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

[Angelos]

MH84 wrote:

One more example from the bible: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Who is the God that Jesus was talking about here? the Trinity? His Father? the Holy Spirit? If He meant His Father, why is the Father called “God” interchangeably with “Father” in the Bible. Its seems that the authors felt it was proper to only call Jesus’ Father “God”…

Angelos responds:

Let’s read this verse once more to see what Jesus really means here:

John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

It is clear that the referent of the word GOD here is the Father because He is the one giving Jesus the SON.

MH84 wrote:

So, what I’ve been trying to say is that Jesus called His Father “God” in a way that He seems to be saying “Godhead”, which would mean that Jesus never thought He was God as well then, because no one can be God outside the Godhead.

Angelos responds:

He does not mean Godhead, but only the first person of the Trinity. Jesus also says that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. The incarnation did not result in Jesus’ loss of His divine nature and personality.

MH84 wrote:

Does it? Im not so sure. Like I laboured to say above, Jesus says that He would seat at the right Hand of God, not Father. When I hear the phrase I can imagine that God is one Being, and Jesus is another Being.

Angelos responds:

Jesus is not another being, but only another PERSON in the same Godhead. When Jesus says God, He refers to the Father again.
MH84 wrote:

In effect, Jesus seems to be saying that He will be seated at the right hand of the Deity. This would mean that Jesus did not think He was the Deity/God as well, because how could one be God, and be able to sit at the right hand of God at the same time.

Angelos responds:

Jesus also says He is the one to descend upon the clouds with angels! This is the description of YHWH coming to humanity in the OT. More, sitting at the right hand of God denotes Jesus’ claims of equality to God because He means that He will be next to God.

MH84 wrote:

I used “appear” for two reasons:

1. Maybe Jesus didnt use the term as a name, but rather as a description.

Angelos responds:

What does that description mean then? Why would Jesus describe Himself with the divine name if He had no such claim or right?

MH84 wrote:

1. If apostles and Jesus Himself didn’t say that He was God, John 8:58 must mean something else other than a reference to the divine name revealed to Moses.

Angelos responds:

Lack of evidence cannot be evidence! More, . if Jesus had proclaimed His divinity directly, people would think and believe He was a false god or a secondary god to the primary God of the OT. Jesus always declared His divinity implicitly because He did not claim to be another god.

to be continued …

 

[Angelos]

MH84 wrote:

At this stage I still don’t agree because:

1. why did the Church insist that Jesus is “God the Son”, when “Son of God” means the same thing?

Angelos responds:

Although Son of God means the same thing, the Church calls Jesus God the Son because of the heretical teachings concerning Jesus’ divinity. There are many groups that pick up a few obscure verses in the NT to support their erroneous teachings even today.
MH84 wrote:

1. Do you honestly believe that in John 1:48-50 when Nathaniel met Jesus for the first time and called Him “Son of God” he thought Jesus was God His Creator? Why then was he surprised at the miracles and doubted the Resurrection?

Angelos responds:

When Nathaniel first met Jesus and called Him the Son of God, he exclaimed his faith in “Jesus the Messiah” since Messiah was identified as both the Son of God and the King of Israel in the Psalm 2: 6-7 Additionally, Jesus is called the Son of God by Nathaniel, which is in sharp contrast with how Philip identifies Jesus in 1:45.

It is also certain that the apostles could realize Jesus’ divine identity after His resurrection. Hence Thomas called Jesus his Lord and His God when the risen Jesus appeared to him to clear his doubts (John 20:28).

MH84 wrote:

1. Look at the other times Son of God was used. It appears that “Son of God” and “Christ”/“Messiah”/“king” are almost interchangeably:

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Angelos responds:

Although the title Son of God is sometimes used interchangeably with Christ, the examples given here clearly indicate that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God in order to separate Himself from the other prophets of the OT (Matthew 16:16) and claimed Christ to be equal to God (Matthew 26: 64)

Finally, you can find answers to your similar questions here:
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/index.htm

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[elt1956]

No problem

First, I would like to know what you mean when you say “There are many Eastern Churches”? I am here to represent the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although there are many autonomous Eastern Churches - Assyrian Church, Copts, Ethiopian Church, Armenian Apostolic Church - they cannot be considered Orthodox since they are not in union with the Orthodox Churches following the Byzantine tradition.

The additions of country names to the Orthodox Church did not take place until the late 19th century. After the French Revolution, many communities of the Orthodox Church gained independence from the Ottoman reign and set up their national and semi-autonomous churches. However, they are still Orthodox since they are affiliated with the ancient Patriarchates of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem)

Although many nations of the Orthodox faith have their peculiar patriarch for the ecclesiastical administration, they are not autonomous churches (Bulgarian patriarch, Serbian patriarch,
Romanian patriarch and others).

The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, but she sometimes raises objections to the “Ecumenical” title used by the Patriarch in Constantinople (now Istanbul). This is because the Russian Orthodox Church declared herself the third Rome after the fall of Constantinople, which had been named the second Rome.

In short, all these Churches with different names and patriarchs referring to different nationalities of the same Orthodox faith have never supported the Arian heresy, but have always defended the traditional faith in the Holy Trinity.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

Dear Angelos. As I have said, I know just an itty bitty bit, or less, about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am under the impression there are many different “kinds” of churches in the East who claim descent from Christ and the first Christian church. Sorry if I am insulting. I don’t mean to be. Peace.

 

[Angelos]

Dear Angelos. As I have said, I know just an itty bitty bit, or less, about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am under the impression there are many different “kinds” of churches in the East who claim descent from Christ and the first Christian church. Sorry if I am insulting. I don’t mean to be. Peace.

Not offended at all!

The Eastern Catholic Church is the collective term used for any Eastern Church that decided to be united with Rome at a certain period of time, maintaining its original cultural elements, such as the language, rituıals, traditions, calendar. For instance, the Armenian Catholic Church was officially established when a group of Apostolic Armenians (Eastern Church) endorsed papal authority and adopted all the related Catholic tenets.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Church as the traditional Church of the East and confirms both the historicity and the religious authority of the four patriarchates (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria). The Eastern Church regards the Pope as the Patriarch of the West (Rome).

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[inJESUS]

Hey Angelos! why not mention the Eastern Maronite church of your friend?

 

[Angelos]

Hey Angelos! why not mention the Eastern Maronite church of your friend?

Erm, dear inJESUS, you must teach ME first about the Maronite Church since I almost know nothing about it (only that you are a member of it)

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[elt1956]

Not offended at all!

The Eastern Catholic Church is the collective term used for any Eastern Church that decided to be united with Rome at a certain period of time, maintaining its original cultural elements, such as the language, rituıals, traditions, calendar. For instance, the Armenian Catholic Church was officially established when a group of Apostolic Armenians (Eastern Church) endorsed papal authority and adopted all the related Catholic tenets.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Church as the traditional Church of the East and confirms both the historicity and the religious authority of the four patriarchates (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria). The Eastern Church regards the Pope as the Patriarch of the West (Rome).

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

Do the Eastern Patriarchs believe in the “infallibility” of the Patriarch of the West in matters of dogma and doctrine?? ie. Do they consider him the “head” of both East and West Catholic churces. If so, what are the Eastern Patriarch’s responsible for? Thanks. Peace.

 

[hilaryisaac]

Do the Eastern Patriarchs believe in the “infallibility” of the Patriarch of the West in matters of dogma and doctrine?? ie. Do they consider him the “head” of both East and West Catholic churces. If so, what are the Eastern Patriarch’s responsible for? Thanks. Peace.

Sorry for intruding, could this be brought on to another thread? It gets a little confusing to see different subjects on one thread…

 

[elt1956]

Do the Eastern Patriarchs believe in the “infallibility” of the Patriarch of the West in matters of dogma and doctrine?? ie. Do they consider him the “head” of both East and West Catholic churces. If so, what are the Eastern Patriarch’s responsible for? Thanks. Peace.

Maybe post to the Eastern Catholicism thread??? See you there.

 

[MH84]

There is something I noticed during the Gospel reading at Mass last night.

**John 10

16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."**

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=47;

The points I pick up here:

1. Jesus is saying that the Father loves Jesus because He was willing to lay down His life.
2. Jesus has received a command. Its as though Jesus needed to receive instructions about how He was to redeem the world. Surely if Jesus was eternal, He would have been part of this plan, and would not need to have received a command.

 

[MH84]

John 10
29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Many people here say that one of the proofs of Jesus’ equality with His Father is when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.”

But the reality is I think this is not the case based for a couple of reasons:

1. Read beyond verse 30. Jesus doesnt reaffirm or clarify that He was actually equal to His Father. Instead, He says that God called the sons of Israel “gods” and "sons of the Most High (Ps 82:6).
2. Jesus was consecrated by the Father. The Father did not need to be consecrated.
3. In John 17:11, Jesus prays that the apostles may be one just as He and the Father are one. Surely, Jesus didnt mean in chapter 10 that He was one in nature with the Father.

Verse 11:And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

What I’m saying is that there is a mysterious and unclear message about the relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus is without doubt a heavenly being, greater than any man ever seen before. He is the chosen one of God; the anointed One. But in the scriptures He is not equal to the Father. And the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as being equal to the Father, and He may have been portrayed as being subordinate to Jesus as well.

 

[MH84]

MH84 wrote:
Although Son of God means the same thing, the Church calls Jesus God the Son because of the heretical teachings concerning Jesus’ divinity.

So they gave Him a name that He never gave Himself, nor the apostles?

Although the title Son of God is sometimes used interchangeably with Christ, the examples given here clearly indicate that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God in order to separate Himself from the other prophets of the OT (Matthew 16:16) and claimed Christ to be equal to God (Matthew 26: 64)

Yes, to separate Himself as the Christ and the Prophet, but He did not claim equality with God.

Im going to quote what my Jerusalem Bible says about 26:64:

‘The Power’ is equivalent to ‘Yahweh’. At this critical moent Jesus abandons his policy of the ‘messianic secret’, cf. Mk 1:34+, and unequivocally acknowledges - as he had already acknowledged to his intimates, Mt 16:16 - that he is the Messiah. But he goes further and reveals himself not as the human Messiah of traditional expectation but as the Lord of Ps 110, cf. Mt 22:41f, and the mysterious personage of heavenly origin whom Daniel had seen in vision, cf. 8:20+. Henceforth the Jews will not see him except in his glory whicjh will be manifested first in the victory of the resurrection and subsequently in the victory of the Church. Cf. 23:39 and 24:30.

There is no mention of Jesus claim of equality with God here. Jesus says that He will be seated at the right hand of Yahweh, but doesnt say He is Yahweh.

 

[Angelos]

There is something I noticed during the Gospel reading at Mass last night.

John 10

16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=47;

The points I pick up here:

1. Jesus is saying that the Father loves Jesus because He was willing to lay down His life.
2. Jesus has received a command. Its as though Jesus needed to receive instructions about how He was to redeem the world. Surely if Jesus was eternal, He would have been part of this plan, and would not need to have received a command.

B]1) What is it that bothers you in this statement? Jesus in another verse says that He does what the Father commands Him so as to show people His love for the Father.

John 14:31 I am doing just what the Father commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Get up, let us go from here.”

More, Jesus in His last prayer remarks that God the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world:

John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Maybe I am giving you the wrong quotations because I fail to get your point.

**2) **Jesus’ being eternal and a divine person (Word/Son) has nothing to do and is not influenced with the commands He receives from the Father. As I have already stated a few times, Jesus recurrently refers to the things given and taught Him by the Father in order to teach people that He is not a separate god working independently and/or denying the divinity of the Father.

 

[Angelos]

John 10
29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Many people here say that one of the proofs of Jesus’ equality with His Father is when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.”

But the reality is I think this is not the case based for a couple of reasons:

1. Read beyond verse 30. Jesus doesnt reaffirm or clarify that He was actually equal to His Father. Instead, He says that God called the sons of Israel “gods” and "sons of the Most High (Ps 82:6).

A quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men.

What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God. net.bible.org/bible.php?book=John&chapter=10#v84

1. Jesus was consecrated by the Father. The Father did not need to be consecrated.

Here Jesus again tries to teach people that He has the full authority of the Father. The word “consecrated” in this verse means that Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish redemption. Even Jesus’ baptism points at this consecration.

1. In John 17:11, Jesus prays that the apostles may be one just as He and the Father are one. Surely, Jesus didnt mean in chapter 10 that He was one in nature with the Father.

The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) in John 10:31 is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).(net.bible.org/bible.php?book=John&chapter=10#n73)

What I’m saying is that there is a mysterious and unclear message about the relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus is without doubt a heavenly being, greater than any man ever seen before. He is the chosen one of God; the anointed One. But in the scriptures He is not equal to the Father. And the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as being equal to the Father, and He may have been portrayed as being subordinate to Jesus as well.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal divine personalities of the same Godhead. This is why they have but one name (Matthew 28:19).

 

[Angelos]

So they gave Him a name that He never gave Himself, nor the apostles?

Although Jesus or the apostles did not use the term Son the God, they implied it. For instance, John the Evangelist overtly highlighted the Word as God and Son:

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

The important point is that the Church of Christ did not bring about an innovation or invention, but only reformulated her basic tenets in the light of the NT so as to clarify them lest heresies be confused with the genuine teachings.

Yes, to separate Himself as the Christ and the Prophet, but He did not claim equality with God.

It is not the same thing here. Christ had a prophetic mission like all the other prophets, and this is why Jesus was also called a prophet in the NT a few times. The apostles identified Jesus as the prophet predicted in Deuteronomy. However, in that parable Jesus separated Himself from all the prophets (slaves) on the basis of His personality, not of mission. He presented Himself as the only Son of the owner of the vineyard although He himself was sent in the same way as all the others.

There is no mention of Jesus claim of equality with God here. Jesus says that He will be seated at the right hand of Yahweh, but doesnt say He is Yahweh.

Jesus has claims of equality with God because He describes His second coming exactly in the same way as God’s descent from heaven in the OT. Jesus comes upon the clouds with the angels and at the right hand of God. More, Jesus claims to have His own angels in the Gospel:

Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers.

I have also discovered an interesting verse in the NT. Jesus claims that the Church is His:

Matthew 16:18 I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.

In the NT epistles, the Church is said to belong to God:

1Cor. 10:32 Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God,

Gal. 1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the **church of God **and trying to destroy it.

This leads us to the conclusion that Jesus is equal to God.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… There is no mention of Jesus claim of equality with God here. Jesus says that He will be seated at the right hand of Yahweh, but doesnt say He is Yahweh.

As a distinct person of the Trinity, Jesus is not Yahweh (The Father). But He is does possess the same divine nature as Yahweh which defines Him as God (Ph 2:6).

However, there is a mystery of the incarnation that we can not fully understand. Scripture tells us that Jesus was made lower than the angels - if only for a little while (He 2:9).

 

[MH84]

As a distinct person of the Trinity, Jesus is not Yahweh (The Father). But He is does possess the same divine nature as Yahweh which defines Him as God (Ph 2:6).

However, there is a mystery of the incarnation that we can not fully understand. Scripture tells us that Jesus was made lower than the angels - if only for a little while (He 2:9).

Whoa there. It is the belief of the Catholic Church that Jesus is Yahweh. How can we say that Yahweh was only the Father, when Yahweh said there was no God but Him? That would mean that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not part of the Godhead.

As a Catholic you should be assuming that Yahweh in the OT was the trinitarian God. If this is not the case, then I would be even more confused about who God is. For example, are you saying then that God the Father was the God of Israel, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were not involved in biblical history until the New Testament?

Also Charlie, I once read a priest say something similar to what you said (that Yahweh of the OT was God the Father), so you are not the only one with this view. However, IMO its as though a person with this opinion believes God the Father is the principal Person of the Trinity, which I cannot understand if God is triune.

I would appreciate comments on this. Thanks.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Whoa there. It is the belief of the Catholic Church that Jesus is Yahweh. How can we say that Yahweh was only the Father, when Yahweh said there was no God but Him? That would mean that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not part of the Godhead.

As a Catholic you should be assuming that Yahweh in the OT was the trinitarian God. If this is not the case, then I would be even more confused about who God is. For example, are you saying then that God the Father was the God of Israel, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were not involved in biblical history until the New Testament?

Also Charlie, I once read a priest say something similar to what you said (that Yahweh of the OT was God the Father), so you are not the only one with this view. However, IMO its as though a person with this opinion believes God the Father is the principal Person of the Trinity, which I cannot understand if God is triune.

I would appreciate comments on this. Thanks.

The Father (Yahweh), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons. I guess that means they know each other, and the love each other.

They each possess the divine nature. In his book, Theology for Beginners (which I recommend), Frank Sheed says they are distinct, but not separate because they know with the same intellect and love with the same will.

 

[MH84]

The Father (Yahweh), The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons. I guess that means they know each other, and the love each other.

They each possess the divine nature. In his book, Theology for Beginners (which I recommend), Frank Sheed says they are distinct, but not separate because they know with the same intellect and love with the same will.

I know that the Persons are distinct, but that doesnt mean that Yahweh was not the name for the trinitarian God of Christianity.

You are saying that in the OT, only the Father was present. I can’t agree with this. Where does it say in the bible that only the Father was Yahweh? If this is true, my faith will be even more tested.

You are saying in effect that the Father alone declared to the Israelites that He alone was God.

Hosea 13:4"But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

 

[MH84]

MH84:

1. Jesus had to be anointed with power.

Jesus had to eat as well. By your reasoning, Jesus shouldn’t have eaten as well since He is God. This kind of reasoning might lead to the heresies the church refuted long time ago, that Jesus is ONLY God.

There was something about your response that seemed to convenient. I think I now know what it is.

God had never eaten before, so when Jesus (God) became man He would have eaten like us. If Jesus was God before His ministry, He would of already had omnipotent power. Don’t you think its a bit strange that God became man, gave up his power, only to be anointed with power again 30 years ago? Moreover, what was the significance of Jesus receiving power (at the Baptism), as opposed to claiming for Himself the healing and prophetical powers He had always had before?

It makes more sense (from my current POV) that Jesus didnt have those powers previously until He was given them at the Baptism.

MH84:

1. Jesus did good because God was with Him. Further, it was said that “God” was with Him, not the “Father”.

InJesus:

yet God is the Father just as Paul specifies in another passage " God the Father". Why does Paul add “the Father” to God?

He doesnt use “the Father” when referring to God.

The passage I quoted was actually spoken by Peter in Acts 10:

38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

There is no sign of “the Father” here. Remember, this is from Peter the apostle arguably the most closest to Jesus.

I notice that most times Peter and Paul referred to God as “God” without “the Father” added to the title.

I have a feeling that “God the Father” in English translations should be read like this: “God, the Father” (God, [who is] the Father). Not necessarily “God the Father” as in the first Person of the Trinity.

MH84:

There are a couple of further points here indicating that Jesus wasn’t believed to be Almighty God by Peter, otherwise he wouldnt have phrased their sentences like this; he would have clarified that Jesus was still God despite the fact that His divinity was veiled.

InJesus:

and how is he supposed to talk about Jesus the man?

There are more than enough passages with clarify that Jesus was indeed a man. The problem I personally have, and many others, is seeing where Jesus said clearly that He was fully God and fully man. I look at the words spoken by the apostles in Acts, and I don’t see that Jesus was thought of as God the Son.

I believe that the first Jewish converts after the Ascension (Acts 2:14-42) did NOT believe Jesus was the God of Israel. They instead became believers that Christ was the promised Messiah. No where, are the Jews recorded as asking about whether Jesus is God. Instead they seemed to not be able to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah! Don’t you think there would have been at least one statement clarifying that God was triune, and that Jesus was distinct, yet equal to His Father.

Otherwise, if they did believe Jesus was God, surely they would have then thought that Jesus was Yahweh of the Old Testament, and the same Person. They would have then needed to be taught that God consisted of three Persons, equal in majesty.