almost have to start at the basics of morality and how morality cannot be subjective.

[shnarkle]

Acts 2:22-24 New International Version (NIV)
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Note, in this passage Luke never makes the Trinitarian distinction of referring to God as "Father" and Jesus as "God the Son". Instead, Luke has Peter referring to God only as "God" and Jesus as a "man", making a clear distinction between the two.

For debate, if Jesus was God, or if Luke and Peter believed that Jesus was God, why would either of them word it this way in this passage from Acts, making a clear distinction between God and the man Jesus?

The doctrine of the trinity emerges through the idea that what God does can only be done through Christ. This doesn't make Christ God except insofar as God cannot be seen anywhere except through Christ.

What Christians fail to recognize is that Christ calls his followers into that same relationship which also doesn't make any of them God, but nonetheless they will manifest God's will through Christ's spirit dwelling within them.

So if they think Christ is God, they will be God as well, this has to be the case because Christ prays that just as he is in the father, and the father in him, so too may they be in him, and he in them. When you have seen a reborn believer, you have seen Christ because when you see Christ you see God. So by the distributive property, they're all God as well.

Christ never claims to be God, nor does anyone else in these texts. He is the way, and the early church adopted that title for themselves as well. If someone in a Christian church were to adopt this title, they would probably be directed to the exits. Go figure.

[AdHoc]

Acts 2:22-24 New International Version (NIV)
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Note, in this passage Luke never makes the Trinitarian distinction of referring to God as "Father" and Jesus as "God the Son". Instead, Luke has Peter referring to God only as "God" and Jesus as a "man", making a clear distinction between the two.

For debate, if Jesus was God, or if Luke and Peter believed that Jesus was God, why would either of them word it this way in this passage from Acts, making a clear distinction between God and the man Jesus?

How else would you word it? Even if you believe in the Trinity doctrine there is a clear distinction.

Clearly God raised Jesus from the dead and clearly in John 2 Jesus prophesied that he would raise Himself from the dead so there's a fairly problematic contradiction.

Beyond that, if you don't believe the Holy Spirit is God things get even more complicated.

Unless Jesus is God... then no contradiction.

[Checkpoint]

Acts 2:22-24 New International Version (NIV)
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Note, in this passage Luke never makes the Trinitarian distinction of referring to God as "Father" and Jesus as "God the Son". Instead, Luke has Peter referring to God only as "God" and Jesus as a "man", making a clear distinction between the two.

For debate, if Jesus was God, or if Luke and Peter believed that Jesus was God, why would either of them word it this way in this passage from Acts, making a clear distinction between God and the man Jesus?

How else would you word it? Even if you believe in the Trinity doctrine there is a clear distinction.

Clearly God raised Jesus from the dead and clearly in John 2 Jesus prophesied that he would raise Himself from the dead so there's a fairly problematic contradiction.

Beyond that, if you don't believe the Holy Spirit is God things get even more complicated.

Unless Jesus is God... then no contradiction.

The only thing that may be a problematic contradiction is John 2:19, which was not from Luke at all.

Luke worded it that way because that is how it is.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 6 by AdHoc]

Nice point, on John 2. That does seem to clarify the Jesus is God or not, debate.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 6 by AdHoc]

Nice point, on John 2. That does seem to clarify the Jesus is God or not, debate.

We do not clarify an issue by looking to scriptures that are unclear, unusual, or controversial.

Especially when we have two very clear and explicit statements on this issue from Jesus himself.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It seems to me that the context is different than how you paint it. For instance, Peter begins his speech quoting from Joel 2:28-32, which talks about the "great and magnificent" day of the Lord (v. 20) and calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (21), where the Lord is clearly God. Peter identifies Jesus as Lord (through David's words) and urges the crowd to call upon the name of Jesus for forgiveness of sins (38).