Did Jesus believe He was serving a greater Being (His Father) than Himself? I see conflicting messages in the Bible.

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

It means that God the Father will do for you as He would for Jesus, if you ask in the name of Jesus. It doesn’t say Jesus is God.

If we ask in the name of Jesus - but Jesus is not God - wouldn’t that be idolatry?

You interpret them saying Jesus is God, I don’t. I believe Jesus has power of God over us now, because God gave it to him, but not born that way. As I’ve shown.

You say “Well I don’t tend to believe in things unless there’s a good reason for them” and I gather you like doctrines to be “simple”, but don’t you think that a human being having the power of God is a similar mystery as per the Trinity and Incarnation?

 

[MH84]

Everybody! Do you see what I am getting at with the OP. We have some passages relating to Jesus which says He is divine, but there are some scriptures which say He is not equal to His Father.

That’s the point of this thread. Whether I am right or wrong, I see that New Testament portrays Jesus as definately being more than an ordinary man, but that He was definately believed to be a man as well. He said that "before Abraham “I Am” (John 8:58), but then He also said that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Paul says that Jesus is the “image of the unseen God” (Col 1:15), but then in 1 Corinthians 15:28 he says that the “Son himself will made subject to God”.

No one ever said while Jesus was alive that He was God, nor did He seem to reveal this immediately after His resurrection. The bible never says that Jesus ascended into heaven, but that He was “taken up” from their sight (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:22).

Something I read last night was this:

Hebrews 1:

10He also says,
“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.” 13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Now this passage is apparently the Father addressing the Son, but this passge was from the Old Testament and David was addressing God here. But in Hebrews the Father is addressing His Son here. Check out v.10. How could a man have “laid the foundations of the earth”?

FaithofAbraham, I would like you to address this actually because you believe the bible, but you claim Jesus is only a man.

Anyway, to go with the theme of the thread, if you look at these passages for example in the same book, they imply that Jesus:

• was made perfect (Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 7:28)
• and that He needed to be saved from death (Hebrews 5:7)
• He needed to receive glory, as opposed from being able to take glory (Hebrews 5:4-6)

Finally I want to add this about Hebrews 5:7, if the author knew that Jesus was God why did he say that Jesus was saved by God “because of his reverent submission”? Was Jesus not going to be saved if He wasn’t? Is it even possible that Jesus was ever not going to submit to His Father? The author of this passage seems to not believe in Jesus being absolutely equal to His Father.

The book of Hebrews for me shows that there was unclarity about who Jesus was. The New Testament is like that for me.

 

[MH84]

FaithofAbraham, your contribution here is appreciated. Thanks. I want to ask you these two questions in this thread about Hebrews. Firstly, as I mentioned in my last post you believe in the bible, but you believe Jesus is a normal man who was glorified. Is that right? This is not my first question that Ive intended to post btw. Anyway:

1. In Hebrews 1:10-14, the prophecy from the Psalms is put into the mouth of God addressing His Son. The Father says that the Son “laid the foundations of the earth”. How was this possible if Jesus was purely a man?
2. In Hebrews 2:14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death…

It seems like the author is saying that Jesus chose to take on humanity for the people. How is this possible if he did not pre-exist? In other words, it seems like the passage says that Jesus partook or decided to take on human flesh, but He couldn’t have done this if He was only a man.

 

[MH84]

If we ask in the name of Jesus - but Jesus is not God - wouldn’t that be idolatry?

No, I don’t think it is. If God tells people to approach Him in the name of Jesus that would not be idolatry if Jesus was not almighty God.

Don’t we pray to Mary, or ask her to intercede for us (presumably in her name)? How is that different from praying in the name of Jesus for a non-Trinitarian?

How is praying to Mary different from praying in the name of Mary?

During Benediction we say “Blessed be the name of Mary, virgin and mother”. What about this prayer, Charlie? We are blessing the name of Mary with this prayer.

 

[MH84]

1. In the first few verses of Hebrews 3, the author is trying to express to the reader that Jesus is greater than Moses.

If the author knew Jesus to be God, why did He even need to bother writing this, wouldn’t it be obvious?

Hebrews3:3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself.

Jesus was “found worthy” of greater honour? Does that mean Jesus became more honourable than Moses? Instead, as an example, why didnt the author say that Jesus was always more honourable than Moses and was his Co-creator for example?

It is as if the authors never felt the need to clarify clearly who Jesus really was, they didn’t exactly know who he was, or that they never thought that Jesus was God?

I mean, for the Jew this would have been the biggest obstacle to becoming Christian as we are now. But no where is it clarified that God is triune or that Jesus and the Father were/are equal; distinct, but equal.

Why doesnt the scriptures show the apostles explaining the Trinitarian belief to the people? Surely, if they were Trinitaran as Catholics are now, they would have had to defend this doctrine. The only defending that the early Christians seemed have to do was defending that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the old covenant had come to an end.

 

[Angelos]

1. In the first few verses of Hebrews 3, the author is trying to express to the reader that Jesus is greater than Moses.

If the author knew Jesus to be God, why did He even need to bother writing this, wouldn’t it be obvious?

You seem to forget a couple of things:

First, in the introductory chapter of this epistle the author compares Jesus to the angels and proclaims His divinity.

Second, Jesus also compared Himself to many biblical figures in the Gospels and claimed to be greater than all of them (Jonah, Solomon, David, Moses …) Jesus’ aim in doing so was to imply His divinity. Although He accomplished an earthly mission, He was definitely more than a prophet or leader.

Third, many chapters in the epistle to the Hebrews concerns with the abolishment of the Mosaic Law and rituals of purification in the Temple. Christ became for His Jewish followers the perfection of the Law. In this context, it is rather natural for the author to compare Jesus to Moses and conclude that Jesus is greater than Moses. Matthew (chapters 5-7) and John (chapter 1) resort to the same kind of comparisons while referring to Jesus’ divinity.

1. Jesus was “found worthy” of greater honour? Does that mean Jesus became more honourable than Moses? Instead, as an example, why didnt the author say that Jesus was always more honourable than Moses and was his Co-creator for example?

The phrase “found worthy” does not mean “became worthy”. That phrase only means that God considered human Jesus worthy and confirmed Him. The author could not have said Jesus was always more honourable than Moses because Jesus is the name of the man born of Mary! Again, you fail to see that the authors of the NT met human Jesus first, and Jesus’ divinity was revealed to them gradually.

It is as if the authors never felt the need to clarify clearly who Jesus really was, they didn’t exactly know who he was, or that they never thought that Jesus was God?

I mean, for the Jew this would have been the biggest obstacle to becoming Christian as we are now. But no where is it clarified that God is triune or that Jesus and the Father were/are equal; distinct, but equal.

For the Jews at that time the biggest obstacle to conversion was the abolishment of the Mosaic Law. We read in the Gospels that Jewish religious authorities became hostile to Jesus primarily because of His teachings about the Law. We also read in the Acts that the first Christian council convened at the time of the apostles to regulate Christians’ observance of the Mosaic Law, not to discuss the Trinitarian formula or Christology.

Why doesnt the scriptures show the apostles explaining the Trinitarian belief to the people? Surely, if they were Trinitaran as Catholics are now, they would have had to defend this doctrine. The only defending that the early Christians seemed have to do was defending that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the old covenant had come to an end.

There was no one attacking this doctrine at that time! However, the apostles and the others also believed Jesus to be the Son of God and only Savior , which was absolutely condemned by all the Jews. More, the formal greeting in Paul’s letters highlight the Trinitarian doctrine. The Gospels and the Acts also talk of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct but united persons of the Godhead.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

It’s “messy” for me too; I don’t fully understand how or why God does things, or even the way He chooses to do them. But that’s why He’s God, and I’m not. Ultimately, your choice is to believe that God’s is a human intelligence, but it isn’t. We can think it’s impossible all we want, and choose what is convenient for us, but I think that still undermines His divine ability to do anything He wants.

I’m not saying God can’t zap himself into a man if He wants, I just don’t see support for it in the NT. I see that there was born a human Jesus, and the Spirit of God dwelled in that man at his baptism in the form of a dove to give him great power.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

If we ask in the name of Jesus - but Jesus is not God - wouldn’t that be idolatry?

No because Jesus said God gave him all power of judgment. I usually pray to God and Jesus, in my mind acknowledging God has ultimate power but He has given authority to Jesus.

So my belief doesn’t take away from his power, it only clarifies his nature as a man who is given that power by God.

You say “Well I don’t tend to believe in things unless there’s a good reason for them” and I gather you like doctrines to be “simple”, but don’t you think that a human being having the power of God is a similar mystery as per the Trinity and Incarnation?

No, since there is just a human and God dwells in him, shades of which are all through the Bible with David, prophets, etc.

But Trinity has a God who stops being God to become a man who can do nothing of himself and has to receive judgment from another form of God in Heaven just so he can be elevated to be like God again.

So there is an extra layer of the man Jesus existing eternally as God that is unnecessary and confuses everything, plus greatly turns off Muslims and Jews from believing the truth of the NT.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Firstly, as I mentioned in my last post you believe in the bible, but you believe Jesus is a normal man who was glorified. Is that right?

Yes.

1. In Hebrews 1:10-14, the prophecy from the Psalms is put into the mouth of God addressing His Son. The Father says that the Son “laid the foundations of the earth”. How was this possible if Jesus was purely a man?

Actually this part is about Jesus talking to God:

Psalms 102:23-25 He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

David lived to be an old man, Jesus was the one who seemed to have his days shortened in the midst of his life, but did not.

1. In Hebrews 2:14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death…

It seems like the author is saying that Jesus chose to take on humanity for the people. How is this possible if he did not pre-exist? In other words, it seems like the passage says that Jesus partook or decided to take on human flesh, but He couldn’t have done this if He was only a man.

I believe Jesus was the son of David and Bathsheba who died for David’s sin, and the true Messiah promised to David instead of Solomon, so he was in Heaven in that kingdom, then came back to earth to be resurrected from his own body of the dust into the womb of Mary.

In other words, he did not remain like an angel in Heaven – note it says the nature of angels as the dead are, not the nature of a God – but he came back to live among men and preach God.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

 

[MH84]

Actually this part is about Jesus talking to God:

Psalms 102:23-25 He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

David lived to be an old man, Jesus was the one who seemed to have his days shortened in the midst of his life, but did not.

Look at Hebrews 1: 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,…;

now look at Hebrews 1: 7In speaking of the angels he (this is God) says,…;

now look at Hebrews 1: 8 But about the Son he says,…

now finally, look at Hebrews 1:10 He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

It is the Father speaking in each of these occasions. Look at v. 8, it says that God is addressing His Son, then in v. 10 it says “He also says”. This means the same Person is speaking.

 

[MH84]

I believe Jesus was the son of David and Bathsheba who died for David’s sin, and the true Messiah promised to David instead of Solomon, so he was in Heaven in that kingdom, then came back to earth to be resurrected from his own body of the dust into the womb of Mary.

In other words, he did not remain like an angel in Heaven – note it says the nature of angels as the dead are, not the nature of a God – but he came back to live among men and preach God.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

I don’t get this explanation. You seem to be saying that Jesus, the Messiah, was in Heaven because David, His ancestor was in Heaven. This doesnt make sense. If Jesus was only a man, he couldnt have existed in David. His existence wouldn’t arrive for 1000, or so, years.

If this is your logic, then you are saying that you and I have come down from Heaven as well to take on human form.

 

[Angelos]

B]John 17: 3 Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I wrote:

Jesus overtly states that belief in God AND in Him gives eternal life. The phrase “the only God” used by Jesus refers to the unity in the Trinity, not to the unity of God as a person.

MH84 responded:

But Jesus says “That they may know thee, the only true God…”. Jesus does not say “us”, or even just “That they may know the only true God”

I respond:

Jesus does not say “us” because He is addressing the Father personally in His prayer. Likewise, Jesus does not “that they may know thee, the only true God, and ME. It is not a coincidence that here Jesus does not refer to Himself with a personal pronoun. Yet it is clear from the sentence that it is absolutely necessary for one to believe in Jesus in the same way as in God the Father to gain eternal life.

Mark 13: 35 Watch ye therefore for you know not when the lord of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning.

MH84 wrote:

As I have said in other threads, Peter says in Acts 2:36 that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God. Thus, it seems that “Lord” does not necessariliy mean “God”.

I respond:

First, I did not claim that the word Lord meant God in that sentence. My point was that it was Jesus and no one else to come for judgment. Jesus is the Lord of the house, which means the owner/boss of the universe as His analogy suggests.

Further, Peter’s speech in the second chapter of the Acts addresses the Jewish community that regards Jesus of Nazareth as a crucified man, nothing more. Peter tries to convince them that Jesus’ resurrection reveals His identity and authority. Jesus is thus said to be made the Lord and Christ in the eyes of the community through Peter’s speech act. We can liken Jesus’ resurrection to His official coronation. He was and is the Lord and Christ even before His incarnation, yet His resurrection makes Him the official owner of those honorary titles.

MH84 wrote:
A Catholic cannot believe in subordination of the divine Persons apparently. One would be acknowledging subordinationism. That leaves explaining to still be done about this. Also, I don’t think that anywhere else in the Bible does it say that the after the resurrection and ascension, the Father and the Son were now equal again. In fact read this:

1 Corinthians 15:
27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I respond:

I do not personally know if Catholics have a dogma repudiating the subordination of one divine person to another in the Godhead. Jesus says “the Father is greater than I am” only before His arrest and trial. He later explains that the Father is greater because He goes to the Father to be glorified through resurrection. Besides, the word “greater” in this sentence only means superiority in rank or position, not in substance!

The verses in the letter to the Corinthians ironically debunk your claims since they say that Jesus will be made subject to the Father at the end of times.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

But Trinity has a God who stops being God to become a man who can do nothing of himself and has to receive judgment from another form of God in Heaven just so he can be elevated to be like God again.

Your misleading and twisted interpretation of the Trinity turns into a mockery of your pesonal opinion actually.

So there is an extra layer of the man Jesus existing eternally as God that is unnecessary and confuses everything, plus greatly turns off Muslims and Jews from believing the truth of the NT.

So for you there is a god that grants privileges to a human named Jesus and unnecessarily elevates Him to the level of divinity by giving him authority. A god that confuses everything by making Jesus equal to himself and later asking people to believe that Jesus is only a human.

Let me tell you once more: our faith and the truth in the NT are by no means dependent on the choice or will of humans. No wishful thinking could be the criterion for the validity of Christian tenets.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[MH84]

For the Jews at that time the biggest obstacle to conversion was the abolishment of the Mosaic Law. We read in the Gospels that Jewish religious authorities became hostile to Jesus primarily because of His teachings about the Law. We also read in the Acts that the first Christian council convened at the time of the apostles to regulate Christians’ observance of the Mosaic Law, not to discuss the Trinitarian formula or Christology.

There was no one attacking this doctrine at that time! However, the apostles and the others also believed Jesus to be the Son of God and only Savior , which was absolutely condemned by all the Jews. More, the formal greeting in Paul’s letters highlight the Trinitarian doctrine. The Gospels and the Acts also talk of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct but united persons of the Godhead.

Thanks for posting here again.

I really want to comment on this. Okay, as we know, the main scriptures we have for the preaching of the first Christians are recorded in Acts.

Now, if you read Acts 2, it talks about the first Jewish converts after the Ascension of Christ, after Peter’s address to the crowd. Its too long to post here, so here’s the link: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=31;.

Are you saying that by Acts 2:37 the repentant Jewish converts now believe that Jesus was God Incarnate? Moreover, do you believe that they now thought that God was triune? I really don’t think this could have happened so easily.

If you look earlier on in Acts 2, St. Peter says that Jesus was the Messiah, and he referred to the Old testament prophecies which pointed to Jesus.

Then Peter says: 36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

So now, the Jews believe in Jesus and the Gospel spoken by Peter. But where are the Jews recorded asking about how God can be three Persons in one God? Where are they recorded asking if Jesus was the same God that appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

The point Im getting at is that appears that the first Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, but not necessarily God Himself. See also Luke 9:20.

What about this passage here:

Acts 19:
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
** They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” **
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into** the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all. **

www.biblegateway.com

Refer to 9:2. I presume that these disciples were gentile converts. If the Trinitarian doctrine was so important, how come these disciples said that they had never heard about the Holy Spirit?

I propose that they believed in God, and that Jesus was the annointed One, who saved them from their sin. But they did not believe in the Trinity, or that Jesus was God like His Father.

 

[MH84]

B] **1 Corinthians 15:
27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I respond:

I do not personally know if Catholics have a dogma repudiating the subordination of one divine person to another in the Godhead. Jesus says “the Father is greater than I am” only before His arrest and trial. He later explains that the Father is greater because He goes to the Father to be glorified through resurrection. Besides, the word “greater” in this sentence only means superiority in rank or position, not in substance!

The verses in the letter to the Corinthians ironically debunk your claims since they say that Jesus will be made subject to the Father at the end of times.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.
**

No,it doesnt. Because Paul says that all things were put under the feet of Jesus. I think Paul is saying that all authority has been given to Christ. And after, the end of time, Christ will hand everything He received back to His Father.

Read this passage: 1 Cor. 15: 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Also, what are you saying? That Christ will be subject to God at the end of time? How come they are not equal?

Besides, the word “greater” in this sentence only means superiority in rank or position, not in substance!

 

[MH84]

B]Mark 13: 35 Watch ye therefore for you know not when the lord of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning.

MH84 wrote:

As I have said in other threads, Peter says in Acts 2:36 that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God. Thus, it seems that “Lord” does not necessariliy mean “God”.

I respond:

First, I did not claim that the word Lord meant God in that sentence. My point was that it was Jesus and no one else to come for judgment. Jesus is the Lord of the house, which means the owner/boss of the universe as His analogy suggests.

Thats what this thread is about! Why else did you bring this up?

Further, Peter’s speech in the second chapter of the Acts addresses the Jewish community that regards Jesus of Nazareth as a crucified man, nothing more. Peter tries to convince them that Jesus’ resurrection reveals His identity and authority. Jesus is thus said to be made the Lord and Christ in the eyes of the community through Peter’s speech act. We can liken Jesus’ resurrection to His official coronation. He was and is the Lord and Christ even before His incarnation, yet His resurrection makes Him the official owner of those honorary titles.

**So, what you saying is that the first converts after the Ascension (see Acts 2:37) were not taught either about the Incarnation or the Trinity, but they were still considered to be believers in the Christian faith? **

 

[MH84]

Further, Peter’s speech in the second chapter of the Acts addresses the Jewish community that regards Jesus of Nazareth as a crucified man, nothing more.

**Catholics believe that Jesus had to be God. How come Peter didnt clear this up during his evangelism in Acts 2? Wouldnt it have been the most important doctrine to teach; that God has become a man for our salvation? Why wasnt such an important doctrine ecer discussed with the Jews? **

Peter tries to convince them that Jesus’ resurrection reveals His identity and authority. Jesus is thus said to be made the Lord and Christ in the eyes of the community through Peter’s speech act. We can liken Jesus’ resurrection to His official coronation. He was and is the Lord and Christ even before His incarnation, yet His resurrection makes Him the official owner of those honorary titles.

**Im particularly interested in this:

“yet His resurrection makes Him the official owner of those honorary titles.”

 

[Angelos]

Thanks for posting here again.

You are welcome.

Are you saying that by Acts 2:37 the repentant Jewish converts now believe that Jesus was God Incarnate? Moreover, do you believe that they now thought that God was triune? I really don’t think this could have happened so easily.

If you look earlier on in Acts 2, St. Peter says that Jesus was the Messiah, and he referred to the Old testament prophecies which pointed to Jesus.

Then Peter says: 36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

So now, the Jews believe in Jesus and the Gospel spoken by Peter. But where are the Jews recorded asking about how God can be three Persons in one God? Where are they recorded asking if Jesus was the same God that appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

I do not say that the Jewish community listening to Peter immediately grasped the mystery of the Triune God. However, the absence of people asking about the Triune God does not prove that no Christian believed it that way at the time. Peter’s speech is very simple and the core of the Gospel. I never expect the Acts or another book of the NT to precisely state every Christian tenet. More, no one from the listeners is said to question Peter about the doctrines of his faith in that chapter. They do not even ask how come Jesus is the Son of God or why He died on the cross…

The point Im getting at is that appears that the first Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, but not necessarily God Himself. See also Luke 9:20.

The phrase “Son of God” denotes Jesus divinity. The apostles and the other followers of the Messiah believed Him to be the only begotten of the Father, which is equal to saying Jesus is God.

What about this passage here:

Acts 19:
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
** They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” **
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into** the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all. **

Refer to 9:2. I presume that these disciples were gentile converts. If the Trinitarian doctrine was so important, how come these disciples said that they had never heard about the Holy Spirit?

I propose that they believed in God, and that Jesus was the annointed One, who saved them from their sin. But they did not believe in the Trinity, or that Jesus was God like His Father.

Please notice that those Gentiles had not been baptized in the name of Jesus! Since they knew nothing about Jesus’ baptism, it was also natural for them not to know the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and believers were sent by Jesus to go and preach - teach the Gospel. It is not plausible to presume that everything taught by the Apostles was recorded in the Acts or the epistles of the NT.

Peace,

Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

MH84 wrote:

Catholics believe that Jesus had to be God. How come Peter didnt clear this up during his evangelism in Acts 2? Wouldnt it have been the most important doctrine to teach; that God has become a man for our salvation? Why wasnt such an important doctrine ecer discussed with the Jews?

I respond:

I am not Catholic, but I am one who knows that Catholics do not believe that way. They never teach that Jesus had to be God. It is also not our duty to make judgments and put Christian tenets in the order of importance for Peter’s first speech. Nevertheless, Peter gives testimony to Jesus’ resurrection in the first place because he knows perfectly well that belief in Jesus’ resurrection is the key to the belief in His identity and everything taught by Him.

MH84 wrote:

I’m particularly interested in this:
Quote: yet His resurrection makes Him the official owner of those honorary titles."
How so? So He wasnt Lord until His resurrection?

I respond:

He was, is, and will be the Lord. You will understand what I mean as soon as you focus on the word “official” in that sentence. Jesus is always the Messiah and Lord, but the resurrection made it manifest to the people. In other words, Jesus was made the Lord only from the viewpoint of the people listening to Peter’s speech.

MH84 wrote:

Thats what this thread is about! Why else did you bring this up?

I respond:

When I quoted that verse from Mark, I did not intend to convince you that the word “Lord” in the phrase “Lord of the house” meant God. I am repeating it: the phrase Lord of the House pertains to Jesus’ divinity although the word Lord does not mean God in that context. The same is true for the word “bridegroom”: although the word does not mean God, it points out Jesus’ divinity when used in a religious context. Israel is the Bride, God is her bridegroom.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

No,it doesnt. Because Paul says that all things were put under the feet of Jesus. I think Paul is saying that all authority has been given to Christ. And after, the end of time, Christ will hand everything He received back to His Father.

Read this passage: 1 Cor. 15: 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Also, what are you saying? That Christ will be subject to God at the end of time? How come they are not equal?

About Christ’s subjection please read this article answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_subject.htm

How do you know? Jesus never talks about substance or postion. These seem to be just later opinions put into the text. Ive read this off the internet myself, as Im presuming you have.

For the meaning of the word “greater” in the Gospels, read this article answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_father_greater.htm

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.